NationStates Jolt Archive

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.


You mean there was more than one God? doesn't that go against what the bible is all about?

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?

It does say something about Lesbians. See attached

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"

Romans 1: 26, and later in the section it says men abandoned their nautral relations with women so in this context nautral means man-women sexual relationships

It does say something about Lesbians. See attached

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"

Romans 1: 26, and later in the section it says men abandoned their nautral relations with women so in this context nautral means man-women sexual relationships
Just because in this context matural meant man-woman (allegedly) doesn't mean that the women's unnatural relations were lesbian relations. For all we know it could have been bestiality, or pedophilia. It could even be masturbation if we take a loose definition of "relations."

On the points about Adam and Eve and continued line of humanity, here is one view on it

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

Thanks for that Neo.

I don't believe a word of it but it answered my query in respect of what a Christian may think.

This is possibly one of the best websites I have seen in regards to the Bible's view of Homosexuality

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Homosexuality is not a sin. Hating people for it is a sin. Please, before you turn to bigotry, try to see it from someone else's point of view. People are a lot more alike than you'd think, when you get down to basics.

"Atticus, he was real nice."
"Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."
To Kill a Mockingbird

Homosexuality is not a sin. Hating people for it is a sin. Please, before you turn to bigotry, try to see it from someone else's point of view. People are a lot more alike than you'd think, when you get down to basics.


Christians dont hate homosexuals. While we belive its a sin that doesnt mean we hate them.

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.

They were ignorant because without eating the forbidden fruit they could not distinguish between good and evil. No posibility to distinguish - no good and bad... If this is not ignorant - what ist ignorant???

On the other side God knows all - and created the serpent - KNOWING the serpent would lead Eve to eat the fruit...

The only posible explanation: God WANTED that Adam and Eve eat this fruit!

Or can you give me another explanation???

I could read each times here that people are not born gays.

Here you can find the view from the catholic church:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm

Here you can find the catholic catechism.

In the german and spanish version it says that the homosexuals ARE born as homosexuals... (in English there is no such clear explanation)

German: 2358 Eine nicht geringe Anzahl von Männern und Frauen sind homosexuell veranlagt. Sie haben diese Veranlagung nicht selbst gewählt.

Translation: A remarkable number of men and women have homosexual nature. THEY DID NOT ELECT THIS NATURE BY THEMSELVES.

Spanish: 2358 Un número apreciable de hombres y mujeres presentan tendencias homosexuales instintivas. No eligen su condición homosexual.

Translation: A remarkable number of women and men have by instinct homosexual tendencys. THE DO NOT ELECT THIS HOMOSEXUAL CONDITION.


Even the vatican seems to know that homosexuality is a gift from God. ;)

A sin can only be a sin if you have a choice. If you are born gay you had no choice.
I am not homosexual because i was not born with this tendency.

For the catholic church it is NO SIN TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. It is only a sin to have homosexual sex - it is also a sin to feel lust, to use anticonceptives, to masturbate, to have sex without being married, to have sex "just for fun",...

Neo Carnen: You know the bible better than the Pope and his guys???

Christians dont hate homosexuals. While we belive its a sin that doesnt mean we hate them.

Please don´t talk for all Christians. As a roman Catholic, in this point I share the view of the Vatican. And the Vatican tells in his Catechism that homosexuals are born homosexuals and that this is NO SIN.

It is no sin to be homosexual!!!

The Vatican tells that it is a sin to have homosexual sex - like masturbate, feel lust, etc...

Please don´t say WE without saying what is your religion, cult or sect.

You wanna know what I think?

If God exists, It doesn't give a damn if you put bananas in your arse or not.

He probably cares more about what you do to other people, if you are benevolent, giving, etc. What you do with your own body is your own business.

I think if god had to choose between sending Bush and his puppeteers to hell, for using fear and beliefs as tools to gain money at the expense of the lives and freedom of the people around the world, and that harmless vegetarian gay guy, there is no doubt he'll choose Bush.

Killing people and lying is surely a sin. Bush will sure go straight to the hell and play poker there with Saddam, Stalin and Hitler. ;)

Please don´t talk for all Christians. As a roman Catholic, in this point I share the view of the Vatican. And the Vatican tells in his Catechism that homosexuals are born homosexuals and that this is NO SIN.

The Vatican tells that it is a sin to have homosexual sex - like masturbate, feel lust, etc...

Please don´t say WE without saying what is your religion, cult or sect


1) I agree with the Vatican on that "Being" a homosexual is'nt a sin and that it is homosexual sex which is the sin (I have covered that before)

2) I do not agree with the Vatican on the idea that you are born gay

3) I think I am fairly accurate when I say that Chrsitians do have it in their doctrine to hate homosexuals, no matter what denomination.


Neo Carnen: You know the bible better than the Pope and his guys???

4) I am not a Catholic (just clearing up on that point) and so what the Pope may/may not say has no effect on me.

I'm confused (nothing new there ;) ) how can the catholic church say homosexuality is *not* a sin yet condemn homosexual sex? If you are homosexual and find a partner, the chances are that your going to have homosexual sex. The church cannot, in all seriousness, recognise that homosexuals exist but are not sinnful for just being what they were born to be and yet taint them with the sin tag if they find someone to love.

They were ignorant because without eating the forbidden fruit they could not distinguish between good and evil. No posibility to distinguish - no good and bad... If this is not ignorant - what ist ignorant???


It was not a question of good or evil as far as the command goes. It was a question of obeying God or not. They knew the concequences and they knew the command. There is no evidence that they did not understand or that they did not know who God was. They were not ignorent


On the other side God knows all - and created the serpent - KNOWING the serpent would lead Eve to eat the fruit...

The only posible explanation: God WANTED that Adam and Eve eat this fruit!

Or can you give me another explanation???

I can indeed

1) God did not "Create" the serpent as you put it. The serpent was Lucifer and he and his conspiritors had attempted a coo in Heaven. Michael stoped them and sent them to hell (which he created for them).

2) The fact that God knew that the serpent was going to tempt them into eating the fruit and that he did nothing to stop them (beyond his command) does not make him guity of anything. If he had known and stopped us, he would merely be a puppet master and all we would be are extinsions of God's will, without any thought or free choice. God's gift of free will is precious. I dont know about you but I would rather have it than not. Here are some other possible scenerios which those who question how God set things out put forward

A) Remove the tree and let Adam and Eve live forever in the garden

B) Remove the serpent so as to make sure they would not be tempted

C) When they attempted to eat the fruit somehow stop them

and here are the flaws with each one

A) No tree and no way to leave would have made Eden no better than a prision. Granted a very nice an luxerious prison but still a prision. Also it would be treeting Adam and Eve like infants. Offering them no choice in case they chose wrong

B) Removing the serpent or any other voice would have made God a dictator. He would have been the only voice they knew and so they would obey him only because they knew no better.

C) Somehow stopping them eating from the tree would remove the option of choice and we would be back at point A again.

I'm confused (nothing new there ;) ) how can the catholic church say homosexuality is *not* a sin yet condemn homosexual sex? If you are homosexual and find a partner, the chances are that your going to have homosexual sex. The church cannot, in all seriousness, recognise that homosexuals exist but are not sinnful for just being what they were born to be and yet taint them with the sin tag if they find someone to love.

Homosexuality (being attracted to other members of you own sex) is in the Catholic church's view (as far as I understand) the tempation to the sin. The sin itself is the sex. People can be born predisposed to many sins (genetic criminality) but that doesnt excuse them from commiting them. It is possible to stop.

Homosexuality (being attracted to other members of you own sex) is in the Catholic church's view (as far as I understand) the tempation to the sin. The sin itself is the sex. People can be born predisposed to many sins (genetic criminality) but that doesnt excuse them from commiting them. It is possible to stop.

Oh come on Neo Cannen, you don't really believe that do you? No one is born pre-disposed to sin, there is no "criminal gene", criminality is learned behaviour or just having a lack of moral fibre.

I would argue that a homosexual would as incapable of not being a homosexual as McDonalds would incapable of selling burgers.

Oh come on Neo Cannen, you don't really believe that do you? No one is born pre-disposed to sin, there is no "criminal gene", criminality is learned behaviour or just having a lack of moral fibre.

I would argue that a homosexual would as incapable of not being a homosexual as McDonalds would incapable of selling burgers.

Firstly, I did not say there was a "Criminal gene" however there are charactestics (Which in some cases have been found to be genetic) which can make a person more likely to commit crime. And while 'Being' a homosexual may be extremely difficult (not impossibe) to stop, it is possible not to have homosexual sex, which is the sin (as far as can be seen). Homosexual attractions are the temptation, and God never allows the devil to tempt beyond our ability to resist.

Look, I'm Christian, and very devoted to being so. But being gay is NOT a sin. The bible does NOT say it is a sin, homosexuality wasn't even an issue during that time period. It simply was not heard of. If it was mentioned in any bible you have read, the interpretation was simply misleading. The interpreters may have that purposefuly to scare you into acting in their beliefs, or it may have been an accident. But being gay. is. not. a. sin. Go on, get down with you gay self!!!! :fluffle: ;)

Look, I'm Christian, and very devoted to being so. But being gay is NOT a sin. The bible does NOT say it is a sin, homosexuality wasn't even an issue during that time period. It simply was not heard of. If it was mentioned in any bible you have read, the interpretation was simply misleading. The interpreters may have that purposefuly to scare you into acting in their beliefs, or it may have been an accident. But being gay. is. not. a. sin. Go on, get down with you gay self!!!! :fluffle: ;)


You are hugely mistaken. Why dont you go read lectivus. It gives you a list of wrong sexual acts. Lectivus 18:22 states that a man should not lie in bed with a man as he does a woman. This clearly states that homsexual sex is very very wrong. Please check things before you go telling lies about the bible.

Look, I'm Christian, and very devoted to being so. But being gay is NOT a sin. The bible does NOT say it is a sin, homosexuality wasn't even an issue during that time period. It simply was not heard of. If it was mentioned in any bible you have read, the interpretation was simply misleading. The interpreters may have that purposefuly to scare you into acting in their beliefs, or it may have been an accident. But being gay. is. not. a. sin. Go on, get down with you gay self!!!! :fluffle: ;)

1) Read the Bible. Homosexuality was around in the ANE. Its not a modern phonominan

2) Unless you were on the translation committe you dont know whether or not it is poorly translated. And there was an open homosexual on the translation body of the NIV so I dont think it would be biased against homosexuals

Firstly, I did not say there was a "Criminal gene" however there are charactestics (Which in some cases have been found to be genetic) which can make a person more likely to commit crime. And while 'Being' a homosexual may be extremely difficult (not impossibe) to stop, it is possible not to have homosexual sex, which is the sin (as far as can be seen). Homosexual attractions are the temptation, and God never allows the devil to tempt beyond our ability to resist.

Neo, could you stop yourself, or change yourself from being a woman? if not, how do you propose the possibility of a homosexual stopping being a homosexual. I have said it before and I will say it again, homosexuality is not a choice, you don't decide one day to become homosexual and vice-versa. So, in my opinion, it *is* impossible to stop "being" a homosexual.
On that note, if it's impossible for a homosexual to stop being gay it stands to reason that gay sex is inevitable for most homosexuals (just the same as straight people indulge of the pleasure or not as the case may be), I can't believe that you cannot see the simplicity of the whole thing.

Homosexuals are as they were born.
Homosexual sex is just a progression from that.
No sins invloved.

I'd just like to say that not all christians are anti-gay. I am a christian and am pro-gay and have 2 lesbian friends who want to get married! So, ya boo to the Republicans and the Evangelicals (et fundamentalists)...... :fluffle: to the rest of the world!

My wife is a christian and she feels the same as you (and me, an athiest) that being gay shouldn't be the issue it is and that it is definitely not sinful or wrong.
To say it is is perpetrating the age old predjudices that keep otherwise normal peace loving folk at each others throat. (I am as guilty as the next for continuing the argument, perhaps we should just live and let live and concentrate on being good to each other regardless instead of trying to pidgon hole people with tags and make them feel they are somehow doing wrong by living their life the only way they know how)

Neo, could you stop yourself, or change yourself from being a woman? if not, how do you propose the possibility of a homosexual stopping being a homosexual. I have said it before and I will say it again, homosexuality is not a choice, you don't decide one day to become homosexual and vice-versa. So, in my opinion, it *is* impossible to stop "being" a homosexual.
On that note, if it's impossible for a homosexual to stop being gay it stands to reason that gay sex is inevitable for most homosexuals (just the same as straight people indulge of the pleasure or not as the case may be), I can't believe that you cannot see the simplicity of the whole thing.

Homosexuals are as they were born.
Homosexual sex is just a progression from that.
No sins invloved.

Firstly I would like to clear something up. I dont know where a lot of people got this idea that I'm a girl from but I can tell you now, Im a guy. And the idea that people are "Born" homosexual still does not stand up to scrutiny. If that were the case then you would expect that 100% of identical twins would both be homosexual (both having identical genes and being exposed to the same chemicals in the womb) however this is not the case. We can therefore only assume that a large part of it is an enviromental factor which can be controled. And as I have said "Being" a homosexual (Ie being attracted to members of the same sex) is not a sin. The act of homosexual sex is, which people can control themselves from doing.

It was not a question of good or evil as far as the command goes. It was a question of obeying God or not. They knew the concequences and they knew the command. There is no evidence that they did not understand or that they did not know who God was. They were not ignorent



I can indeed

1) God did not "Create" the serpent as you put it. The serpent was Lucifer and he and his conspiritors had attempted a coo in Heaven. Michael stoped them and sent them to hell (which he created for them).

2) The fact that God knew that the serpent was going to tempt them into eating the fruit and that he did nothing to stop them (beyond his command) does not make him guity of anything. If he had known and stopped us, he would merely be a puppet master and all we would be are extinsions of God's will, without any thought or free choice. God's gift of free will is precious. I dont know about you but I would rather have it than not. Here are some other possible scenerios which those who question how God set things out put forward

A) Remove the tree and let Adam and Eve live forever in the garden

B) Remove the serpent so as to make sure they would not be tempted

C) When they attempted to eat the fruit somehow stop them

and here are the flaws with each one

A) No tree and no way to leave would have made Eden no better than a prision. Granted a very nice an luxerious prison but still a prision. Also it would be treeting Adam and Eve like infants. Offering them no choice in case they chose wrong

B) Removing the serpent or any other voice would have made God a dictator. He would have been the only voice they knew and so they would obey him only because they knew no better.

C) Somehow stopping them eating from the tree would remove the option of choice and we would be back at point A again.

I know the story with Luzifer... BUT God created Luzifer. God created also the evil. No one forced to create Luzifer the way he could develop to Satan.

GOD created the whole situation because he wanted that Adam and Eve eat the forbiddeen fruit.

It is God´s fault that sin came into eart. God also created sin...


If you are not Catholic (i think it is a sin - to be christian and NOT Catholic - and this sin is bigger than being a homosexual). Are you from a sect??


A: Yes Eden was a prision and Adam and Eve where childern AND ignorant.
B: Creating the Serpent makes God a criminal. He knew the things that his creation would do and is totally responsable for the crimes of his creation.
C: It is always the same story. If they do non eat from the fruit they will not know anything about god and evil. No knowledge - no choice.

In your argumentation you seem to forget that God knows everything in the past, the present and the future. He is the creator of all and he knows why he creates things and situations.
The whole reality is a puppet in God´s hands. He even created the ability to choice the way that we make to often the wrong decision.

1) Read the Bible. Homosexuality was around in the ANE. Its not a modern phonominan

Why don't you read the Bible? Then you'd realise that Romans 1 is a worthless argument, as Romans 2 is required to understand what Romans 1 says, and Jude 1: 7 is worthless without Jude 1:6.

So actually read the Bible for once.

Firstly I would like to clear something up. I dont know where a lot of people got this idea that I'm a girl from but I can tell you now, Im a guy. And the idea that people are "Born" homosexual still does not stand up to scrutiny. If that were the case then you would expect that 100% of identical twins would both be homosexual (both having identical genes and being exposed to the same chemicals in the womb) however this is not the case. We can therefore only assume that a large part of it is an enviromental factor which can be controled. And as I have said "Being" a homosexual (Ie being attracted to members of the same sex) is not a sin. The act of homosexual sex is, which people can control themselves from doing.

LOL, sorry Neo, I meant no offense, I thought I had read on an earlier thread you were a girl, my mistake, once again I apologise :)

This is possibly one of the best websites I have seen in regards to the Bible's view of Homosexuality

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I think it a great pity that that is one of the best websites you have seen on the subject. I really do.

But, you keep right on trucking... don't let the untruths bother you for a second.

1) I agree with the Vatican on that "Being" a homosexual is'nt a sin and that it is homosexual sex which is the sin (I have covered that before)

2) I do not agree with the Vatican on the idea that you are born gay

3) I think I am fairly accurate when I say that Chrsitians do have it in their doctrine to hate homosexuals, no matter what denomination.



4) I am not a Catholic (just clearing up on that point) and so what the Pope may/may not say has no effect on me.

Your response to point 4 misses the whole point, I think.

Whether or not you are a catholic, you consider yourself some degree of an authority on scripture... and, it has to be said, the papacy has some claim to that title also...

The point being made was: do you consider yourself as a greater authority on scripture than the pope and his guys?

in greek, roman, and egyptian times everyone who could afford it had a lil boy sex slave...

It was not a question of good or evil as far as the command goes. It was a question of obeying God or not. They knew the concequences and they knew the command. There is no evidence that they did not understand or that they did not know who God was. They were not ignorent



I can't be bothered to deal with the rest of this post right now, but you started off badly, and it only got worse...

They WERE ignorant, Neo... that's the WHOLE POINT.

Firstly, I did not say there was a "Criminal gene" however there are charactestics (Which in some cases have been found to be genetic) which can make a person more likely to commit crime. And while 'Being' a homosexual may be extremely difficult (not impossibe) to stop, it is possible not to have homosexual sex, which is the sin (as far as can be seen). Homosexual attractions are the temptation, and God never allows the devil to tempt beyond our ability to resist.

All of which is irrelevent... since you are objecting to homosexual MARRIAGE, not sex.

Heck, homosexuality goes against one of the first "rules", "commandments", or whatever you want to call it. God said "Be fruitful and mulitiply." You can't really multiply without the other sex. Unless you can reproduce by budding...which would be awesome.

1) Read the Bible. Homosexuality was around in the ANE. Its not a modern phonominan

2) Unless you were on the translation committe you dont know whether or not it is poorly translated. And there was an open homosexual on the translation body of the NIV so I dont think it would be biased against homosexuals


Hey, Neo.

Read this: "Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Shakab = to lie, to lie down, to rest, to sleep, to lie down with for sexual relations, to be lain with (sexually), to make to lie down, to be laid.

Zakar = Male (of humans or animals), male (of humans), man, child, mankind.

Mishkab = Bed, a lying down, couch, act of lying down, bedroom, lying down for sexual contact.

'ishshah = wife, woman, female, woman (as opposite to man), married, each, every, one, female animal.

Tow'ebah = A disgusting thing, a ritual 'abomination', an ethical 'abomination'.

Note: I have put the MOST COMMON translation (in the bible) at the start of each list of possible meanings.

There you have a) the Hebrew wording of the verse, and b) the meaning of each Hebrew word.

I can help you a little by pointing out that the 'bed of a woman' is the bed/couch SHE occupies while menstruating, so as not to contaminate the marital chamber.

Feel free to translate this for yourself.

I challenge you.

I know the story with Luzifer... BUT God created Luzifer. God created also the evil. No one forced to create Luzifer the way he could develop to Satan.

GOD created the whole situation because he wanted that Adam and Eve eat the forbiddeen fruit.

It is God´s fault that sin came into eart. God also created sin...


If you are not Catholic (i think it is a sin - to be christian and NOT Catholic - and this sin is bigger than being a homosexual). Are you from a sect??


A: Yes Eden was a prision and Adam and Eve where childern AND ignorant.
B: Creating the Serpent makes God a criminal. He knew the things that his creation would do and is totally responsable for the crimes of his creation.
C: It is always the same story. If they do non eat from the fruit they will not know anything about god and evil. No knowledge - no choice.

In your argumentation you seem to forget that God knows everything in the past, the present and the future. He is the creator of all and he knows why he creates things and situations.
The whole reality is a puppet in God´s hands. He even created the ability to choice the way that we make to often the wrong decision.

Another Excellent post from Garunia.

Congratulations, Garunia, take a bow! *Applause*

I can't be bothered to deal with the rest of this post right now, but you started off badly, and it only got worse...

They WERE ignorant, Neo... that's the WHOLE POINT.

Ignorent of what? Of good and evil maybe but it wasnt a question of good or evil when it came to the apple. It was a simple command. Do or dont. They knew the concequences, they knew who was talking to them (you have yet to prove a lack of understanding remember) and they knew what they had at that moment (before they ate) so you cant claim ignorence.

Ignorent of what? Of good and evil maybe but it wasnt a question of good or evil when it came to the apple. It was a simple command. Do or dont. They knew the concequences, they knew who was talking to them (you have yet to prove a lack of understanding remember) and they knew what they had at that moment (before they ate) so you cant claim ignorence.

No, Neo Cannen... I find it staggering that you misunderstand the scripture you claim as your own!

They did NOT know the consequences! How could they comprehend death? None of the animals (apparently) were carnivores, they were immortal, and their only other compatriot was that grumpy old guy... and HE hadn't died... so they had no UNDERSTANDING of death. How could they comprehend the ramification?

They did not know who was talking to them, any more than you would realise if the strange old guy mumbling at the bus-station was Jesus.

The fruit of knowledge was the removal of ignorance, the loss of innocence... until they ate the fruit, they were totally ignorant and innocent.

I do not have to prove they didn't know who god was... if they had literally understood who god was, it would be in the text.... and they wouldn't have dared to disobey a vengeful god face-to-face, if they had known.

YOU have yet to prove that they really DID know who god was... because it sure as hell isn't in the scripture... and, you can believe me on this one, since I seem to be a much greater authority on the text than you.

I know the story with Luzifer... BUT God created Luzifer. God created also the evil. No one forced to create Luzifer the way he could develop to Satan.


Without Satan in the Garden, God would have been a dictator. Adam and Eve would have obeyed him not because they loved him but because they knew no better. And what was God supposed to do with Lucifer? Ignore him, give him a slap on the wrist and keep him in heven. We all know if you appease terrorists then more will come.


GOD created the whole situation because he wanted that Adam and Eve eat the forbiddeen fruit.

It is God´s fault that sin came into eart. God also created sin...


Ok I have seveal questions for you about this and seveal points to make

1) Why? Why would God want us to sin. Untill you can come up with a good motive you cant suggest it. Seems to me that when we did sin it cost him a great deal to fix it, he had to kill his son. And while you say "Oh its ok, he came back to life three days later" God still had to put him through that. Would you want to put your child through a situation where even though you knew you would get them back eventually, they would be in extreeme and horrific pain on the point of death? God has no motive for us to sin.

2) God did not "Create" sin. We did that when we rebeled

3) It is very easy to point to the sky and say "Its all Gods fault" as it nicely covers up our own human frailties. Whats a lot harder is to accept them and admit sin is your own doing.


If you are not Catholic (i think it is a sin - to be christian and NOT Catholic - and this sin is bigger than being a homosexual). Are you from a sect??


Firstly, no sin is bigger than any other. All sin is sin. And secondly I am a born again.


A: Yes Eden was a prision and Adam and Eve where childern AND ignorant.


1) Provide proof of their ignorence (a bible verse saying that the didnt know who God was or who the serpent was etc). They knew the command and they knew the concequences. Eden was not a prision because they had the option of leaving (fruit)


B: Creating the Serpent makes God a criminal. He knew the things that his creation would do and is totally responsable for the crimes of his creation.


God did not "Create" the serpent. And though he did know they were going to eat the fruit, if he stopped them then it would remove their choice. Eden would have truely been a prision as the only way out would have been blocked. And saying that because God gave us the choice he caused the sin and the problem is like saying that the man who invented the car is responseable for all the traffic deaths its caused. Like God, he only invented the tool (Car/free will) it was up to those who used it wether or not they abused it or not.


C: It is always the same story. If they do non eat from the fruit they will not know anything about god and evil. No knowledge - no choice.


They didnt know about Good and Evil but the command had nothing to do with Good or Evil. It was simply do or do not eat the fruit, with the concequences of each clearly outlined.


In your argumentation you seem to forget that God knows everything in the past, the present and the future. He is the creator of all and he knows why he creates things and situations.
The whole reality is a puppet in God´s hands. He even created the ability to choice the way that we make to often the wrong decision.

God may "Know" the future, but it doesnt mean we dont make it. Its like a video, I know what is going to happen becuase I have seen it before but doesnt mean i will influence it. He allows us to make our own choices, he will interfeare but only if we need it. God never leaves us alone, he never lets go and never breaks our ability to chose what we do. Just because he knows what we are going to do doesnt stop us chosing in the same way that just because we knew in the Matrix that Neo was going to come back to life (when we saw it for the second time) doesnt stop those who filmed it making that decision.

FUCK GAY PEOPLE THAY ARE FAGGOT BITCHES I SHOULD KILL THEM ALL :mp5:

Without Satan in the Garden, God would have been a dictator. Adam and Eve would have obeyed him not because they loved him but because they knew no better. And what was God supposed to do with Lucifer? Ignore him, give him a slap on the wrist and keep him in heven. We all know if you appease terrorists then more will come.


First... scripture NEVER states that the serpent was anyone called Lucifer, or that it was anything BUT a serpent. Provide your evidence why you believe that the serpent was not a serpent?

Adam and Eve are never stated to love god.

And they did obey him because they knew no better... and then, they disobeyed him because they knew no better.


Ok I have seveal questions for you about this and seveal points to make

1) Why? Why would God want us to sin. Untill you can come up with a good motive you cant suggest it. Seems to me that when we did sin it cost him a great deal to fix it, he had to kill his son. And while you say "Oh its ok, he came back to life three days later" God still had to put him through that. Would you want to put your child through a situation where even though you knew you would get them back eventually, they would be in extreeme and horrific pain on the point of death? God has no motive for us to sin.

2) God did not "Create" sin. We did that when we rebeled

3) It is very easy to point to the sky and say "Its all Gods fault" as it nicely covers up our own human frailties. Whats a lot harder is to accept them and admit sin is your own doing.


There are several bible quotes of god MAKING people sin - so your argument is like a sieve. It doesn't hold water.

God created evil, once again, expressly stated in scripture.

And, point at the sky? So, god is in the sky?


Firstly, no sin is bigger than any other. All sin is sin. And secondly I am a born again.


Not true - there are different levels of sin, with different punishments.


1) Provide proof of their ignorence (a bible verse saying that the didnt know who God was or who the serpent was etc). They knew the command and they knew the concequences. Eden was not a prision because they had the option of leaving (fruit)


So - their only option to leave was to eat the fruit... and to eat the fruit they had to sacrifice immortality and innocence, and you claim it wasn't a prison?

If someone put YOU somewhere, where the only way out was death, I think you would probably define that as a prison.


God did not "Create" the serpent. And though he did know they were going to eat the fruit, if he stopped them then it would remove their choice. Eden would have truely been a prision as the only way out would have been blocked. And saying that because God gave us the choice he caused the sin and the problem is like saying that the man who invented the car is responseable for all the traffic deaths its caused. Like God, he only invented the tool (Car/free will) it was up to those who used it wether or not they abused it or not.


God didn't create the serpent? The serpent already existed before god created everything, perhaps? Maybe, you would like to rethink that.


They didnt know about Good and Evil but the command had nothing to do with Good or Evil. It was simply do or do not eat the fruit, with the concequences of each clearly outlined.


Clearly outlined, but never explained.

God WANTED them to fail.


God may "Know" the future, but it doesnt mean we dont make it. Its like a video, I know what is going to happen becuase I have seen it before but doesnt mean i will influence it. He allows us to make our own choices, he will interfeare but only if we need it. God never leaves us alone, he never lets go and never breaks our ability to chose what we do. Just because he knows what we are going to do doesnt stop us chosing in the same way that just because we knew in the Matrix that Neo was going to come back to life (when we saw it for the second time) doesnt stop those who filmed it making that decision.

Unless you are pharaoh... then he SPECIFICALLY stops you from making your own choices, right?

I haven't bothered to read all this crap, but....

Why is it so important to some people what other people do?

Why can't they just accept that some people are different from them? It doesn't mean they are better or worse, just diffferent. We should all celebrate differences, not hide behind ancient texts.

Do think for yourself.

They did NOT know the consequences! How could they comprehend death? None of the animals (apparently) were carnivores, they were immortal, and their only other compatriot was that grumpy old guy... and HE hadn't died... so they had no UNDERSTANDING of death. How could they comprehend the ramification?


I have four words for you "The tree of life". People often forget that God pointed out two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The tree of life was the one that they needed to eat to stay alive forever, it appears again in Revelation. So they must have known that there was something other than life (death) and so they knew the concequences.


They did not know who was talking to them, any more than you would realise if the strange old guy mumbling at the bus-station was Jesus.

The fruit of knowledge was the removal of ignorance, the loss of innocence... until they ate the fruit, they were totally ignorant and innocent.


If they didnt know who God was then they wouldnt have used the word. People do not use words they do not understand in the exact precise context they are ment to be used if they dont know what it means. And the fruits loss of innocence was only of Good and Evil. It was not a loss of ignorence. They knew the concequences.


I do not have to prove they didn't know who god was... if they had literally understood who god was, it would be in the text.... and they wouldn't have dared to disobey a vengeful god face-to-face, if they had known.

YOU have yet to prove that they really DID know who god was... because it sure as hell isn't in the scripture... and, you can believe me on this one, since I seem to be a much greater authority on the text than you.

Firstly, it is standard debating practice that whoever makes the claim first has to provide positive proof to support it. You made they claim that they were ignorent and now you have to support it. And furthermore, when I understand what I am saying I dont say "I fully understand what I am saying" after each sentence. There is no need. However if I dont understand something then I say so because it is needed then for the person saying it to clarify.

Without Satan in the Garden, God would have been a dictator. Adam and Eve would have obeyed him not because they loved him but because they knew no better. And what was God supposed to do with Lucifer? Ignore him, give him a slap on the wrist and keep him in heven. We all know if you appease terrorists then more will come.



Ok I have seveal questions for you about this and seveal points to make

1) Why? Why would God want us to sin. Untill you can come up with a good motive you cant suggest it. Seems to me that when we did sin it cost him a great deal to fix it, he had to kill his son. And while you say "Oh its ok, he came back to life three days later" God still had to put him through that. Would you want to put your child through a situation where even though you knew you would get them back eventually, they would be in extreeme and horrific pain on the point of death? God has no motive for us to sin.

2) God did not "Create" sin. We did that when we rebeled

3) It is very easy to point to the sky and say "Its all Gods fault" as it nicely covers up our own human frailties. Whats a lot harder is to accept them and admit sin is your own doing.



Firstly, no sin is bigger than any other. All sin is sin. And secondly I am a born again.



1) Provide proof of their ignorence (a bible verse saying that the didnt know who God was or who the serpent was etc). They knew the command and they knew the concequences. Eden was not a prision because they had the option of leaving (fruit)



God did not "Create" the serpent. And though he did know they were going to eat the fruit, if he stopped them then it would remove their choice. Eden would have truely been a prision as the only way out would have been blocked. And saying that because God gave us the choice he caused the sin and the problem is like saying that the man who invented the car is responseable for all the traffic deaths its caused. Like God, he only invented the tool (Car/free will) it was up to those who used it wether or not they abused it or not.



They didnt know about Good and Evil but the command had nothing to do with Good or Evil. It was simply do or do not eat the fruit, with the concequences of each clearly outlined.



God may "Know" the future, but it doesnt mean we dont make it. Its like a video, I know what is going to happen becuase I have seen it before but doesnt mean i will influence it. He allows us to make our own choices, he will interfeare but only if we need it. God never leaves us alone, he never lets go and never breaks our ability to chose what we do. Just because he knows what we are going to do doesnt stop us chosing in the same way that just because we knew in the Matrix that Neo was going to come back to life (when we saw it for the second time) doesnt stop those who filmed it making that decision.


You know you have a point but you are wrong and neo canno is right.I am cristion but god created all he created sin so we could choose our own pathes and choose him or the devl life is just one big final exam pass go to heavan fail go to hell

but gay marage is gay its self

I have four words for you "The tree of life". People often forget that God pointed out two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The tree of life was the one that they needed to eat to stay alive forever, it appears again in Revelation. So they must have known that there was something other than life (death) and so they knew the concequences.


I didn't want to bring this one up... I was letting you have the easy ride... but they never ate from that tree, did they? So - were they already mortal? In which case, God lies by saying that they will die as a punishment. Or were they already immortal, in which case God lies by saying they need the fruit of the Tree of Life.


If they didnt know who God was then they wouldnt have used the word. People do not use words they do not understand in the exact precise context they are ment to be used if they dont know what it means. And the fruits loss of innocence was only of Good and Evil. It was not a loss of ignorence. They knew the concequences.


They DIDN'T use the word, Neo Cannen. The Serpent used the word first.

Please, please, please, I entreat you. Read your bible... even a poor english translation would be an improvement on what you keep throwing at the debate.


Firstly, it is standard debating practice that whoever makes the claim first has to provide positive proof to support it. You made they claim that they were ignorent and now you have to support it. And furthermore, when I understand what I am saying I dont say "I fully understand what I am saying" after each sentence. There is no need. However if I dont understand something then I say so because it is needed then for the person saying it to clarify.

Okay. You made the claim first, that they understood the consequences.

So, you have to prove it.

The real reason that homosexuality is considered a sin in the scriptures is because it does not produce offspring. At the time these books were written, christianity was a very new religion and they were struggling to be accepted. What better way to increase your numbers than by having more kids? It carries on today, especially in the Catholic and Mormon churches, where they even admit to wanting none of the "seed" to go to waste; ergo, not make babies.

The reason people nowadays disagree with the belief that homosexuality is wrong and unnecissary is because it is taken blindly from the scriptures without considering why it's there. Times have changed, we need to change along with them.

I say, get over your fear. If you feel the need to kill or punish someone simply because you dont understand why they feel a certain way, not because they have done anything to hurt you or anyone else, then YOU are in the wrong. I see this years debate over gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, only we are moving toward oppression, not liberation from prejudice. Only when America can learn to tolerate everyone, whoever they are, for thier beliefs and truly follow the U.S. Constitution, can we all be free.

I didn't want to bring this one up... I was letting you have the easy ride... but they never ate from that tree, did they? So - were they already mortal? In which case, God lies by saying that they will die as a punishment. Or were they already immortal, in which case God lies by saying they need the fruit of the Tree of Life.


God didnt say they couldnt eat from the tree of life, just the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.


They DIDN'T use the word, Neo Cannen. The Serpent used the word first.


Yes, but when he used it to them, they didnt say "Who's God? Whats death" etc. As they would have done had they not understood


Okay. You made the claim first, that they understood the consequences.

So, you have to prove it.

Genesis 3: 2-3 says clearly that Eve understood what was happening.

The real reason that homosexuality is considered a sin in the scriptures is because it does not produce offspring. At the time these books were written, christianity was a very new religion and they were struggling to be accepted. What better way to increase your numbers than by having more kids? It carries on today, especially in the Catholic and Mormon churches, where they even admit to wanting none of the "seed" to go to waste; ergo, not make babies.


I dont know where you got that from but the word is abomination. Even in the original Hebrew the word means "Something uttely detestable to God". It doesnt say anything about Procreation


The reason people nowadays disagree with the belief that homosexuality is wrong and unnecissary is because it is taken blindly from the scriptures without considering why it's there. Times have changed, we need to change along with them.


As I have said above, we dont know why its there. All we do know is that it is throughly destestable to God


I say, get over your fear. If you feel the need to kill or punish someone simply because you dont understand why they feel a certain way, not because they have done anything to hurt you or anyone else, then YOU are in the wrong. I see this years debate over gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, only we are moving toward oppression, not liberation from prejudice. Only when America can learn to tolerate everyone, whoever they are, for thier beliefs and truly follow the U.S. Constitution, can we all be free.

Christians for the most part (there are fringes as there are with any religion) do not hate/punish homosexuals. Love the sinner hate the sin. A moden quote but a suscint description of God's atitude to us and thus how our attitudes to others should be. And if you have elected a group of religious politicans into power, what right do you have to complain when they enact their religion in their laws. People claim "Bush won because of the Evangelicals" well so what? If those religous people have a certian belief and they are elected into office and they pass throught the legislation is that not democracy?

All we do know is that it is throughly destestable to God

And how do you know that?

Let me remind you that JESUS said (something to the effect of):

"It is not what goes into your bodies that makes you sin - it's what's in your heart!"

Therefore, it doesn't matter if my boyfriends penis enters my body or not. If I love him, then that's good enough.

Moreover (and ppl have probably already said this) The only two times homosexuality is mentioned in the canon is in Exodus and in Leviticus. Both are from Moses, who also committed genocide, had people killed for disagreeing with him and encouraged slavery. NOT the kind of prophet I want my religion based on.

Let me set this clear now: I am gay. I am also a Christian.

Jesus never said anything about all homosexuals. And for those who want to refer me to that verse with "The kingdom of heaven does not belong to..." well, the Greek of that verse says nothing about homosexuality, but actually about male, pagan temple-prostitutes.

So there you go. All hate-mail should go to my telegram folder because I probably won't be back to this thread.

God didnt say they couldnt eat from the tree of life, just the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

Yes, but when he used it to them, they didnt say "Who's God? Whats death" etc. As they would have done had they not understood

Genesis 3: 2-3 says clearly that Eve understood what was happening.

Avoided the issue.... which one was he lying about?

And of course they didn't ask "who's he"... the serpent said it.... there were only two of them, they recognised the reference, so they knew it wasn't one of the two of them, or the serpent...

And, No. Genesis 3:2-3 does not say Eve understood. try again.. a little harder...

How about translating that little bit of Hebrew I offered a few posts ago?

Neo Cannen, Romans 2 destroys your usage of Romans 1.

Romans 2
1.You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

2.Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

3.So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

4.Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

in no way does this reflect on my nation's rp'ed views---

I think the funniest thing about the anti-gay marriage groups is their assertion that allowing gay marriage would "destroy the sacred institution of marriage". It's a little challenging to understand how gay marriage would destroy it, and how marriage has not already been destroyed, with divorce rates in the USA at roughly one in two.

Here here. I find it absurd and hypocritical that people would rather pass laws that keep gay and lesbian people who clearly DO value "family values" from marrying and getting equal treatment under the law, than address all the problems with their OWN marriages instead. None of these laws that passed on election day address divorce among straight couples, or the fact that in "pop culture", marriage is something to be ridiculed rather than cherished.

I guess I and other gay people like myself must be SUCH a thorn in the fundamentalists' sides that they can't focus on ANYTHING ELSE.

My take on why it's a sin is that the culture that spawned Leviticus had an obsession with cleanliness, and therefore anything that broke this cleanliness was considered taboo.

Neo Cannen, Romans 2 destroys your usage of Romans 1.

Romans 2 (or the bit you have quoted from) is about passing judgement. So? I never said that anyone should be judged. I am not prejudiced against homosexuals. Its a sin like any other. In God's eyes, sin is sin. No one is worse than the other. Humans do not have a place to judge other humans with regard to sin. We have no right to do anything to anyone becuase its a sin. We do have that power when it comes to national law (another matter). I have never said anything like "Homosexuality is a sin and therefore all homosexuals should be castrated/imprisoned/burnt at the stake" so what exactly is wrong with my use of Romans 1?

"It is not what goes into your bodies that makes you sin - it's what's in your heart!"


That passage is in refernce to food

And of course they didn't ask "who's he"... the serpent said it.... there were only two of them, they recognised the reference, so they knew it wasn't one of the two of them, or the serpent...

And, No. Genesis 3:2-3 does not say Eve understood. try again.. a little harder...


When the devil said to Eve "Did God rearly say you could eat from any tree in the garden" or something to that effect, Eve did not then say "Who's God?" etc. She knew what the Devil was talking about (the same idea for the passage about death later, if they did not know what Death was, then surely they would have asked). You have no POSITIVE proof that they did not understand, and since you made the claim then you need to provide it. I dont need to provide positve proof because I am refuting your claim. As the refuter I point out flaws in your arguement and I have done so by noting that you have not got any postivive proof. Untill you have some your idea is unfounded.

I guess I and other gay people like myself must be SUCH a thorn in the fundamentalists' sides that they can't focus on ANYTHING ELSE.


Lets just make something clear at this point. The Chruch has never changed its stance on homosexuality. Its only recently because of the recent rise of homosexuality and its media highlighted position that the Chuch has been seen as homophobic. Society has changed around the church, it is not the other way round. The Church is not homophobic just because it sees homosexuality as a sin.

First... scripture NEVER states that the serpent was anyone called Lucifer, or that it was anything BUT a serpent. Provide your evidence why you believe that the serpent was not a serpent?


See the refences in Revalation and Isaiah to him. Something along the lines of "Anchient serpent"


And they did obey him because they knew no better... and then, they disobeyed him because they knew no better.


They obeyed him because they loved him. He had created them and provided for them. And the devil existed so they had two diffrent views, you cannot say they did not know better.


There are several bible quotes of god MAKING people sin - so your argument is like a sieve. It doesn't hold water.


Please provide an example where it expressly says "God made X do Y sin" or something to that effect.


God created evil, once again, expressly stated in scripture.

And, point at the sky? So, god is in the sky?


God did not create evil. We did that when we sined for the first time. And my "Point to the sky" example was a metaphor. People often "Point to the sky" and blame God for all the problems in the world when they are insecrue and cant accept their own flawed nature and the flawed nature of all humanity.


Not true - there are different levels of sin, with different punishments.


Provide examples. If its Dante's inferno you are thinking of, thats not the Bible.


So - their only option to leave was to eat the fruit... and to eat the fruit they had to sacrifice immortality and innocence, and you claim it wasn't a prison?

If someone put YOU somewhere, where the only way out was death, I think you would probably define that as a prison.


You miss the point. It was not immidate death. The current legal system works in the same way. You are let out and you will eventually die.


God didn't create the serpent? The serpent already existed before god created everything, perhaps? Maybe, you would like to rethink that.


When you use "Create" you are implying that he did it along with all the other animals. Saten was "Created" as the fallen angel when his attemted Coo in Heven failed.


Clearly outlined, but never explained.

God WANTED them to fail.


Firstly what possibe motive would God have for wanting his creation to fail. Secondly the point about the command was that it wasnt a case of Good or Evil. It was just a command. It was a father talking to his children. Is a child "Evil" if it disobeys its father?

Okay. You made the claim first, that they understood the consequences.

So, you have to prove it.

No, you made the claim they DIDNT understand and I refuted you by saying that they did and provided proof. What you have to do now is to provide positve proof of their lack of understanding. Something along the lines of a verse with them asking "Who's God?" or "What's death" as they would have done if they had not understood either of these concepts. If I said you "Im a Glonianterian" you would immidately ask "Whats that" if you didnt know what the word ment (note its a completlely made up word, its just an example). And as yet you have not produced any example of a verse with a lack of understanding.

Romans 2 (or the bit you have quoted from) is about passing judgement. So? I never said that anyone should be judged. I am not prejudiced against homosexuals. Its a sin like any other. In God's eyes, sin is sin. No one is worse than the other. Humans do not have a place to judge other humans with regard to sin. We have no right to do anything to anyone becuase its a sin. We do have that power when it comes to national law (another matter). I have never said anything like "Homosexuality is a sin and therefore all homosexuals should be castrated/imprisoned/burnt at the stake" so what exactly is wrong with my use of Romans 1?

Exactly. Romans 1 talks about several vague sins of heterosexuality, and maybe a tiny bit about homosexuality, and says they need to be pointed out to those who commit them. Then comes along Romans 2 stating that if you do point those out and assume God's role of judge, you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity, because you tried to become God and dictate what is and isn't sin.

Exactly. Romans 1 talks about several vague sins of heterosexuality, and maybe a tiny bit about homosexuality, and says they need to be pointed out to those who commit them. Then comes along Romans 2 stating that if you do point those out and assume God's role of judge, you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity, because you tried to become God and dictate what is and isn't sin.

I am not going around shouting at homosexuals and going around judging them saying (In America) "Fagg, fagg" (or in the UK) "Puof puof" etc. If your complaining that I am pointing it out on the forum, then what is the forum for if not for discussion?

(or in the UK) "Puof puof" etc.
I think you'll find that's "poof". Not to be confused with "pouffe", a large bean-bag like piece of furniture, available from Ikea and all good furniture retailers.

I am not going around shouting at homosexuals and going around judging them saying (In America) "Fagg, fagg" (or in the UK) "Puof puof" etc. If your complaining that I am pointing it out on the forum, then what is the forum for if not for discussion?

The fact that you keep tyrying to state that Homosexuality is a sin, as contrary to the fact, and trying to say that that is what God says in the bible when he never states it in the bible.

NOWHERE is it stated that Homosexuality is a sin. It might be an abomination, or it might not. NOWHERE does it state that an abomuination is a sin. NOWHERE does it specifically state which OT laws are obsolete and which isn't.

THAT is what Romans means exactly: don't try and make up what God says are sins. Don't Judge people by telling them that what they are doing is sin,. That's God's job.

THAT is what Romans means exactly: don't try and make up what God says are sins. Don't Judge people by telling them that what they are doing is sin,. That's God's job.
True. Judging is God's job. However, God's judgement would be chucking people into hell or placing them carefully in heaven. Galatians I believe exhorts the Christian to point out where people are going wrong in their lives. In a way which causes them the least possible harm.

Anyway if you want to keep it simple, disregarding matrimonial matters for the moment, if you're gay and not married then you can't have sex because it would be adultery. We're pretty sure adultery is a sin. Or can we not have that one either because the hand of God (no not Maradonna) hasn't descended from Heaven to give you a list of current sins.

Current Sin Document (Version 1.1).doc - 4KB
Readme.txt - 236MB

True. Judging is God's job. However, God's judgement would be chucking people into hell or placing them carefully in heaven. Galatians I believe exhorts the Christian to point out where people are going wrong in their lives. In a way which causes them the least possible harm.

Anyway if you want to keep it simple, disregarding matrimonial matters for the moment, if you're gay and not married then you can't have sex because it would be adultery. We're pretty sure adultery is a sin. Or can we not have that one either because the hand of God (no not Maradonna) hasn't descended from Heaven to give you a list of current sins.

Current Sin Document (Version 1.1).doc - 4KB
Readme.txt - 236MB

1.1 damn I thought they were still beta testing it (if not alpha)

Anyway if you want to keep it simple, disregarding matrimonial matters for the moment, if you're gay and not married then you can't have sex because it would be adultery. We're pretty sure adultery is a sin. Or can we not have that one either because the hand of God (no not Maradonna) hasn't descended from Heaven to give you a list of current sins.


And this is the nub. Homosexuality is a sin in itself but also because of the following

1) Gods definition of marriage is one man one woman

2) Sex outside marriage is adultery

3) Therefore Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes therefore any sex they have is sinful.

And this is the nub. Homosexuality is a sin in itself but also because of the following

1) Gods definition of marriage is one man one woman

2) Sex outside marriage is adultery

3) Therefore Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes therefore any sex they have is sinful.
Who cares about gods eyes ... they want the legal deffinition

And this is the nub. Homosexuality is a sin in itself but also because of the following

1) Gods definition of marriage is one man one woman

2) Sex outside marriage is adultery

3) Therefore Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes therefore any sex they have is sinful.

Tell me, where exactly does the bible state that "Marriage is ONLY that of one man and one wife"?

Because if you read the Bible, then you'll know that marriage is one man, and a whole hell of a lot of women if you please. All the people that God blessed and supported unanimously had more than one wife, and many more women if they pleased it.

So the "one man one woman" argument is dead in the water.

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

You said that the design of the human reproductive system *clearly* demonstrates that only penis-vagina sex is meant to be.

This is clearly wrong, as there are other organs whose only purpose can be non-penis-vagina sexual stimulation.

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?

That's not usually how it goes. Usually, it's like this:

Stage 1: Someone says "Homosexuality is a sin! It's just not natural!!!"

Stage 2: Intelligent person says "Homosexuality is natural, as it is found in nature. Therefore, it is not unnatural. Read a book."

Stage 3: Person 3 says "So what?! Murder is natural in nature too! Just because it's found in nature doesn't make it not a sin!"

Stage 4: Intelligent person replies "I never said it wasn't a sin, I said that it was clearly natural. And since it doesn't hurt anyone, your personal morals shouldn't be pushed on that person.

Stage 5: Person one repeats "It just ain't natural!"

That's not usually how it goes. Usually, it's like this:

Stage 1: Someone says "Homosexuality is a sin! It's just not natural!!!"

Stage 2: Intelligent person says "Homosexuality is natural, as it is found in nature. Therefore, it is not unnatural. Read a book."

Stage 3: Person 3 says "So what?! Murder is natural in nature too! Just because it's found in nature doesn't make it not a sin!"

Stage 4: Intelligent person replies "I never said it wasn't a sin, I said that it was clearly natural. And since it doesn't hurt anyone, your personal morals shouldn't be pushed on that person.

Stage 5: Person one repeats "It just ain't natural!"
Lol very true

sorry neo you have done a very comendable job making a resoned arguement we are not trying to pick on you ... but this really is how it USUALY goes

Anyway if you want to keep it simple, disregarding matrimonial matters for the moment, if you're gay and not married then you can't have sex because it would be adultery. We're pretty sure adultery is a sin. Or can we not have that one either because the hand of God (no not Maradonna) hasn't descended from Heaven to give you a list of current sins.

Actually, it would be fornication. Adultery implies a marriage.

Then, we look in the Bible and find that, in God's eyes, if you have sex with someone (and they are not married/betrothed to someone else already), you are married. Therefore, as long as we aren't talking about multiple partners, adultery is impossible.

Hey, some dimwit said that lesbianism didn't exist back in Jesus's time. Man, what a moron. Study some history dude, of course they existed. The word Lesbian comes from the island of Lesbus, where the poet, Sappho, lived about 2500 years ago.

One phrase from Confucius for that moron. "'To know' is to know what you know, and agree that you do not know what you do not know--not the other way around."

I dont know where you got that from but the word is abomination. Even in the original Hebrew the word means "Something uttely detestable to God". It doesnt say anything about Procreation




Sorry: Not true: Strong's Concordance gives:

Tow`ebah (to-ay-baw'); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 8441


a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

When the devil said to Eve "Did God rearly say you could eat from any tree in the garden" or something to that effect, Eve did not then say "Who's God?" etc. She knew what the Devil was talking about (the same idea for the passage about death later, if they did not know what Death was, then surely they would have asked). You have no POSITIVE proof that they did not understand, and since you made the claim then you need to provide it. I dont need to provide positve proof because I am refuting your claim. As the refuter I point out flaws in your arguement and I have done so by noting that you have not got any postivive proof. Untill you have some your idea is unfounded.

Are you going to make me hunt back through this thread, for your post where you claimed they understood the concepts of death, and who god was, etc?

You posted your theory first, and I insinuated it was insupportable.

If you HAVE support for it, I would post it, if I were you.

Note: Since I made the initial refutation... it is not I that bears the burden of proof here...

Yes, but you have forgoten one thing. I never said it was unnautral
I dident forget that ... thats why I pointed out the distinction between the job YOU did and the job most religious people make

Are you going to make me hunt back through this thread, for your post where you claimed they understood the concepts of death, and who god was, etc?

You posted your theory first, and I insinuated it was insupportable.

If you HAVE support for it, I would post it, if I were you.

Note: Since I made the initial refutation... it is not I that bears the burden of proof here...

No, someone else said that God forced them into the situation and that he wanted to fail. And then you supported them by saying they had no understanding of the concequences. I said they did and pointed to Genesis 2: 2-3 where Eve says the concequences of eating the fruit and does not show a single lack of understanding. I then went on to say that the fact that she uses the phrase in its correct context without question of what the words mean tells us that she did know the concequences of what she would do if she ate from that tree. You have maintanined an argument that they did not understand despite a lack of positive proof.

I dident forget that ... thats why I pointed out the distinction between the job YOU did and the job most religious people make

I understand, sorry. And thank you for supporting what I said earlier (note I will delete that post)

Tell me, where exactly does the bible state that "Marriage is ONLY that of one man and one wife"?

Because if you read the Bible, then you'll know that marriage is one man, and a whole hell of a lot of women if you please. All the people that God blessed and supported unanimously had more than one wife, and many more women if they pleased it.

So the "one man one woman" argument is dead in the water.

Genesis 2: 24

While there are examples of pologymy in the Bible, the highest form of marriage is that as it was in Eden. That is how it should be because that is how it was in Eden.

Genesis 2: 24

While there are examples of pologymy in the Bible, the highest form of marriage is that as it was in Eden. That is how it should be because that is how it was in Eden.
Um it is the only form it could have been … there were only two lol
God hadn’t gotten around to thinking about more yet lol

See the refences in Revalation and Isaiah to him. Something along the lines of "Anchient serpent"


The 'prohets' refered to Eden in totally metaphorical terms, when talking about, for example, the king of Tyre. If you don't even understand THAT, there is no point trying to debate theology with you.

You are simply not up to it.


They obeyed him because they loved him. He had created them and provided for them. And the devil existed so they had two diffrent views, you cannot say they did not know better.


Prove it. Prove they obeyed him because they loved him.

Show me a precise bible quote that states it.

Prove that the devil exists (at all!) to give them two different views. Once again, show me a specific bible verse that supports precisely.


Please provide an example where it expressly says "God made X do Y sin" or something to that effect.


Exodus 4:21 "And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before PHARAOH, which I have put in thine hand: but I will HARDEN his HEART, that he shall not let the people go".


God did not create evil. We did that when we sined for the first time. And my "Point to the sky" example was a metaphor. People often "Point to the sky" and blame God for all the problems in the world when they are insecrue and cant accept their own flawed nature and the flawed nature of all humanity.


Isiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".


Provide examples. If its Dante's inferno you are thinking of, thats not the Bible.


You must know that there are different punishments for abominations of man, and abominations of god?


You miss the point. It was not immidate death. The current legal system works in the same way. You are let out and you will eventually die.


So? Significance?


When you use "Create" you are implying that he did it along with all the other animals. Saten was "Created" as the fallen angel when his attemted Coo in Heven failed.


You said create, I merely repeated. What, do I have to defend your arguments, as well as my own?

And, I don't 'buy' your 'coup in heaven' story.


Firstly what possibe motive would God have for wanting his creation to fail. Secondly the point about the command was that it wasnt a case of Good or Evil. It was just a command. It was a father talking to his children. Is a child "Evil" if it disobeys its father?

How about, because he had created a being 'like us'? And, not a subservient being at all? He couldn't, in all honesty, simply revoke godhood... so he had to create a 'kobayashi maru' test, to strip them of their power.

And this is the nub. Homosexuality is a sin in itself but also because of the following

1) Gods definition of marriage is one man one woman

2) Sex outside marriage is adultery

3) Therefore Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes therefore any sex they have is sinful.

1) Speculation. The only mention of it, that you hark back on and on about (wrongly), is the Genesis quote... and that was Adam speaking... not God.

So - by definition - marriage is a man-made institution.

2) Marriage is better than lust (burning), Paul said. (Once again, though, we only have a man to answer). So - homosexuals that can't restrain their lusts should marry - according to scripture. It would be LESS of a sin, you see.

3) All marriage outside of marriage is considered sinful by our modern church. What you are ignoring is that it was the ACT of consummation that MADE marriage, for the Hebrews. Nothing to do with ceremony, or vows... the actual Marriage was the act of intercourse. (Hence, why Joseph and Mary were not married).

So - by Hebrew morality, and by modern scripture - gay sex IS gay marriage when they are COMMITTED to each other. In the eyes of god, they are married. And, therefore, their lust is sanctified.

Genesis 2: 24

While there are examples of pologymy in the Bible, the highest form of marriage is that as it was in Eden. That is how it should be because that is how it was in Eden.

I stated that I wanted the quote that has what I said, and you pull a verse out of the bible that has not a damn thing to do with what I asked for.

Now please, show me the quote I asked for.

And also, there were two people in Eden. You have to be pretty brain-dead not to understand that monogamy wasn't an option in this case.

Prove it. Prove they obeyed him because they loved him.

Show me a precise bible quote that states it.

There is no quote but think about it. He created them, he is therefore their father. It is a parental love thing, this is why God is so often refered to as father.


Prove that the devil exists (at all!) to give them two different views. Once again, show me a specific bible verse that supports precisely.


The Bible doesnt give reasons behind what happens all the time. It is not a fictional novel. My point was refering to somoene else who said that God created the devil and therfore caused their downfall. I said that if God had not let the Devil in then Adam and Eve would have only had one viewpoint and so God would have been a dictatior. Wheteher or not God let the devil in to serve that purpose I do not know but wheteher or not he did, the Devil still serves that purpose.


Exodus 4:21 "And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before PHARAOH, which I have put in thine hand: but I will HARDEN his HEART, that he shall not let the people go".


And? Hardening his heart is not the same as taking control of him. If anything this is an example of a temptation, in this case of pride. God allowed the Pharoah to be prideful about his slaves and so did not want to let them go


Isiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".


If you create light you create darkness. If I switch on a light, I create both light and darkness. If God created Good, logic dictates that he creates Evil, but this does not mean that he himself is evil.


You must know that there are different punishments for abominations of man, and abominations of god?


Where? Show me where God says "This will happen to some people if they do this" or something to that effect. The only example I know of is blasphemy against the holy spirit and that is extremely hard to do as far as I understand it.


So? Significance?


You said Eden was like a prison because the only way out was death. I said, no its the same as normal prisions in that you leave and eventually you will die.





How about, because he had created a being 'like us'? And, not a subservient being at all? He couldn't, in all honesty, simply revoke godhood... so he had to create a 'kobayashi maru' test, to strip them of their power.

Yes but why would he do that. Surely if he was God then if he had wanted to create a subserviant race he could have done so. And why would he need a subserviant race if he was God? He had the power to do anything didnt he? I agree with James T Kirk, in that there is no such thing as a no-win scenerio.

I stated that I wanted the quote that has what I said, and you pull a verse out of the bible that has not a damn thing to do with what I asked for.

Now please, show me the quote I asked for.

And also, there were two people in Eden. You have to be pretty brain-dead not to understand that monogamy wasn't an option in this case.

I think you mean pologomy, pologomy wasnt an option. And what it does explain is that one man and one woman is how it is meant to be, as in when it says "For this reason" it is talking about Adam and Eve's situation. Though pologomy wasnt an option, If God had wanted it he would have let it be one. The reason it is an option later on is to maximise population more than anything else as far as I am aware.

1) Speculation. The only mention of it, that you hark back on and on about (wrongly), is the Genesis quote... and that was Adam speaking... not God.

So - by definition - marriage is a man-made institution.


If by the Genesis quote you mean 2: 24 then thats not Adam. Its clear where Adam is speeking, when he describes Eve it is in quotation marks and it says its him speeking


2) Marriage is better than lust (burning), Paul said. (Once again, though, we only have a man to answer). So - homosexuals that can't restrain their lusts should marry - according to scripture. It would be LESS of a sin, you see.


NOWHERE in the bible does it say marriage can be between two members of the same sex. And there is no such thing as LESS of a sin. It is all sin, all the same.


3) All marriage outside of marriage is considered sinful by our modern church. What you are ignoring is that it was the ACT of consummation that MADE marriage, for the Hebrews. Nothing to do with ceremony, or vows... the actual Marriage was the act of intercourse. (Hence, why Joseph and Mary were not married).


Joseph and Mary were virgins when the had Jesus. And I am not sure where your getting the idea that consummation 'makes' marriage from, other than the fact that the Bible does say that man and wife should not refuse sex to one another (cant remember the exact refrence for that atm).

There is no quote but think about it. He created them, he is therefore their father. It is a parental love thing, this is why God is so often refered to as father.


Isn't your argument that, if it's not in the bible, it doesn't count?

It's speculation, friend. Nowhere does it say that Adam or Eve LOVED god... or even cared, one way or another. It could be argued that they valued his input about as much as that of the basest reptile.

Also - aside from one throwaway comment by Adam, there isn't any evidence that they even thought of him as a father... or anything other than some grumpy old bugger they found walking among the trees.

Show evidence, remember.


The Bible doesnt give reasons behind what happens all the time. It is not a fictional novel. My point was refering to somoene else who said that God created the devil and therfore caused their downfall. I said that if God had not let the Devil in then Adam and Eve would have only had one viewpoint and so God would have been a dictatior. Wheteher or not God let the devil in to serve that purpose I do not know but wheteher or not he did, the Devil still serves that purpose.


Actually - I disagree. I think most of it IS a fiction novel... with the very specific purpose of acting as a morality guideline... but I have no more evidence that my opinion is true than you have to support your 'claim'.

Not at all, regarding the devil. You do evil because you do evil... not because some superpower is tugging your strings. How would any god be a good god if he allowed some other semi-deitic power to remove your free-will?


And? Hardening his heart is not the same as taking control of him. If anything this is an example of a temptation, in this case of pride. God allowed the Pharoah to be prideful about his slaves and so did not want to let them go


Actually - if you read the quote - he specifically stops Pharaoh from releasing the Hebrews... thus compounding the suffering of the Hebrews, the suffering of the Egyptians, and the specific suffering of Pharaoh.

He didn't tempt pharaoh here.. it specifically says that he changed Pharaohs mind, and explains why.


If you create light you create darkness. If I switch on a light, I create both light and darkness. If God created Good, logic dictates that he creates Evil, but this does not mean that he himself is evil.


Actually... your grasp of physics is about as shaky as your grasp of theology. If you create light, you do not create darkness... you just illuminate the difference. If you created 'good', it would only appear as good in context of evil... but that doesn't equate to creating evil. The verse I presented specifically states that god created evil.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of it, and admit you were utterly wrong.


Where? Show me where God says "This will happen to some people if they do this" or something to that effect. The only example I know of is blasphemy against the holy spirit and that is extremely hard to do as far as I understand it.


Sorry, what was the context of this?


You said Eden was like a prison because the only way out was death. I said, no its the same as normal prisions in that you leave and eventually you will die.


Not at all. They would not have left the garden if they hadn't sinned. They didn't get expelled until they gained mortality. Therefore, the only way to leave is death. That, my friend, is a prison, no matter how pretty the bars.


Yes but why would he do that. Surely if he was God then if he had wanted to create a subserviant race he could have done so. And why would he need a subserviant race if he was God? He had the power to do anything didnt he? I agree with James T Kirk, in that there is no such thing as a no-win scenerio.

First - the Starfleet Academy test wasn't set by god. I'm sure that even the mighty James Tiberius Kirk would have been outwitted by a test set by god, no? Or do you now argue that William Shatner outranks god?

Why would he need a subservient race? Any race created by an omnipotent god MUST BE subservient - since they cannot be superior to the all-powerful, surely.

And he did create a non-subservient race... then, it appears, he realised his mistake, so he 'killed' them... pretty much setting the pattern for his continuing career... he screws up, people have to die.

If by the Genesis quote you mean 2: 24 then thats not Adam. Its clear where Adam is speeking, when he describes Eve it is in quotation marks and it says its him speeking


My god, man, have you EVER READ THE BIBLE?

It quite clearly SAYS that Adam says it.

I am sorry. You have to admit your error here. This is blatant... this is in the text, not hidden in context or content, not blurred in translation...

This is painfully obvious, even in English.

Genesis 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Admit it. Neo Cannen.

This is your last chance.

Admit you are wrong... or I'm out of here.

I'm not continuing to discuss this, if you are THAT ignorant of 'your' scripture, and yet still dare to argue.


NOWHERE in the bible does it say marriage can be between two members of the same sex. And there is no such thing as LESS of a sin. It is all sin, all the same.


Re-read Leviticus, my friend... why do you think some 'sins' require a death penalty, and some sins require ostracism, ans some 'sins' merely require cleanliness rituals?


Joseph and Mary were virgins when the had Jesus. And I am not sure where your getting the idea that consummation 'makes' marriage from, other than the fact that the Bible does say that man and wife should not refuse sex to one another (cant remember the exact refrence for that atm).

First - It never says that Joseph was a virgin.

Second - in Hebrew, it says Mary was young - it never said she was a virgin.

Third - They were betrothed, but not yet married... I fail to see your point?

Fourth - Unlike you, I have an actual knowledge of the time surrounding scripture... you know, there ARE things that are true that ARE NOT in the scripture.

Bored now.

That is the churches' rule, not God's. It is not in the bible, contrary to popular belief. Many people say "ooooh... look at this! this must be hinting that God hates homosexuals!" And I say to them "yeah... and the earth was created in 7 days..."

Much of the bible is dependant on the reader's perception.

That is the churches' rule, not God's. It is not in the bible, contrary to popular belief. Many people say "ooooh... look at this! this must be hinting that God hates homosexuals!" And I say to them "yeah... and the earth was created in 7 days..."

Much of the bible is dependant on the reader's perception.

Good luck making your point, friend... but many of the 'christians' that haunt this site really DO believe that the earth was created in seven days.

:(

Good luck making your point, friend... but many of the 'christians' that haunt this site really DO believe that the earth was created in seven days.

:( or is only 6 k years old

Can I just interrupt this thread to say thank you (sincerely).

Especially to Neo Cannen and Grave_n_Idle, you have kept me enthralled and entertained for weeks now on this argument/discussion and it has been enlightening to say the least.

Both of you have showed remarkable restraint and patience with each other (albeit getting frayed at points) and I hope that things have been learned.

Neo, you need to lighten up a tad and really listen to the other side of the argument as I feel you are blinded sometimes by your faith, not that having faith is a bad thing, I kind of envy you having such a strong belief in something, just don't let it cloud the issue.

Grave, your a decent bloke and I salute you for your patience and well researched and informative opinions.

Thanks again.

NOWHERE in the bible does it say marriage can be between two members of the same sex. And there is no such thing as LESS of a sin. It is all sin, all the same.

Wait, I thought we had agreed that it was homosexual sex that was a sin, and not homosexuality, and certainly not same-sex marriage?
Will you just make up your mind?

Can I just interrupt this thread to say thank you (sincerely).

Especially to Neo Cannen and Grave_n_Idle, you have kept me enthralled and entertained for weeks now on this argument/discussion and it has been enlightening to say the least.

Both of you have showed remarkable restraint and patience with each other (albeit getting frayed at points) and I hope that things have been learned.

Neo, you need to lighten up a tad and really listen to the other side of the argument as I feel you are blinded sometimes by your faith, not that having faith is a bad thing, I kind of envy you having such a strong belief in something, just don't let it cloud the issue.

Grave, your a decent bloke and I salute you for your patience and well researched and informative opinions.

Thanks again.

Thanks... I needed that...

I fully admit that I consider myself the 'loser' if I leave a debate without learning something from it... whether it is something I am 'given', or something I am forced to the extremity of to debate with someone who is accomplished and informed.

I will also admit, that at this point, I am getting the feeling that my honourable opposition has stopped actually reasoning any of his responses... and is just hitting the same keys in the hope of breaking me. I hope I'm not right... I really do... because I think a valid, viable thread is in it's death-throes.

But, thanks for sharing some moments of your time, and some of the contents of your mind. It IS appreciated.

Wait, I thought we had agreed that it was homosexual sex that was a sin, and not homosexuality, and certainly not same-sex marriage?
Will you just make up your mind?

1) Homosexual sex is the sin, not attraction

2) Gay marriage is not a sin, but it is not marriage in the eyes of God. Ergo any sex they do have is outside of marriage which is adultery and therefore sin.

1) Homosexual sex is the sin, not attraction

2) Gay marriage is not a sin, but it is not marriage in the eyes of God. Ergo any sex they do have is outside of marriage which is adultery and therefore sin.
Hmmm dont one or more of you have to be maried to commit adultry?

Genesis 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


How could Adam say "leave his father" since (according to your arguement ie that they were ignorent of everything that they had not experinced). And anyway, if you read the NIV (which I do) Genesis 2: 23 is in poetry and speech marks. Genesis 2:24 is not.


Re-read Leviticus, my friend... why do you think some 'sins' require a death penalty, and some sins require ostracism, ans some 'sins' merely require cleanliness rituals?


Two words "Old Covenent". The punishement laws are specificly delt with by Jesus (Right cheek left etc)


First - It never says that Joseph was a virgin.

Second - in Hebrew, it says Mary was young - it never said she was a virgin.


I doubt your second point, but for the moment I will humour you. Adultrury then was still punishable by death and Mary was (acording to even the Hebrew) virtious and special. Adultury was something extremely taboo which Mary would not have been aparty too if she were virtious.

Hmmm dont one or more of you have to be maried to commit adultry?

Adultury is not (according to the Bible) just sex with someone elses wife/husband etc. It is any sex not in its propper place (marriage)

Adultury is not (according to the Bible) just sex with someone elses wife/husband etc. It is any sex not in its propper place (marriage)
wow really? where does it explain that ? or is it one of thoes assumed contextual things

Its not usual...if there was a law, it would be against it.

Thank you homer simpson

Hi all

I have to admit i only read the first page, but i gotta put in my two cents.

According to the NIV bible and wesleyian(spelling) belief system (ie Wesleyian Methodist, baptist, nazarene) you can be gay and a christian as long as you are not a practising homosexual.

Don't ask me where and how the scripture comes from, coz i dunno.

But my pastor and his wife are in bible school together and their class broke into argument about it, then everyone calmed down and sat and talked about it and that was their conclusion.

So god and gays can be friends, but...

I left the church cause while my pastor had no prob about me being gay everyone else did. :'(

I hope to see all the old people with these views die, so we can be free. may be a little extreme but is the truth, no other way around they arent going to change.

anyway thats me done

ciao <3 from Tomasu

Hi all

I have to admit i only read the first page, but i gotta put in my two cents.

According to the NIV bible and wesleyian(spelling) belief system (ie Wesleyian Methodist, baptist, nazarene) you can be gay and a christian as long as you are not a practising homosexual.

Don't ask me where and how the scripture comes from, coz i dunno.

But my pastor and his wife are in bible school together and their class broke into argument about it, then everyone calmed down and sat and talked about it and that was their conclusion.

So god and gays can be friends, but...

I left the church cause while my pastor had no prob about me being gay everyone else did. :'(

I hope to see all the old people with these views die, so we can be free. may be a little extreme but is the truth, no other way around they arent going to change.

anyway thats me done

ciao <3 from Tomasu


problem is they pass their anti tolerence views onto their offspring

it is a sin becouse the bible says it goes aginst the natural purpose of man man was designed for for women and women for a man it was adam and eve not adam and steve

it is a sin becouse the bible says it goes aginst the natural purpose of man man was designed for for women and women for a man it was adam and eve not adam and steve
So do you only do things that are of a natural purpose? I can GARONTEE you do some things that are not strictly for natural purposes

oh and I love the adam and steve quote
makes you sound SO intelegent ... I cant beleive you thought that up [/sarcasm]

it is a sin becouse the bible says it goes aginst the natural purpose of man man was designed for for women and women for a man it was adam and eve not adam and steve
The question of sin is distinct from the question of nature.
If I am stronger and gigger and more agressive than you and you have something I want, it may be nature for me to knock seven colours of Sh*t out of you and take it. That does not make my action morally right or cause them to be less sinful.
So the question of homosexuality and sin is distinct from if it is natural or not.
As to the matter of sin, I am not qualified to judge and if you are a true christian niether are you or any other human. As to the question of nature, that is still being investigated but the evidence is begining to point to there being some genetic imperitive to being gay even if this evidence does not account for the % of gay men is society.
So again I'm not really qualified to judge.

wow really? where does it explain that ? or is it one of thoes assumed contextual things

See here

http://www.d-ccc.org/faq/Question17.html

problem is they pass their anti tolerence views onto their offspring

I dont see why Christianity are seen to have an "Intollerence" towards Gays. It says that homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says all sins can be forgiven and that there are many other sins. It never says anything about treeting homosexuals any diffrently because they are homosexual. That is an idea that many people get from blowing the idea that it is a sin out of proportion.

I dont see why Christianity are seen to have an "Intollerence" towards Gays. It says that homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says all sins can be forgiven and that there are many other sins. It never says anything about treeting homosexuals any diffrently because they are homosexual. That is an idea that many people get from blowing the idea that it is a sin out of proportion.
Well, the problem comes in when Christians, or any other religious people for that matter, label a whoe group of people "sinners." It's not like you can identify... I dunno, shoplifters as a whole. I dunno if this is making sense... but yeah.
So then, when you label a group of people as different, stigma is formed, leading to the rationalisation of a discriminitory attitude.

Two words "Old Covenent". The punishement laws are specificly delt with by Jesus (Right cheek left etc)

Right cheek left cheek? The "turn the other cheek" comment had nothing to do with punishment laws. Interpreted within the context of the time, it is a form of passive resistance.

Adultury is not (according to the Bible) just sex with someone elses wife/husband etc. It is any sex not in its propper place (marriage)

Wrong. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Adultery is sex with the spouse or betrothed (in the case of a woman who is betrothed) of another.

I dont see why Christianity are seen to have an "Intollerence" towards Gays. It says that homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says all sins can be forgiven and that there are many other sins. It never says anything about treeting homosexuals any diffrently because they are homosexual. That is an idea that many people get from blowing the idea that it is a sin out of proportion.

At former times people that understood the bible like you easily could have
been burnt by inquisition. Given the fact that God was from the beginning and that he was the creator of all it is sure that everything that happened could only happen following his will. Nothing can happen against God´s will. And you seem to know clearly God´s will and that there are things that are against his will.

I think Inquisition was a criminal mistake - but a lot of things you wrote sounded very heretic in my ears.

Now the world is more tolerant - maybe more liberal? - and you have the right to think about God whatever you think. And that´s OK!

A big part of Christianity is intolerance. Even the USA where also founden by people that had to leave their countries because of intolerance.

To point at people saying "you are gay - that is a sin" can lead to intolerance towards homosexual people.

Why this big discussion in the USA about homosexuality as a sin?

Why don´t you say that your President is a big sinner because he acts against the will of God? Is a crusade no sin? Are his lies about WMD no sin?

Why is it more important in the USA to discuss about the sex of the others than to discuss if it is allowed to kill people in other countries?

Even the Pope was against the war in Irak. And in Jesus said something about "cheek"...

I only wish that you use the term "Christian" more carefully in this discussions. Your view of the bible and your interpretation is far away from things I consider as very important for my religion. It would be better you say "my wing of the born again" than you say WE christians. There is no WE between a certain kind of understanding the bible and the point of view of the Vatican. I am a Catholic - you are a born again. I won´t say WE christians to you and it wolud be better you don´t use this term to describe your interpretation of the bible. For a lot of Catholics the born again are a sect even so dangerous as the Scientoligy Church. And we have the fear that President Bush as a Born Again thinks he should prepare the world for Armaggedon - if this is his will, he is on the right way.

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.

Fair enough....

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

Well it's the "man and wife were designed to copulate for the purposes of procreation by God and anything other than that is a sin" argument that leads us to assume that. Masturbation is a sin, however, the clitoris has no biological function other than pleasure and it is in no way engaged in copulation, so God designed women to feel pleasure too, but simple intercourse does not fulfill that function of the clitoris, so other forms of sex are obviously also what we were designed for.



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.

Again, see the clitoris argument.


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.

Were Adam and Eve actually married in Eden? I don't think so....

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 think you will find that Homosexual relationships tend not to be monogomous due to socialogical and dicriminitory influence than any biological or psychological factor. It is quite likely that if homosexual relationships were not viewed as any different than normal ones, homosexual individuals would not feel any misgivings in living their chosen lifestyle openly.

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.

Civil rights and spiritual belief can be seperate. It's unfair because it causes suffering to those who do not believe the same way you do. Gays being allowed legal marriage does not cause you suffering as they are not married in the eyes of your God or religion. I don't think anyone is saying that gays should be allowed to be married in a Christian Church against the churches will.

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.

I never said that the Christian church hadn't done a great many good things, that doesn't mean they didn't do horrible things as well.

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.

I agree completely, with your first and third points in the last paragraph.

How could Adam say "leave his father" since (according to your arguement ie that they were ignorent of everything that they had not experinced). And anyway, if you read the NIV (which I do) Genesis 2: 23 is in poetry and speech marks. Genesis 2:24 is not.

Two words "Old Covenent". The punishement laws are specificly delt with by Jesus (Right cheek left etc)

I doubt your second point, but for the moment I will humour you. Adultrury then was still punishable by death and Mary was (acording to even the Hebrew) virtious and special. Adultury was something extremely taboo which Mary would not have been aparty too if she were virtious.

It isn't my fault you read the NIV. It's a corrupt version of a corrupt version. You would note, if you ever read the Hebrew, that there are no 'quote' marks there. You have picked up part of my own argument, though, which is gratifying... the words put into Adam's mouth MUST have been added at a later date - since they make no contextual sense, given his status.

Old Covenant/ New Covenant has nothing to do with the levels of sin. Thus, you were wrong again, and STILL won't admit it.

Don't humour me, you patronising individual. It bothers you? Go find yourself a Hebrew to English dictionary, and do the translation yourself.

And, Mary could only have been an 'adulteress' if she had ALREADY had intercourse with Joseph (and, thus sealed their covenant). I don't see hpw that is relevent anyway.

You understand NOTHING of the society in which the stories took place.
You understand nothing of the languages the text was written in.
You will not accept my translations, or even do your own, when I supplied the material.
You argue about the inarguable... you argue AGAINST scripture where it doesn't suit your argument.

For all these reasons... I am done.

I hate that you've brought me to this... but I feel like my intellect and education are being utterly wasted, since you seem immune to logic, and impervious to facts.

Thanks for your time, Neo Cannen, but if I want someone to mouth platitudes at me, and ignore reasoned argument, I have fish.

according to the bible, i've gotta be stoned to death for working on the sabbath, so i wouldn't worry too much about what the bible says about it.

At former times people that understood the bible like you easily could have
been burnt by inquisition. Given the fact that God was from the beginning and that he was the creator of all it is sure that everything that happened could only happen following his will. Nothing can happen against God´s will. And you seem to know clearly God´s will and that there are things that are against his will.


You misunderstand "God's will" and "Sin" they are ultimately diffrent concepts in the context you are talking. "God's Will" as far as theological bent goes does not mean "What God wants" as many have made the mistake. God wants us all not to sin and to live lives as close to Jesus's as we can. However he also wanted us to chose to do this and not to be forced into it. As a good parent, he let us (his children) chose. He did not force anything on us. "God's will" Is more the way he knows the world will play out. He knows this because he has seen it not becuase he set it up that way.


A big part of Christianity is intolerance. Even the USA where also founden by people that had to leave their countries because of intolerance.


If your talking about intollernce of other Religions then Christianity is no more diffrent from other religions in that respect.

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

And Christianity as a religion is not intolerent of sin. If it was then no one would be aloweed to become a Christian as by its own logic all are sinners.

in most religions, it is considered a major sin. Hence stories like Sodam and Gomarrah.

its the sexual act thats a sin not the desire. not taht many people in the church still really beleave that anymore........

It isn't my fault you read the NIV. It's a corrupt version of a corrupt version. You would note, if you ever read the Hebrew, that there are no 'quote' marks there. You have picked up part of my own argument, though, which is gratifying... the words put into Adam's mouth MUST have been added at a later date - since they make no contextual sense, given his status.


The NIV is a translation of the Bible that is accepted around the world by members of thousands and thousands of churches. There is nothing "Wrong" with it. And the NSRV which is translated from the oldest record available (the Hebrew) also has the speech marks.


Old Covenant/ New Covenant has nothing to do with the levels of sin. Thus, you were wrong again, and STILL won't admit it.


Excuse me? You were the one who was talking about the Old testement having diffrent punishment laws for diffrent sins. I said the punishment system was removed by Jesus as only God can punish sins. Punishing crime is another matter.


And, Mary could only have been an 'adulteress' if she had ALREADY had intercourse with Joseph (and, thus sealed their covenant). I don't see hpw that is relevent anyway.


I dont know either, you brought up the issue of mary ages ago. I was responding to you.


You understand NOTHING of the society in which the stories took place.
You understand nothing of the languages the text was written in.
You will not accept my translations, or even do your own, when I supplied the material.


Since in every society homosexuality is encounterd in the Bible it is condemend, I think it is fair to say this is not a social thing. There is nothing wrong with the English translations, and one of those on the NIV's commite was an open homosexual. I read my own translation NIV as it is the one I know best. I have read other English ones as well and theres nothing wrong with them particulaly, I just own an NIV.

You misunderstand "God's will" and "Sin" they are ultimately diffrent concepts in the context you are talking. "God's Will" as far as theological bent goes does not mean "What God wants" as many have made the mistake. God wants us all not to sin and to live lives as close to Jesus's as we can. However he also wanted us to chose to do this and not to be forced into it. As a good parent, he let us (his children) chose. He did not force anything on us. "God's will" Is more the way he knows the world will play out. He knows this because he has seen it not becuase he set it up that way.



If your talking about intollernce of other Religions then Christianity is no more diffrent from other religions in that respect.

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

And Christianity as a religion is not intolerent of sin. If it was then no one would be aloweed to become a Christian as by its own logic all are sinners.

Ok I think I got to make a general call out

Now people we can not generalize about Christians Neo cannen is right not every Christian thinks like that a lot are hard working people that just happen to take a certain philosophical point of view


And Christians try to understand why some of us do this

We look through history … specifically European history (at least for us in Europe and America) and we see the massive atrocities made in Christianity’s name and in religion in general. A lot of us understand that other religions do this too … but most of us are more intimately familiar with Christianity.

On top of historical points there is the daily intolerance of our every day activities … some not “condemned” at the current time by the church … but we are afraid of what can happen if the fickle attention of the church is drawn towards us … we can see things changing rather quickly if they start pulling bible quotes out of their ass to oppose our point of view

We understand it doesn’t look that way right now … but a group whose real credo is so broad can change itself and not die. (what I mean is there is so much in included in the faith that the parts they are accenting of Christianity right now might not be the same ones the accent in the future)

We also have the restrictions of civil liberties based on religious views (ok we get that you think homosexuality is bad … but really why should that affect the legal non religious union) its not like they have to get married by the church or recognized by them … there are plenty of other religions that don’t get married in a church or wouldn’t be recognized by the catholic religion

Anyways sorry for my rant … basically thing what happens when you challenge someone’s viewpoints … we get defensive just like you do … and start generalizing what we see. Most of us don’t mean it understand that

And understand that most of us don’t want to attack you … we are just tired of seeing a belief we have no part of dictating how we live our lives. And we are scared of what the religion can do to some of our practices or beliefs if the view of the religion changes

Well it's the "man and wife were designed to copulate for the purposes of procreation by God and anything other than that is a sin" argument that leads us to assume that. Masturbation is a sin, however, the clitoris has no biological function other than pleasure and it is in no way engaged in copulation, so God designed women to feel pleasure too, but simple intercourse does not fulfill that function of the clitoris, so other forms of sex are obviously also what we were designed for.


Not 'obvioulsy' since there is no other form of 'obvious' sex. There is nothing in the biological design of the anus to suggest penetration is healthy or desireable. It can be extremely damaging. There is the "G-spot" arguement but this is a pleasure system. It has been shown by the electrocuted rat pleasure sensors experiment that if we do things purely for pleasure the only result is poor health and eventually maybe even death. Just because it is pleasusrable does not make it biologicaly sensable.


Were Adam and Eve actually married in Eden? I don't think so....


Depends how you define the act of marrying someone. My belief is the "Be fruitful" command from God was their marriage, although I suspect it was more complex in the actual garden.


Civil rights and spiritual belief can be seperate. It's unfair because it causes suffering to those who do not believe the same way you do. Gays being allowed legal marriage does not cause you suffering as they are not married in the eyes of your God or religion. I don't think anyone is saying that gays should be allowed to be married in a Christian Church against the churches will.


Not allowing Gays to marry does not cause them suffering nor do they particulaly want gay marriage. For example, in London Gay marriage is effectively equal to straight marriage in all but name (exact same rights) yet only 1% of Londons vast Gay community have chosen to use it.


I never said that the Christian church hadn't done a great many good things, that doesn't mean they didn't do horrible things as well.


I agree with you, but what I was saying people say a lot of the time "Christianity did the crusades/inqusiotion etc" when actually its "Christians did the crusades etc". They are subtley diffrent grammaticly but majorly diffrent in meaning. The ideas behind the Crusades were not enshrined in the Bible or anything like that (unlike the Koran where Holy war is outlined and explained). Christianity is a set of beliefs and principals, Christians are people who attemt to follow those beliefs and principals. There is an important diffrence.

You misunderstand "God's will" and "Sin" they are ultimately diffrent concepts in the context you are talking. "God's Will" as far as theological bent goes does not mean "What God wants" as many have made the mistake. God wants us all not to sin and to live lives as close to Jesus's as we can. However he also wanted us to chose to do this and not to be forced into it. As a good parent, he let us (his children) chose. He did not force anything on us. "God's will" Is more the way he knows the world will play out. He knows this because he has seen it not becuase he set it up that way.



If your talking about intollernce of other Religions then Christianity is no more diffrent from other religions in that respect.

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

And Christianity as a religion is not intolerent of sin. If it was then no one would be aloweed to become a Christian as by its own logic all are sinners.


1. God is almighty
2. Nothing can happen or exist against HIS will
3. If something exists, it exists because he wants it to exist
4. He created the whole existence as he wanted. No one forced him to create anything.
5. He created Luzifer, the serpent and he created Adam and Eve.
6. He knew they would eat from the forbidden fruit if the serpent tells them to do so.
7. Adam and Eve were created the way that they had to eat the apple
8. If God did not want them to eat the apple, he could have given them a little more resistance against promises by unknown one´s.
9. It was God that made a fault in his creation.
10 God is almighty - Adam and Eve aren´t
11. If God didn´t want them to at the apple, they would not have eaten the apple.

The "free will" is also created by God. if the will is weak, God made a mistake.
God only created the "charakter" of Adam and Eve - he forgot to educate them. To tell them that they had to follow comands. He forgot to be patient with them during their education. He was a very bad educator and a creator that created too many faults in his creation.

And free will or free choice is often imposible for people in the bible.


Example:

Do you think it was Juda´s will to be a traitor to Jesus?
Do you think it was the will of the jews and the romans to crucify Jesus?

Judas, and the others in the plan only did what God wanted them to do. God wanted Jesus to be crucified. No free will in the whole story.

God wanted Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit - the sama way he wanted Jesus to be cruzified.



I even think that "free will" is a romantic thing that really does not exist. Your will is part of your charakter AND of your education and environment.

I think for or example that it was not your free will to be a born again. It were the circumstances that brought you to this religion. If you were born in Saudi Arabia I think today you would be sitting with friends talking about the only right religion - the Islam!

It is casual that you are born again and it is also casual that a homosexual is a homosexual or a woman a woman.

And God is NOT a good parent. A good parent knows that their childreen will make a lot of failures and try to do anything against it. He just gave a comando and as his children broke the comand he made them mortal - he killed them! This is not the way a good father acts.

And yes. Religions tend to be intolerant... I think this says a lot about religions. and Christians are born as sinners. They are sinners from the beginning. Sin is a concept to create fears in order to control people better...

I agree with you, but what I was saying people say a lot of the time "Christianity did the crusades/inqusiotion etc" when actually its "Christians did the crusades etc". They are subtley diffrent grammaticly but majorly diffrent in meaning. The ideas behind the Crusades were not enshrined in the Bible or anything like that (unlike the Koran where Holy war is outlined and explained). Christianity is a set of beliefs and principals, Christians are people who attemt to follow those beliefs and principals. There is an important diffrence.

The fact that crusades, inquisition, "witchburning" exited shows that there is enough room in the bible to think that christians should act this way.

The Holy war in the Koran is a concept in order to DEFEND the believers of this religion. Normally Moslems used to be more tolerant with other religins than christians.

It seems that "intolerance" is a part of the jewish-christian-muslim religion.




I think it would be very interestant for you to read about the concepts of the jewish "Tora". You will find a lot of very problematic things over people that are not jewish "Goyim"- and this also seems to be the will of the same God of the Christians.

Not 'obvioulsy' since there is no other form of 'obvious' sex.

Really? No other species seems to have trouble figuring it out... and since they can't really reason, I suppose it must be pretty obvious to them.

There is nothing in the biological design of the anus to suggest penetration is healthy or desireable. It can be extremely damaging.

Vaginal sex can be extremely damaging too, but that doesn't change the fact that it is part of biology.

There is the "G-spot" arguement but this is a pleasure system.

If it is a "pleasure system," then it is there to be used for pleasure.

It has been shown by the electrocuted rat pleasure sensors experiment that if we do things purely for pleasure the only result is poor health and eventually maybe even death.

I don't know the exact study you are talking about, but I think you are misinterpreting the experiments. If you constantly stimulate sensors, it will make you unhealthy. However, it will not if you do it on occasion. There is no reason for the male G-spot or the female clitoris *except* pleasure. And occasional orgasms have a very beneficial effect on health.

Just because it is pleasusrable does not make it biologicaly sensable.

You claim that the body was designed. If there are organs with no other purpose than pleasure, then using them for pleasure is the only biologically sensible thing to do. It's not like I can think or breathe with my clitoris.

Not allowing Gays to marry does not cause them suffering nor do they particulaly want gay marriage. For example, in London Gay marriage is effectively equal to straight marriage in all but name (exact same rights) yet only 1% of Londons vast Gay community have chosen to use it.

Yes, and the gay community in London is representative of the entire world. Have you looked into the statistics *in general* for marriage in London? I would be willing to bet money that they aren't all that high.

Not allowing homosexuals the legal protections afforded to other people *does* cause them suffering, especially in the unfortunate case that their partner is very sick or dies.

Neocannan, you conveniantly ignored the argument I made about low monogomy rates between homosexuals in you reply so I will say it again. The reason why homosexuals have lower rates of monogomy and marraige (where they are legally permitted) is the deterrent the social stigma they experience by openly living their life as gay couples provides.

I shows your blatant discriminitory attitude when you doggedly keep trying to convince us that gays are not monogomous loving couples and aren't oppressed by not being allowed to marry. It shows a fundamental lack of humanity, empathy, and reasoning.

Do you think it true that somehow, gay partners don't fall in love with each other, nor want to commit there lives to making each other happy? That they are just emotionless shells with no feelings other than lust for anal sex?

Masturbation is a sin...


Not according to the Bible.

Not according to the Bible.
What about all that spilling your seed stuff?

What about all that spilling your seed stuff?

Onan's sin wasn't the 'spilling of the seed'.

His sin was not impregnating his dead brother's wife - which was a Levitical law requirement.

Strong's Concordance gives the following as a reference for Onan:

Onan = "strong"
second son of Judah, slain by God for not fulfilling the levitical requirement to beget a child with the wife of a dead, childless brother.

Anyone who takes it as a reference to masturbation, is doing so against the intent of the scripture, and with deliberate disregard to the actual text, as written.

Onan's sin wasn't the 'spilling of the seed'.

His sin was not impregnating his dead brother's wife - which was a Levitical law requirement.

Strong's Concordance gives the following as a reference for Onan:

Onan = "strong"
second son of Judah, slain by God for not fulfilling the levitical requirement to beget a child with the wife of a dead, childless brother.

Anyone who takes it as a reference to masturbation, is doing so against the intent of the scripture, and with deliberate disregard to the actual text, as written.
Hmmm I thought it was stated elsewhere … I seem to remember but I too lazy to to find out (got to leave for class at 5) either way I still think it is idiotic :)

Hmmm I thought it was stated elsewhere … I seem to remember but I too lazy to to find out (got to leave for class at 5) either way I still think it is idiotic :)

I have to admit, I don't recall another verse... not that is used as frequently or as specifically...

But, it is a VAGUE possibility that I could be wrong... :)

Acording to Religious conservatives marriage is between a man and a women. Basing upon this logic Homosexual sex can just be considered adultry; thus a sin. Although wether you agreee with the conservatives is another matter....... P.S. is this the longest thread ever?

1. God is almighty
2. Nothing can happen or exist against HIS will
3. If something exists, it exists because he wants it to exist
4. He created the whole existence as he wanted. No one forced him to create anything.
5. He created Luzifer, the serpent and he created Adam and Eve.
6. He knew they would eat from the forbidden fruit if the serpent tells them to do so.
7. Adam and Eve were created the way that they had to eat the apple
8. If God did not want them to eat the apple, he could have given them a little more resistance against promises by unknown one´s.
9. It was God that made a fault in his creation.
10 God is almighty - Adam and Eve aren´t
11. If God didn´t want them to at the apple, they would not have eaten the apple.

The "free will" is also created by God. if the will is weak, God made a mistake.
God only created the "charakter" of Adam and Eve - he forgot to educate them. To tell them that they had to follow comands. He forgot to be patient with them during their education. He was a very bad educator and a creator that created too many faults in his creation.

And free will or free choice is often imposible for people in the bible.


There is a diffrence between "What God wants" and the theological and Biblical concept of "God's will". God's original plan had been him and us in Eden. What God wants is the following four concepts

God's people
Living in God's place
Living under God's rule
Enjoying God's blessing

Yet "God's Will" the theological and Biblical concept behind the events you describe is diffrent. That is the part that is beyond our comprehention. We know God set various events in motion but we dont know how precisely.



And God is NOT a good parent. A good parent knows that their childreen will make a lot of failures and try to do anything against it. He just gave a comando and as his children broke the comand he made them mortal - he killed them! This is not the way a good father acts.


In his full wrath, God could have killed them both. He had the right to. At any time God could have wiped out the entire human race, up till the crucifixtion. What precisely would you have done in God's position. Remember this is GOD we are talking about. The creator of the universe. This man has every right to get angry. He provided a universe for them to live in, plants to feed (and later clothe) them everything they needed was in that one garden. But they had to go for the one thing they couldnt have. Destroying the perfect world is like shattering glass. One small hole can bring the whole thing into pieces.


And yes. Religions tend to be intolerant... I think this says a lot about religions. and Christians are born as sinners. They are sinners from the beginning. Sin is a concept to create fears in order to control people better...

Intollerant of? People not in there religion. They dont go round disrupting their lives. Maybe on the extreme fringes but not in the mainstreem. Intollerant of sin? That would make them intollerant of themselves. How does the idea that you are a sinner control people? You have done something wrong but it doesnt matter because in the end you are forgiven if your a Christian. You just have to do your best to not sin and do as the Bible says you should. To me that doesnt sound like intollerence, just belief systems. Never in the Bible's new covenent does it encourage people to go around killing or attacking in anyway sinnerers or members of other faiths.

Oh Neo ;)

I think you are fooling us ;)

Being the creator of anything doesn´t give the creator the right to destroy his creation.

And it is quite silly to think that the creature shall pay for the failures of the creator. And if the creator is almighty - he is the responsable for the failure.

I think you want to provocate. It is quite imposible for me to think that you can maintain the story of "God is not guilty - it was Adam´s and eve´s fault"

Perhaps you should read Thomas Aquin (I hope this is the right name in English).

In the catholic Church they discussed for centurys about the problem "who created evil?" and I think they will discuss this for thousand of years. ;)

I forgot: in the bible you will find a lot of descriptions of God killing non-believers. Just count how often you find negative descriptions like the God of vengance in the bible and how often God is described positively as the God of love...

A big part of the wars in history had a religious background. Intolerance seems to be immanent in religions. i don´t know why- but this is the fact.

Being the creator of anything doesn´t give the creator the right to destroy his creation.


Wages of sin are death. No question. God makes that very clear from the start. You want to question God's logic go talk to him. Pray, meditiate etc but dont say "thats stupid" because we are discussing Christian teachings. If you are going to discuss why Christianity itself is flawed do it in another post.


And it is quite silly to think that the creature shall pay for the failures of the creator. And if the creator is almighty - he is the responsable for the failure.

I think you want to provocate. It is quite imposible for me to think that you can maintain the story of "God is not guilty - it was Adam´s and eve´s fault"


Why, they sined. They were warned. They were told fully what was happening. The devil may have tempted them but dont forget he was punished too. Whos fault is it if not theirs. Dont say God as he did nothing wrong in this. He didn't push them, he didnt encourage them. God did nothing wrong in Eden.


I forgot: in the bible you will find a lot of descriptions of God killing non-believers. Just count how often you find negative descriptions like the God of vengance in the bible and how often God is described positively as the God of love...


Which Covenent did I say to look at? And while this is God doing these things, he does not encourage it as a general rule amoung his people "Go out and kill everyone not of your faith etc" or anything like that. He is clear and unambigous when it comes to conflicts. He does not generalise with wars.



A big part of the wars in history had a religious background. Intolerance seems to be immanent in religions. i don´t know why- but this is the fact.

No, Religious followers have a big part in wars. But territory and money have been greater causes. Religion itself is a belief system and idealogical basis. It does not cause wars. Religious followers who take their views out of context or misinterpret them do however.

Can you show me the part in the bible where I can find that God educated Adam and Eve?

He created them following his nature (i don´t know exactly the english expression).

... If the copy was made following an original you can see the original through the copy...


After creating them he gave orders and left them alone with another creation of him - the serpent...

God did not educate Adam and Eve. He only gave comands - this is no education.

Even a dog needs to be educated. If I let my dog alone without being sure that he will bite someone it is MY fault if he bites. The dog will follow his nature.

The nature "programed" by God for Adam and eve was to disobey.
The nature "programed" by God for Kain was to kill his brother.

Why are you so absolutely sure that God does not want evil things to happen??? He will know the reason.

And it seems to me that it is easy to be radical and fundamentalist when religion is on the way.
You can argue about logic - but where is religion there is often no logic. People often killed each other only because of the definition of the nature of Jesus...

I did not say that religion causes wars - but religion is used as a cause to go to war.

Wages of sin are death. No question. God makes that very clear from the start. You want to question God's logic go talk to him. Pray, meditiate etc but dont say "thats stupid" because we are discussing Christian teachings. If you are going to discuss why Christianity itself is flawed do it in another post.

I do not question God´s logic. I question the logic of people who only see one way to see the things. What gives you the right to say God did not want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit????

The construct with "choice"? It is not convincing. it is not MY choice that Eve ate the fruit.

God will know why he does the things he does and why he creates the thing he creates the way he does it.

We are not allowed to surely know God´s plans...

And given the choice to elect a "life as inmortal" in eden - boring and as a sheep without knowing what is good or bad... and the choice to break the comand and to reach a higher step in the evolution... I think perhaps Eve did the right choice.

On the other side. Imagine your grandfather had broken one comand and you should be killed because of this... Not fair...

Next point - God is not fair. Eve ate the fruit and you have also to pay the bill
;)

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
Plain and simple, whatever God has proclaimed as sin, is sin. Sin is that which falls short of the mark of righteousness. God is a holy God and cannot countenance wickedness. No matter if you or I are born with a tendency toward a sexual desire that is forbidden by God or by aggressive actions that are forbidden by God, we are responsible for our actions. We are both born into this world as sinners, enemies of God, and are both deserving of His wrath and indignation. On some he will pour out that very wrath, and on some he will graciously save from it.

Heres a crazy idea we can all just leave our respect churches and join a religion that teaches tolerance of other sexualities and other religions. Like some form of Bhuddism, plus you get to muck around with neat little incense sticks, lol. But seriously they dont care if you are gay or straight...probably because you dont have sex. And they some forms dont care what God/Gods you worship. So lets cut the crap and let's all shave our heads.

Re:Bush leading us too the amargeddon.

Bill gates is pushing too with the release of his e-wallet. When the world goes wireless all the rich people get barcodes put on their right arms, thats pretty much what the ewallet is, a little barcode with your whole life in it.

Back to the gay thing, I just wanna get married someday and maybe have a kid or four. Gene Tech should be far enough along that we dont need a woman to make the embryo by then. which will be good othewise you gotta choose which parent then with who. very messy.

Plain and simple, whatever God has proclaimed as sin, is sin. Sin is that which falls short of the mark of righteousness. God is a holy God and cannot countenance wickedness. No matter if you or I are born with a tendency toward a sexual desire that is forbidden by God or by aggressive actions that are forbidden by God, we are responsible for our actions. We are both born into this world as sinners, enemies of God, and are both deserving of His wrath and indignation. On some he will pour out that very wrath, and on some he will graciously save from it.


Let's straighten a few terms first, please. God didn't say anything. A bunch of old, biased Jewish men wrote the Bible, -note that this is no slight against Judaism, I've got Jewish family and I love them to death- they made the rules that worked for them during their time. Their population was low, so any non-essential breeding behavior was frowned on. Why? What better way to spread your particular faith than to breed members right into it, that you can train to think the way you want them to think from birth, rather than try to change the opinions of others.

Also remember, that, at it's very core, the Old Testament reads like a pet-care manual: don't eat this, always wait two weeks after a menstural cycle to do this, if someone rips you off you're entitled to a pound of flesh to keep the peace and so on and so on. All it is, is a big book on how to raise and breed human beings, I hate to be so blunt, but look at it without being swamped by all the pretty descriptions and supposedly beautiful passages (most of which are damned boring to read, btw), that is what it's really about.

God didn't say anything, a bunch of old guys, who we have no way of proving the truth or veracity of their statements said "God said this". But there's no proof that God actually told them a thing, I find it really odd, since from the looks of it God talked up a storm back in the old days, you don't hear a peep out of him now. (Unless you really belive in Grilled Cheese Sandwich Madonnas and all.)

It's the same as working middle management, you get some note from your boss, and then, to make your subordinates work easier for you, you tell them that the Boss said something. You maybe fudge a sentence or two to make life easier for you, either way, something the Boss mentioned in passing to you, you can suddenly turn into a giant rule for those lower than you. Will your subordinates question you? or go over your head to ask the Boss? No, because - as far as they're willing to pry- it came from "the Boss" himself. It makes one nice little control mechanism if you ask me.

As some people are fond of pointing out to me, "God inspired the Bible". "Inspired" is not the same as "sat down and wrote it himself," Man wrote the Bible, and Man -as we can plainly see every single day- is a very falible creature. So, if the Bible teachings are flawed, and they are, it's not God's fault, it's the morons who try to pass off something their 600-back grandfathers wrote and decided to unleash as a big choke-chain on the people around them to justify their own ideas.

The same goes for that idea that everyone is born in sin. Y'know what? The world would be a much better place if people could just work on a level field of goodness from the start. What the hell is the point of trying if you're already evil and unclean and unworthy, literaly from the word Go? Scrape and bow and give lip service to the idea that maybe you'll be found just good enough to squeak by the pearly gates? Screw that, there isn't even any proof that the place exists, and I have enough crap in my life to deal with without having to pay favors to the invisible man in the sky, a protoplasmic Big Brother, who's constantly PMSing and willing to push the smite button just because he can. That doesn't sound like He loves his children very much, seeing as how he made everyone, not just his 'chosen people.'

I don't belive in an evil-ass God like that, that's just sadistic and you're all masochistic-gluttons for punishment if you ever belive someone who denies just how beautiful you are, the way you are.

READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT BEFORE MAKING ANY RE'S

While homosexuality is a sin...it does not appear to piss god off too much

Punishment for sodomy was (old testament) a cleansing ritual

Punishment for adultery public hanging or stoned or some other kind of death

Punishment for sodomy now (Bush Administration) public hanging lol

Maybe god experimented when he went to college

God doesnt care if you are gay or not

HE LOVES US as we are

In 276 pages no-one has said this yet... WHY THE FUCK NOT????

Because you are all too busy in the old testament

Jesus(new testament now guys, did you even know there was a guy called Jesus cause no-one has talked aobut him yet) came with an instruction manual, we killed him but the manual stayed, he taught us everything we need to know, and if he didnt then the rest of the new testament does.

It is fine to LEARN from the old testament but you cant LIVE by it anymore

That is part of the reason jesus came... that and the sin thing, he even split time people, to remind us to stop living in the past.

BTW
You guys (and girls, maybe) are acting no better than all the peeps that started religious wars, only with words. It is spiggin ridiculous, because you are all forgetting the main point/s.

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON etc He loves you no matter what, he may not like the things you do but that is understandable, after all the things we did to him.

Put it this way he KILLED his son so we could live. Close this thread and get over yourselves.

BTW sorry about the long post... but it wont be the last ;) ;) ;)

Why is homosexuality a sin? better to ask; what is a sin? what defines sin? why is say; murder a sin? or adultery? or Thievery? most people would agree that those three are sins (Definitions of 'adultery' are wildly varied but the fact that every culture that accepts marriage as a norm also accepts some form of adultery as a sin) but why? because the Bible says so? the Bible also says that women go to church or other public places without a hat or other such head cover. Because they're wrong? define wrong find for me two people out of the entire population of the workd that have exactly the same definitions of right and wrong, they don't exist, if they do, then one of them is lying

riidle me this, riddle me that...


note; I am neither gay nor against gays

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

GOOD CALL!!!
Um no. Where the fuck in the bible does it say "AND GOD NUKED THE FAGS". Maybe in your bible, but none of the ones I read. Ignorant, arrogant homophobe.

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

Genesis 19:5
"And they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out, so we may know them!'"

Hm. Sodom was a desolate little town which, due to its location, was constantly being fought over. "Bring them out so we may know them!" sounds like a reasonable demand. "Know" could mean "to have carnal knowledge of", but it doesn't seem any more likely than all the rest of the non-sexual "knows" in the bible. It seems perfectly reasonable that they'd have reason to suspect Lot, a foreigner in his own right, of bringing enemies into the midst of their town. and Lot, the "most righteous man" in Sodom, responds by OFFERING HIS TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS TO BE RAPED BY THE CROWD SO THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE. I believe this town's problems run much deeper than homosexuality, if homosexuality is indeed their crime.

Because Christians are idiots who pitifully cling to their religion that's fully comprised of lies.

Because Christians are idiots who pitifully cling to their religion that's fully comprised of lies.
Yes way to go with the well constructed and thought out argument!
So why should anyone give any head to your argument when they have the intellectual weight of a ten day old dog Sh*t?
If like me you don't really count your self as a Christian (though I'm a borderline agnostic rather than anything else) why should it matter to you what they think, as by thier own teachings they are not in a position to judge anyone.
So to quote (as is my want), something for you to think about.
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.'

READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT BEFORE MAKING ANY RE'S

While homosexuality is a sin...it does not appear to piss god off too much

Punishment for sodomy was (old testament) a cleansing ritual

Punishment for adultery public hanging or stoned or some other kind of death

Punishment for sodomy now (Bush Administration) public hanging lol

Maybe god experimented when he went to college

God doesnt care if you are gay or not

HE LOVES US as we are

In 276 pages no-one has said this yet... WHY THE FUCK NOT????



*taps shoulder* Uhmm, actually, I did say that. :)

"I don't belive in an evil-ass God like that, that's just sadistic and you're all masochistic-gluttons for punishment if you ever belive someone who denies just how beautiful you are, the way you are."

My logic is, if God didn't want there to be homosexuality, he wouldn't have made it physically possible. Simple as that, oh, and he wouldn't have made it enjoyable either.

I always find that the entertainment value in these arguments peaks on page 278. Ooh, I can't wait!

My logic is, if God didn't want there to be homosexuality, he wouldn't have made it physically possible. Simple as that, oh, and he wouldn't have made it enjoyable either.

By making any sin physicaly impossible God is removing the idea of choice and indepenence. Without the ability to sin or not we are no better than pre-programmed robots.

Genesis 19:5
"And they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out, so we may know them!'"

Hm. Sodom was a desolate little town which, due to its location, was constantly being fought over. "Bring them out so we may know them!" sounds like a reasonable demand. "Know" could mean "to have carnal knowledge of", but it doesn't seem any more likely than all the rest of the non-sexual "knows" in the bible. It seems perfectly reasonable that they'd have reason to suspect Lot, a foreigner in his own right, of bringing enemies into the midst of their town. and Lot, the "most righteous man" in Sodom, responds by OFFERING HIS TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS TO BE RAPED BY THE CROWD SO THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE. I believe this town's problems run much deeper than homosexuality, if homosexuality is indeed their crime.

If it was any other "Know" apart from sexual, then why would he send out his two virgin daughters to appease them?

By making any sin physicaly impossible God is removing the idea of choice and indepenence. Without the ability to sin or not we are no better than pre-programmed robots.

I'd say thats not such a bad alternative over having 'free will', but being thrown into a burning pit to suffer for all eternity because I didn't exactly as God wants me to do.

Never mind that, apparently, God doesn't think it's important to lay down these guidelines in a clear manner, let alone explain His reasons for them.

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


I don't recall ever reading or being taught that such a thing occured. Where are you getting your information from?

Can you show me the part in the bible where I can find that God educated Adam and Eve?

He created them following his nature (i don´t know exactly the english expression).


How in there "Natures" is there any cause for them to sin?


After creating them he gave orders and left them alone with another creation of him - the serpent...


Again, the serpent was not part of the creation. It was not created along with all the others, but was a rebel angel who was sent to hell as a result of attempting to overthrow God.


God did not educate Adam and Eve. He only gave comands - this is no education.

Even a dog needs to be educated. If I let my dog alone without being sure that he will bite someone it is MY fault if he bites. The dog will follow his nature.


Flaws in your anology

1) The dog does not understand you
2) The dog is not sentient
3) The dog is not human

And acording to other accounts of creation, not all the fruits in the garden were literal fruits but knowledge giving plants. I havent found the refernce to this exactly but I was informed it by my Church seniors, though I am far from certain about this.


The nature "programed" by God for Adam and eve was to disobey.
The nature "programed" by God for Kain was to kill his brother.


Evidence please. Were you in Eden? Did you do a psycological examination of Adam and Eve. Was it somehow in there nature to do evil. Where exactly did you get this idea.


Why are you so absolutely sure that God does not want evil things to happen??? He will know the reason.


Again the diffrences of "What God wants" and "God's will" as concepts (although gramaticaly they both mean the same thing)

What God Wants = Long term - 4 concepts to be realised
Gods people
Living in God's place
Under God's rule
Enjoying God's blessing

But these will not be realised in there fullness untill the end times (Neo Jerusleum, Hevean and Earth as one)

Short term - For us to lead our lives as he instructed and to spread his message to as many as possible but graciously (street evangalism is not always the best course)

Gods will = The more complicated concept of events God puts into play to achieve his ultimate objectives (which we dont know). These can include seemingly "Evil" things. We just dont know why because we are not God.


And it seems to me that it is easy to be radical and fundamentalist when religion is on the way.
You can argue about logic - but where is religion there is often no logic. People often killed each other only because of the definition of the nature of Jesus...


You forget this was in the time when very few people could read the Bible (or in fact read at all). I agree though, religous followers do cause wars and use religon as an excuse but if you look into the Bible, you would see little to no religous grounds for a war. Thats not to say war is out of the question at all but I cant see any significent religous cause for it as far as Chrsitanity is concerned. If you talk about the crusades, that was a territorial issue. The Saracans occupied former Christian land and so the Europeans tried to take it back.

I'd say thats not such a bad alternative over having 'free will', but being thrown into a burning pit to suffer for all eternity because I didn't exactly as God wants me to do.

Never mind that, apparently, God doesn't think it's important to lay down these guidelines in a clear manner, let alone explain His reasons for them.

God doesnt send people to hell for not obeying his commands. He sends people to hell (at the end and as far as I can understand it) for not only disobeying his commands but ignoring and not accepting that they have broken the commands and not accepting that they have an alterntive and a person who died to remove their sin .He does lay down guidelines in a clear manner. In every culture homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is condemend. That doesnt sound like a cultural law to me, but a universal law.

Flaws in your anology

1) The dog does not understand you
2) The dog is not sentient
3) The dog is not human

1) Do we understand God?
2) Yes it is.
3) Relevance?

I don't recall ever reading or being taught that such a thing occured. Where are you getting your information from?

He is refering to Soddom and Goumorgh, see Genesis 19

1) Do we understand God?


We have the Bible, if any more understanding was nessecary God would have given it to us. Adam and Eve understood him. He spoke directly to them and there is nothing to suggest they didnt understand him. If they didnt they would say such things as "Who are you?" etc.


2) Yes it is.


No its not. By sentient I mean self aware and existing on thought rather than instinct. A dog thinks "Need food = eat" where as we think "Im hungry but If I eat too much I may get fat" or something else more complex. Humands are sentient beings, the only ones on the planet.

God doesnt send people to hell for not obeying his commands. He sends people to hell (at the end and as far as I can understand it) for not only disobeying his commands but ignoring and not accepting that they have broken the commands and not accepting that they have an alterntive and a person who died to remove their sin .He does lay down guidelines in a clear manner. In every culture homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is condemend. That doesnt sound like a cultural law to me, but a universal law.

If He laid them down in a clear manner, why do we need to discuss them? Why are there so many translations? Why are there so many religions/faiths?

We have the Bible, if any more understanding was nessecary God would have given it to us. Adam and Eve understood him. He spoke directly to them and there is nothing to suggest they didnt understand him. If they didnt they would say such things as "Who are you?" etc.

*You* have the bible, which *you* claim is the Word of God.
I see no reason to assume it is.

No its not. By sentient I mean self aware and existing on thought rather than instinct. A dog thinks "Need food = eat" where as we think "Im hungry but If I eat too much I may get fat" or something else more complex. Humands are sentient beings, the only ones on the planet.

Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Thanks for the link - that was very informative. Although I pretty much entirely disagree with Neo, I think we can assume he was referring to sapience instead of sentience.

Neocannan, you conveniantly ignored the argument I made about low monogomy rates between homosexuals in you reply so I will say it again. The reason why homosexuals have lower rates of monogomy and marraige (where they are legally permitted) is the deterrent the social stigma they experience by openly living their life as gay couples provides.

I shows your blatant discriminitory attitude when you doggedly keep trying to convince us that gays are not monogomous loving couples and aren't oppressed by not being allowed to marry. It shows a fundamental lack of humanity, empathy, and reasoning.

Do you think it true that somehow, gay partners don't fall in love with each other, nor want to commit there lives to making each other happy? That they are just emotionless shells with no feelings other than lust for anal sex?


I'd like to know your response Neo...

I do believe in gay marriage and gay adoption and things even though I'm not 100% how I feel about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. I know it sounds like a cop-out but I guess I just don't understand enough about homosexuality - I can honestly say that I've never felt attracted to another woman, so it's hard for me to imagine what it would be like. And I haven't studied enough to know if there's any kind of a definitive answer on the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate, i.e. whether people are just "born that way" or if various life events and parenting "make" people gay, for lack of a better way to put it - for example if a boy is raised only by his mother (who perhaps wanted a girl) and is very much a "mummy's boy", always craving her affection and imitating her, and he becomes quite effeminate, and he is gay when he gets older, would he have been the same way if he was raised with both parents or just his dad, or was it his mother's influence that made him think more stereotypically like a woman, and feel more comfortable in a typically feminine role, etc? I work for Social Services at the moment and we have a case just like this, which is why I bring it up.

If it helps, I was raised Catholic but am now effectively agnostic; I guess I still believe in God and Jesus but I haven't been to church in years and I disagree with a lot of things, like the role of women in marriage and in the church, and contraception.

So is it a sin? I have no idea, basically. To me the best argument against it has always been that it seems "unnatural", but if it is biological then it is natural and that argument makes no sense. Besides, it seems a bit cruel of God to make people gay and then say that an essential part of their identity or who they are is sinful.

That probably made no sense and didn't help at all and I'm sure no one cares but I just felt like sharing.

I'd like to know your response Neo...

The largest study of sexual behaviour and attitudes ever carried out in the UK was published in 1994. The reseachers, Kaye Wellings, Anne Johnson and colleagues, published their findings in two reports: Sexual Behaviour in Britain and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. They found that only 0.3% of men report exclusively homosexual sexual partners in the past year. These were people across a wide varitity of ages, not just one age group.

*You* have the bible, which *you* claim is the Word of God.
I see no reason to assume it is

Stop spouting "The bible is wrong as their is no proof its right" arguement. If you believe the Bible is wrong then you do not believe there are any sins. Ergo there is little point in you arguing in this debate as we are looking at homosexuality from a Chrisitan perspective.

If He laid them down in a clear manner, why do we need to discuss them? Why are there so many translations? Why are there so many religions/faiths?

Because people never can agree, AND say that Jesus didn't condemn it. Can anyone point out a place where Jesus condemns murder or sex with an animal (I know, but it's only an example…)? They were condemned earlier - and as the laws were still kept, he didn't need to say anything about them.

Stop smugly saying the bible is wrong. We're looking at this from a religious, not legal perspective: SIN - the word is religious!

Stop spouting "The bible is wrong as their is no proof its right" arguement. If you believe the Bible is wrong then you do not believe there are any sins. Ergo there is little point in you arguing in this debate as we are looking at homosexuality from a Chrisitan perspective.


Neo, you wouldn't be having this debate if we were only looking at homosexuality as a sin from the christian view point.

The origional question asked if homosexuality was a sin, your views, as a christian, have been well documented on this thread, one of the opposing views, from other christians and athiests ad perhaps some other religious groups argue the other view that it is not!

You cannot expect a debate on a subject with only one viewpoint being allowed.

Neo, you wouldn't be having this debate if we were only looking at homosexuality as a sin from the christian view point.

The origional question asked if homosexuality was a sin, your views, as a christian, have been well documented on this thread, one of the opposing views, from other christians and athiests ad perhaps some other religious groups argue the other view that it is not!

You cannot expect a debate on a subject with only one viewpoint being allowed.

You miss my point. If you dont believe the Bible is at all accurate, that God does not exist etc then there is no point in debating this as it is a religious discussion. HOWEVER if you are prepared to debate within the confines of religion and looking at the concepts of religon then that makes more sense. But simpley spouting "God doesnt exist so its not a sin because there is no such thing as a sin" is silly.

Because people never can agree, AND say that Jesus didn't condemn it. Can anyone point out a place where Jesus condemns murder or sex with an animal (I know, but it's only an example…)? They were condemned earlier - and as the laws were still kept, he didn't need to say anything about them.

Stop smugly saying the bible is wrong. We're looking at this from a religious, not legal perspective: SIN - the word is religious!

SIN may be a religious word but it has been hijacked by every day language and is used commonly to mean "wrong", it may have started out as a religious verb to mean wrongdoing but in todays language it is not exclusive to religon.

You miss my point. If you dont believe the Bible is at all accurate, that God does not exist etc then there is no point in debating this as it is a religious discussion. HOWEVER if you are prepared to debate within the confines of religion and looking at the concepts of religon then that makes more sense. But simpley spouting "God doesnt exist so its not a sin because there is no such thing as a sin" is silly.


But you are using your christianity to point out why you think it is wrong, you are in essence saying those of us who do not believe in god or the bible have no valid right or argument against you.
In other words, your idea is just as silly to us!

You simply cannot dismiss an argument because the other person doesn't share your beliefs.
Look at the word "sin" and change it to "wrong", they basically mean the same thing, therefor, non-believers have as much right to argue their view on the subject as you do.

SIN may be a religious word but it has been hijacked by every day language and is used commonly to mean "wrong", it may have started out as a religious verb to mean wrongdoing but in todays language it is not exclusive to religon.

When something is hijacked, logic dictates that it originally belonged to someone else. The concepts of Sin and Wrong are diffrent. Sin is the idea of an act that God said is forbiden. Wrong is an act that society believes is inapropriate at its least and horrific at its worst. Sin is far more iron cast.

But you are using your christianity to point out why you think it is wrong, you are in essence saying those of us who do not believe in god or the bible have no valid right or argument against you.
In other words, your idea is just as silly to us!

You simply cannot dismiss an argument because the other person doesn't share your beliefs.
Look at the word "sin" and change it to "wrong", they basically mean the same thing, therefor, non-believers have as much right to argue their view on the subject as you do.

Sin and wrong do not mean the same thing. See above. My point is if you want to argue that God doesnt exist then thats fine, but that isnt what this debate is. This debate is about homosexuality as a SIN. And like it or not SIN is a religous word. In recent times it may have been mistaken for WRONG but it is not the same thing. If people can use Christian ideas, Bible verses, Theological concepts etc to prove homosexuality as not being a sin then that is fine and I will debate with that. But just spouting the idea that the Bible is wholely wrong and so therefore there is no such thing as sin is not something that should be in place when it has already been established that sin exists (the debate is "Why is homosexuality a sin")

Sin and wrong do not mean the same thing. See above. My point is if you want to argue that God doesnt exist then thats fine, but that isnt what this debate is. This debate is about homosexuality as a SIN. And like it or not SIN is a religous word. In recent times it may have been mistaken for WRONG but it is not the same thing. If people can use Christian ideas, Bible verses, Theological concepts etc to prove homosexuality as not being a sin then that is fine and I will debate with that. But just spouting the idea that the Bible is wholely wrong and so therefore there is no such thing as sin is not something that should be in place when it has already been established that sin exists (the debate is "Why is homosexuality a sin")


*sigh*
Neo, I can understand you getting upset when people come online and dismiss your religon offhand (I may have been guilty of that, if so I appologise) but I will still argue that sin has not been established as a fact. In your world (christianity) a sin is a wrong against your Gods commandments, in my world (non-religous) a sin is a wrong against common and decent morals (murder, theft, pretty much everything in the ten commandments).
I see the bible as an outdated, but still meaningful, guide on morality, nothing more.
I choose to follow a lot of the same morals that the ten commandments say and therefor I feel totally justified in taking part in this debate.

*sigh*
Neo, I can understand you getting upset when people come online and dismiss your religon offhand (I may have been guilty of that, if so I appologise) but I will still argue that sin has not been established as a fact. In your world (christianity) a sin is a wrong against your Gods commandments, in my world (non-religous) a sin is a wrong against common and decent morals (murder, theft, pretty much everything in the ten commandments).
I see the bible as an outdated, but still meaningful, guide on morality, nothing more.
I choose to follow a lot of the same morals that the ten commandments say and therefor I feel totally justified in taking part in this debate.

Let's not even get STARTED on the Ten Commandments...

*sigh*
Neo, I can understand you getting upset when people come online and dismiss your religon offhand (I may have been guilty of that, if so I appologise) but I will still argue that sin has not been established as a fact. In your world (christianity) a sin is a wrong against your Gods commandments, in my world (non-religous) a sin is a wrong against common and decent morals (murder, theft, pretty much everything in the ten commandments).
I see the bible as an outdated, but still meaningful, guide on morality, nothing more.
I choose to follow a lot of the same morals that the ten commandments say and therefor I feel totally justified in taking part in this debate.

You yourself pointed out that sin was hijacked into meaning wrong by modern language. Sin is not and only recently is a word meaning wrong. Only recently has it been hijacked and I think thats very unfair of those (In the same ways I feel sorry for the Jews when people use "Kosher" as meaning 'not dodgey') . This thread is not for debating wether or not God exists. It already assumes God exists and then asks "does he or doesnt he oppose homosexuality and if not/so why".

Let's not even get STARTED on the Ten Commandments...


Oh come on Grave, why not? :P

Let's not even get STARTED on the Ten Commandments...

Whats wrong with the ten commandments? They are a basic set of rules which all Christians agree with and Non Christians agree with the non religous ones (The first 4 being specific to God, the other 6 being about person to person law).

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

Acting on the desires and sleeping with others of same sex.

Thinking about sleeping with them is bad too.

Juist thought I'd answered where the line is drawn. All fornifiication is sin even when done by homosexuals.

Althought Lesbians are not mentioned much in bible...

The largest study of sexual behaviour and attitudes ever carried out in the UK was published in 1994. The reseachers, Kaye Wellings, Anne Johnson and colleagues, published their findings in two reports: Sexual Behaviour in Britain and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. They found that only 0.3% of men report exclusively homosexual sexual partners in the past year. These were people across a wide varitity of ages, not just one age group.

Well, what does that prove? put in a context that says something. And what about the rest of my questions? Do you think homosexuals are incapable of love??

Well, what does that prove? put in a context that says something. And what about the rest of my questions? Do you think homosexuals are incapable of love??

It proves that Homosexuals do not want Gay marriage, therefore they are not "Percecuted" as so many claim by not having it. And while I believe homosexuals are capablie of love, it is not love as God intended or created it. There is plenty of good things God gave us that humans have corrupted beyond reason eg alcohol, sex, love etc.

It proves that Homosexuals do not want Gay marriage, therefore they are not "Percecuted" as so many claim by not having it. And while I believe homosexuals are capablie of love, it is not love as God intended or created it. There is plenty of good things God gave us that humans have corrupted beyond reason eg alcohol, sex, love etc.
Wanting to get married and wanting the right to marry are two different things that are relatively unrelated.

Wanting to get married and wanting the right to marry are two different things that are relatively unrelated.

I dont see how. Throught history people only have gotten rights when they have been demanded. If you look at the demands now, very few of them are comming from the Gay lobby. Most of them are liberals trying to find birds with broken wings. And anyway, if they rearly do love each other why do they need the rights laws etc that go with marriage?

I dont see how. Throught history people only have gotten rights when they have been demanded. If you look at the demands now, very few of them are comming from the Gay lobby. Most of them are liberals trying to find birds with broken wings. And anyway, if they rearly do love each other why do they need the rights laws etc that go with marriage?
Let's say you want the right to vote. I know voter turn-out in our last provincial election was 45% (an all-time low). Just because people don't turn out to vote doesn't mean they don't want or deserve the right to vote. The two things are unrelated.

I don't know who the Gay lobby are, but regardless of who is championing the cause of equal rights, it seems a cause everyone should be concerned with, because equal rights affects us all. Two people wanting to get married affects only them.

It proves that Homosexuals do not want Gay marriage, therefore they are not "Percecuted" as so many claim by not having it.


Selective amnesia?

What has the searing trail of posts over hundreds of pages taught you, if not that gays would like very much to marry and think that the attempts by bible-wielding hypocrites to stop them is tantamount to tyranny?


And while I believe homosexuals are capablie of love,


Well that's a change of tack.


it is not love as God intended or created it.


That's OK, because your god has nothing to do with me. Now, why shouldn't gays marry?

Let's say you want the right to vote. I know voter turn-out in our last provincial election was 45% (an all-time low). Just because people don't turn out to vote doesn't mean they don't want or deserve the right to vote. The two things are unrelated.

I don't know who the Gay lobby are, but regardless of who is championing the cause of equal rights, it seems a cause everyone should be concerned with, because equal rights affects us all. Two people wanting to get married affects only them.

Your anology is flawed. That right already exists and 45& is a far higher percentage than 0.3%. If 0.3% of people want something and a far higher percent dont, which one should you listen to?

Selective amnesia?

What has the searing trail of posts over hundreds of pages taught you, if not that gays would like very much to marry and think that the attempts by bible-wielding hypocrites to stop them is tantamount to tyranny?


Homosexuality is not comparable to hetrosexuality but with diffrent sexs as many people think. It is an entirely diffrent culture. Monogomy is not desired amoungst a great deal of their populas as that study shows


That's OK, because your god has nothing to do with me. Now, why shouldn't gays marry?

1) They dont want it

2) Why do they need it if they rearly love each other

3) The majority dont want them to, and this is a democracy (see fox hunting as a comparable example)

4) (Religous arguement) God's marriage is one man one woman (Genesis 2:24) and so marriage is there from the begining and there is no endorcement of marriage of the same sex varity in the Bible. Also there is no endorcement of homosexuality in the Bible at all.

Your anology is flawed. That right already exists and 45& is a far higher percentage than 0.3%. If 0.3% of people want something and a far higher percent dont, which one should you listen to?
If 0.3% of the people turned out for an election, the results would still have to be counted.

EDIT: And it would still be unrelated to having a right to vote.

If 0.3% of the people turned out for an election, the results would still have to be counted.

EDIT: And it would still be unrelated to having a right to vote.

Thats not my point if 0.3% (gays who want marriage) of people vote one way 9% dont vote (Gays who dont want marriage and dont rearly care) and 70-80% say no (Chrisitian majority population of the US who believe homosexual marriage is against the Bible and the sacntitiy of marriage) then who should win?

EDIT And to those who say that the Christians are uneffected and shouldnt vote on it, I say check out foxhunting in the UK. Its the same thing. A tiny minority group exist who's practice is seen as abhorent by the majority of the population. They complain but in the end democracy wins. That is democracy, if you dont like it you have freedom of movement and thus the right to leave should so you chose.

Homosexuality is not comparable to hetrosexuality but with diffrent sexs as many people think. It is an entirely diffrent culture. Monogomy is not desired amoungst a great deal of their populas as that study shows



1) They dont want it


Again, you are wrong. Look at the past few hundred posts for proof. I certainly want the option available.


2) Why do they need it if they rearly love each other


The rights that come with it, that you and those like you are denying them, for no other reason than your own bloody-minded hypocrisy, hidebound mental processes and make-believe father figures.


3) The majority dont want them to, and this is a democracy (see fox hunting as a comparable example)


The majority didn't want black people voting. Or women. Them damned activist judges changed all that though. You saying we should reverse those decisions because they were "undemocratic"?

Ever heard of a tyranny by the majority? This is what a pure democracy becomes without safeguards to protect the rights of the smallest minority - that minority being the minority of one. You and me.

This is one reason I'm damned glad we both don't live in a pure democracy. 51% of the people theoretically cannot vote to destroy the other 49%, as happened in Germany, oh, about WW2-time. You do know that Hitler got into the position he needed to take power, by democratic means?


4) (Religous arguement) God's marriage is one man one woman (Genesis 2:24) and so marriage is there from the begining and there is no endorcement of marriage of the same sex varity in the Bible. Also there is no endorcement of homosexuality in the Bible at all.

Nice that you would admit it's a religious argument for once. Good, because marriage isn't a religious institution. Christian marriage might be, but that's different. Nobody has ever asked to force any church to marry anyone. Nowhere on this thread or any other. If they have, then I can tell you confidently that they are pretty much only speaking for themselves.

Any more reasons as to why gays should not be allowed marriage?

democracy is not about the right to beat the minority over the head with the will of the majority. after all, when our nation was founded, the majority of the population wanted slavery. was it right? heavens no. but it is an example of how simple majority rule arguments are totally unsupportable. the reason we have checks and balances and a three-branch government is so that we can prevent some of the injustices that the majority may think are ok.

the freedom of movement argument isn't valid either. majority rule has actually existed since the beginning of time.

am i nuts? hardly. every ruler, from tyrant to monarch, has ruled by the consent (tacit or otherwise) of the people. the people haven't always realized they have the ability to dictate to their leaders, and in many instances, that "voice of the people" has involved bloodshed in the case of recalcitrant rulers. however, it is undeniably true that a massive, motivated, and organized group of angry people is every tyrant's worst nightmare.

democracy evolved to meet the desires of humankind to more directly control their governments. this is not the same as majority rule, and in many instances goes directly against it. in point of fact, the US Constitution was immediately amended to include protections for many minorities (the right to free press, free speech, freedom of religion, et al.), thus ensuring that smaller groups would not, and should not, be dictated to by the majority.

and further, just because most of the populace thinks one way is right does not make it good for everyone. even though the majority of American citizens profess to be Christian, that does not mean that outlawing Paganism is okay. nor does it mean denying legal protections to a committed couple in a marriage-like relationship is right either.

the state does not dictate to the church who may or may not be married within the doors of the church. my neighbor cannot tell me who to love. so why can the church tell the state who can and cannot be granted the legal protections and status of a married couple? (not to mention the 1500+ legal rights and responsibilities which accompany that status)

Thats not my point if 0.3% (gays who want marriage) of people vote one way 9% dont vote (Gays who dont want marriage and dont rearly care) and 70-80% say no (Chrisitian majority population of the US who believe homosexual marriage is against the Bible and the sacntitiy of marriage) then who should win?

EDIT And to those who say that the Christians are uneffected and shouldnt vote on it, I say check out foxhunting in the UK. Its the same thing. A tiny minority group exist who's practice is seen as abhorent by the majority of the population. They complain but in the end democracy wins. That is democracy, if you dont like it you have freedom of movement and thus the right to leave should so you chose.

"If you don't like it, leave"
That answer is most likely to make people shout "fuck you" from the rooftops.

As it is, while I'll never go foxhunting myself, I consider it to be your freedom to do such a thing as you wish. I certainly won't tell anyone what you're doing. And so, we see what happens with bad laws: people ignore them.

Maybe if the foxhunters don't give up the fight, and carry on doing what they are doing, they might win a reprieve. Again, we don't live in a pure democracy. To prevent a tyranny of the majority, the rights and freedoms of the smallest minority must be protected. As long as you are not harming me directly by your actions, you should have the freedom to carry on.

Unfortunately people are refusing to learn the lessons of history. Minority groups are being hounded (hoho) again, it seems. Personally I hope the more rabid anti-hunt idiots get their legs caught in the traps that will inevitably replace the dogs.

essentially what this argument boils down to is this:

there are people who, for religious beliefs or social opinions, find sexual relations between persons of the same sex objectionable.

they see that the government may soon offer to same-sex relationships the same protections that their marriages are guaranteed.

they view this as the government saying its ok to have gay sex. they view that as a sign of government preferences against their relgious belief/social opinion.

and then there are those who want same-sex relationships to be legally recognized.

they want this because the government already legally recognized and protects opposite-sex relationships.

they view the discrepancy between the last two statements as discrimination and an affront to their social opinions/conception of American democracy/etc.

am i right here? or is there more to the argument than i see??

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

Nice to know you tried it to make sure.

Oh come on Grave, why not? :P

Tell me this: WHICH version of the ten commandments are the TRUE version?

Since there are many versions of the ten commandments(Islam vwersion, Protestant version, Lutheran version, Catholic version, Judiasic version, and however the fuck many other branches of the same damn religion of Christianity there are), only ONE has to be the true one. So which is it?

You can't say that your version is the right one, because everyone else can claim there's is the true one with the same damn reasons you can. So which is the ONE TRUE ten commandments version?

And yes, order is important, because there is a specific order to them, and all religions with them claim theirs is the correct order.

the bill of rights in the 4, 5, as well as the 14 ammendment garentee gays the right to marry. It IS NOT explicetly stated however it is in the "Penumbra" of the explicitly stated rights given...and aside fro that the puropse of the liberal democracy is to allow the minority to do what they want within the framework of legiality so therefor since it is not explicitly stated that one CANNOT marry another of the same sex, it is therefore permitted. and aside from that it is not the duty of the world at large to save people from themselvs, rather if one is not hurting another the government has no duty to become involved, in fact they are prohibited, under the ideas of locke(r.o.).

Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good! Simply because you do not agree with someone is no reason to disrespect them! I do not agree with homosexuality but I respect them all the same and love them like the Bible says we ought to. I think you should do the same with those that you disagree with. thank you.

the bill of rights in the 4, 5, as well as the 14 ammendment garentee gays the right to marry. It IS NOT explicetly stated however it is in the "Penumbra" of the explicitly stated rights given...and aside fro that the puropse of the liberal democracy is to allow the minority to do what they want within the framework of legiality so therefor since it is not explicitly stated that one CANNOT marry another of the same sex, it is therefore permitted. and aside from that it is not the duty of the world at large to save people from themselvs, rather if one is not hurting another the government has no duty to become involved, in fact they are prohibited, under the ideas of locke(r.o.). The federal Marriage amendment gives gays the right to marry also... to people of the opposite sex.

Simply because you do not agree with someone is no reason to disrespect them! I do not agree with homosexuality but I respect them all the same and love them like the Bible says we ought to. I think you should do the same with those that you disagree with. thank you.

I will, as long as they're not trying to force a marriage ban on me.

Then you deserve everything you get.

Thats not my point if 0.3% (gays who want marriage) of people vote one way 9% dont vote (Gays who dont want marriage and dont rearly care) and 70-80% say no (Chrisitian majority population of the US who believe homosexual marriage is against the Bible and the sacntitiy of marriage) then who should win?

EDIT And to those who say that the Christians are uneffected and shouldnt vote on it, I say check out foxhunting in the UK. Its the same thing. A tiny minority group exist who's practice is seen as abhorent by the majority of the population. They complain but in the end democracy wins. That is democracy, if you dont like it you have freedom of movement and thus the right to leave should so you chose.
Um, if that was your point, then what was all that talk about gay marriage about (i.e. unrelated)?

Why is homosexuality a sin?

because people fear what they do not understand.

Plus, it's icky.

The federal Marriage amendment gives gays the right to marry also... to people of the opposite sex.
Yes, and that's a violation of freedom.

Yes, and that's a violation of freedom.
Depends on the definition of marriage.
Can people marry, a car or a horse or a dead person?
If not then you start to narrow the definition of marriage, so the question is at what point does this narrowing stop and why?

Yes, and that's a violation of freedom.

Since when was marriage any kind of right or freedom. No where in either British or American national law does it say everyone has the "Right" to get married.

Depends on the definition of marriage.
Can people marry, a car or a horse or a dead person?
If not then you start to narrow the definition of marriage, so the question is at what point does this narrowing stop and why?
Logically, the only limitation should be at the range of humanity. Like marrying like.

Since when was marriage any kind of right or freedom. No where in either British or American national law does it say everyone has the "Right" to get married.
It's not "marriage" that is a freedom violated; it is the limitation of personal relationship. Marriage is a type of relationship. All humans have an inherent right to form whatever type of relationship they choose with anyone else (of adult age). The same holds true for those seeking to force their children into arranged marriages against their will.

A Mormon's perspective on homosexuality...

Homosexuality is a sin because it goes agains the design of our Heavenly parents. Gender plays a specific role in the creation of man and woman. Man with man cannot create children, nor can woman with woman. Our first commandment from God (and nature) is to "multipy and replenish the earth."

We are all sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and a Heaenly Mother. We all existed with them as Spirits prior to coming to earth to receive our bodies and perform the necessary ordinances (I.E. Baptism) in order to return to our Father's presense as glorified beings. We did not receive our genders here on earth, rather they are an important characteristic of our eternal identity. Were it not for our hetrosexual parents, you and I would not have had the opportunity to come into this life.

Homosexuality was brought into this world as a result of the fall of man, and its desires are as impure as any other adultrous desire.

It's not "marriage" that is a freedom violated; it is the limitation of personal relationship. Marriage is a type of relationship. All humans have an inherent right to form whatever type of relationship they choose with anyone else (of adult age). The same holds true for those seeking to force their children into arranged marriages against their will.

How is it a limitation. Gays have as much right as everyone else to be in a monogmous relationship as anyone else. But as I have pointed out, the studies into whether or not they want a monogmous relationship point to them not. As I said, the largest study into Homosexual relationships carried out by Kaye Wellings and Anne Johnson in 1994 discovered that only 0.3% of the homosexual population either were in or wanted a monogmous relationship.

A Mormon's perspective on homosexuality...

Homosexuality is a sin because it goes agains the design of our Heavenly parents. Gender plays a specific role in the creation of man and woman. Man with man cannot create children, nor can woman with woman. Our first commandment from God (and nature) is to "multipy and replenish the earth."

We are all sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and a Heaenly Mother. We all existed with them as Spirits prior to coming to earth to receive our bodies and perform the necessary ordinances (I.E. Baptism) in order to return to our Father's presense as glorified beings. We did not receive our genders here on earth, rather they are an important characteristic of our eternal identity. Were it not for our hetrosexual parents, you and I would not have had the opportunity to come into this life.

Homosexuality was brought into this world as a result of the fall of man, and its desires are as impure as any other adultrous desire.


If that were true how do you explain hermaphrodites?
Not that long ago Mormons advocated multiple wives for a man,isn't that going against a traditional religious view of marriage?

Logically, the only limitation should be at the range of humanity. Like marrying like.

So you'd stop me from marrying an elf? :(

So you'd stop me from marrying an elf? :(
You can marry whomever you like in fantasy. ;-)

How is it a limitation. Gays have as much right as everyone else to be in a monogmous relationship as anyone else. But as I have pointed out, the studies into whether or not they want a monogmous relationship point to them not. As I said, the largest study into Homosexual relationships carried out by Kaye Wellings and Anne Johnson in 1994 discovered that only 0.3% of the homosexual population either were in or wanted a monogmous relationship.
It is a limitation because of the words tacked on "...of the opposite sex." That limits it.

Whether or not they want the formal relationship is irrelevant to their right to have the relationship.

If that were true how do you explain hermaphrodites?
Not that long ago Mormons advocated multiple wives for a man,isn't that going against a traditional religious view of marriage?

Hermaphrodites are an unfortunate by-product of the fall of man. To be born with both male and female attributes is a birth defect. That does not change what your eternal identity is, however. I feel for those who have been born under such circumstances, but trust that they will receive perfected bodies if they do their best to live in harmony with the teachings of the Gospel. Our bodies, as miraculous as they are, are not perfect, and they do not create perfect children...more often than not, however, they do a pretty good job.

Polygammy is not going against the traditional view of marriage as it was still between man and woman (or women, in this case) and was still fulfilling the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (in abundance, in this case). Additionally, polygamy was a commandment given by the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon.

Let me say one more thing about Polygamy: I don't know all the reasons why Heavenly Father has commanded its practice at certain times in history. I don't pretend to understand fully His purposes. I do know that it was practiced by less than 2% of the Latter-Day Saint population, and that its practice has been banned for nearly 150 years, since it was enacted as a Federal Law (although I am aware that there are 'fundamentalists' who still practice it illegally and against the admonition of the Church). I also know that it was not something you could choose to take upon yourself...you had to be asked by the leadership of teh Church to take upon another wife. You couldn't just do it because you wanted to have sex with another woman. Many of the women who were "assigned" to a husband in a polygamous marriage were widows of husbands who had died while either crossing the plaines, fighting in the Spanish American war, or various diseases. Let's keep in mind that there was no form of social welfare at this time in American history. Women were completely dependant upon their husbands for heir livelihood. Most women in polygamous marriages were treated as household servants (Mormons did not practice slavery), many of whom remained celibate. It was an extremely difficult thing, not only for the women, but also for the men to provide for their physical and emotional needs.

I love my wife more than I could ever put into words, and I am thankful that I do not live in a time when I would have to worry about the impact that polygamy may have had on my marriage.

On a lighter note - one wife is about all I think I could handle :)

So you'd stop me from marrying an elf? :(
I would not stop you from marrying an elf. I only said that the range of humanity is a logical limitation - like marrying like.

Marriage is a relationship that draws polar opposites together to become "as one". This can be accomplished between sexes, between genders, between physical types, between psychological types, and between species (though I'd never go so far as to attempt that). I would not object to anyone marrying an elf, a dog, a tree or a rock, though I imagine the latter two would provide rather unfulfilling relationships.

A man and a woman in marriage are an androgenous being, but the androgyne can also be a symbol for the joining of psychological opposites. The point of it is a fulfilling relationship (each "filling" the other).

Hermaphrodites are an unfortunate by-product of the fall of man. To be born with both male and femail attributes is a birth defect.
heehee! femail...

It is not a birth defect, or if it is we all are defective. It is that attitude that has stygmatized hermaphrodites down through the ages.

I would not stop you from marrying an elf. I only said that the range of humanity is a logical limitation - like marrying like.

Marriage is a relationship that draws polar opposites together to become "as one". This can be accomplished between sexes, between genders, between physical types, between psychological types, and between species (though I'd never go so far as to attempt that). I would not object to anyone marrying an elf, a dog, a tree or a rock, though I imagine the latter two would provide rather unfulfilling relationships.

A man and a woman in marriage are an androgenous being, but the androgyne can also be a symbol for the joining of psychological opposites. The point of it is a fulfilling relationship (each "filling" the other).

I see. Personally I'd say the only limiting factors should be consent.
This includes dogs, providing you can find one capable of consenting to marriage. :P

heehee! femail...

It is not a birth defect, or if it is we all are defective. It is that attitude that has stygmatized hermaphrodites down through the ages.

...to some degree or another, we are all born with birth defects. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it just is what it is. However, it does not erase our eternal character. As an eternal being, you are either male or female.

It is a limitation because of the words tacked on "...of the opposite sex." That limits it.

Whether or not they want the formal relationship is irrelevant to their right to have the relationship.

I dont oppose Gays having monogomus relations. I do oppose the idea of it being offical and enshirned in law. They can have the relationship all they want.

I hate discussing these things with christan lunatics!!!! When will those people learn that thay should not force their twisted views on reality on everybody else! I dont belive the bible, i dont belive jesus have never existed and that christan morality is 2000 years outdated, soooo pleeeease stop your damn religous propaganda and let people that love eachother show that! WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN CAN THEIR BE FOR YOU THAT THOSE PEOPLE THAT LOVES EACHOTHER ARE BANNED FROM MARRIGE?? :headbang:

I get sooooo tired!! For all you people out there tired of the omnipresent catholic Church and crasy right-wing nuts in the us, come to Sweden, there is a reason that there is a UN-class called Scandinavian Liberal Paradise!!!!
:fluffle:

By the way, to save you christan-nuts fingertips, if there is a hell im sure im going there, and you are going right with me. No God would ever take people so stupid that they believe in 2000 year old morality to heaven. If there is a heaven, people how changed the world so everybody could be more happy and live in equality would go first (Mandela, Annan), things no church can claim.....

In hell we can all hug eachother: :fluffle:

I hate discussing these things with christan lunatics!!!! When will those people learn that thay should not force their twisted views on reality on everybody else!


Any group of people has the right to influence legislation in any legal way. What is wrong with Christians wanting Gay marriage to be outlawed. Nothing more so than there is in animal rights protesters wanting fox hunting outlawed. Everyone has the right to lobby/pressure their government to do what they want. Whether or not they listen is another matter. But it is only fair. You cant say "You, you and you can lobby the government but you cant"

...to some degree or another, we are all born with birth defects. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it just is what it is. However, it does not erase our eternal character. As an eternal being, you are either male or female.
But if we all have them, they are not defects, which is an imperfection. If there is no perfection, there can be no defect.

Our "eternal character" or "eternal being" is not sex-specific. We can be born as either sex in any of our life-times. Sex is a function of physical form. I would agree that the eternal character may tend towards gender-specific characteristics, though.

But it is only fair. You cant say "You, you and you can lobby the government but you cant"

Well, they *can*. I just hope no-one listens to them. ^_^

Dear Lunatic Christian Leader,


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I 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 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring 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 uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

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

5. I have a neighbor who insists 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 the 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)

heh

Any group of people has the right to influence legislation in any legal way. What is wrong with Christians wanting Gay marriage to be outlawed. Nothing more so than there is in animal rights protesters wanting fox hunting outlawed. Everyone has the right to lobby/pressure their government to do what they want. Whether or not they listen is another matter. But it is only fair. You cant say "You, you and you can lobby the government but you cant"

Because your usage of the fox-huinting example is a piss poor example of an argument, and it proves that you are indeed a major-league fucktard to not notice the difference between to gay people loving each other and wishing to get married and not hurting anyone; and the suffering of innocent foxes at the hands of hunters and rich folks who just want something violent and bloody to perform at their mere whim.

Also, you didn't answer my last question. Which version of the Ten commandments are the truest, most correct, direct from God ones?

I understand people wanting to stick to the views of their religion. But i do not understand people who think that everybody in the world should stick to the views of their religion. Why cant they just let the rest of us be, sit back, and feel smug in the knowledge that they are right?

And if you are going to take a christian stand, at least read the bible. Jesus was supposed to bring people a NEW testament. The morals and values of the old one are totally incompatible with jesus' message of peace and TOLERANCE. So why not stick to that part of christianity rather than dig up the old, 'anybody who isnt like me is evil' attitude?

and the suffering of innocent foxes

http://wolfbeast.mine.nu/foxes/

I think not.

I understand people wanting to stick to the views of their religion. But i do not understand people who think that everybody in the world should stick to the views of their religion. Why cant they just let the rest of us be, sit back, and feel smug in the knowledge that they are right?

And if you are going to take a christian stand, at least read the bible. Jesus was supposed to bring people a NEW testament. The morals and values of the old one are totally incompatible with jesus' message of peace and TOLERANCE. So why not stick to that part of christianity rather than dig up the old, 'anybody who isnt like me is evil' attitude?

Because idiots who worship man like to pull out of their ass the totally blasphemous "moral VS ritual laws" reason. Also, theym like to use New Testament scripture that has not a damn thing to do with the old testament to defend it.

The love to worship Paul and ALL the other people of the Bible, but when it comes to Jesus, he takes the back seat.

WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN CAN THEIR BE FOR YOU THAT THOSE PEOPLE THAT LOVES EACHOTHER ARE BANNED FROM MARRIGE?? :headbang:


Its quite simple rearly

1) God defines marriage as one man and one woman in both Genesis 2: 24 and Jesus quotes this later in Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5

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

Matthew 19: 4-5
Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?

Mark 10:6-8
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.''For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.

(as an aside the two quotes from the Gospels here also say created man and female. God creates us as man and woman, not straight man and women, gay man and women. God says we are not born homosexual)

2) There is no Biblical support for any kind of homosexual union.

3) Marriage was a religous instiution before a govenmental one. It existed at the begining of the world (see Genesis 2: 24)

Because of all this we see marrigae not only as man and women but also given from God. Therefore we believe it should remain as God gave it to us and not twisted by the world. We have every right to protest and request of our governments that this be enacted. And if a democratic government exisits that is voted in and has stated when it was voted in that this was its plan in regard to this issue to remove gay marriage and then it does so, what right has anyone to complain? It is after all a democracy. If you think this is unrealistic see fox hunting as a comparable example.

I dont oppose Gays having monogomus relations. I do oppose the idea of it being offical and enshirned in law. They can have the relationship all they want.
I too oppose the legal aspects of marriage. Any legislation is automatically a limitation and creates problems, and this particular faucet of human interaction (marriage) is only necessarily legal because of shared-property laws.

Dear Lunatic Christian Leader,


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I 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 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring 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 uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

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

5. I have a neighbor who insists 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 the 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)

heh

Three words "Obsolete Old Covenent". Parts of the Old Covenent go and parts stay. Jesus understod that, Paul understod that, James understod that why dont you?

Because idiots who worship man like to pull out of their ass the totally blasphemous "moral VS ritual laws" reason. Also, theym like to use New Testament scripture that has not a damn thing to do with the old testament to defend it.

The love to worship Paul and ALL the other people of the Bible, but when it comes to Jesus, he takes the back seat.


Show me where Jesus (or anyone else in the Bible) endorces or supports homosexuality in anyway.

http://wolfbeast.mine.nu/foxes/

I think not.
LOL!!!

Evilness :)

Show me where Jesus (or anyone else in the Bible) endorces or supports homosexuality in anyway.

The fact that Jesus constantly went out in the desert with 12 hairy men for long stretches of time without any women tends to lean towards the indication that he was gay.

Nowm, show me where Jesus himself said that man loving man was wrong. NOT paul, because he's NOT GOD! I wanty Jesus' own words on it.

Show me where Jesus (or anyone else in the Bible) endorces or supports homosexuality in anyway.
Love thy brother. :-)

But if we all have them, they are not defects, which is an imperfection. If there is no perfection, there can be no defect.

Our "eternal character" or "eternal being" is not sex-specific. We can be born as either sex in any of our life-times. Sex is a function of physical form. I would agree that the eternal character may tend towards gender-specific characteristics, though.

There is perfection. But perfection is an exhalted state of being, not obtainable in this mortal condition (although we can become "enlightened" or "quickened by the Spirit"). As it is, we are physically imperfect beings creating physically imperfect children, and have been since the last physically perfect man and woman to walk the earth, which were father Adam and mother Eve.

Now, you mentioned "coming back as different beings in any of our life-times." Although I repect where you are coming from, I reject reincarnation as a misinterpretation of our pre-existent, mortal and post-mortal progression. Eternal progression, and the idea that we are not 'static' beings is something we can both agree on. But coming back into this world until it's "done right" is not something I can subscribe to. You are an eternal intelligence, and thus you have existed since before the world was created, you were eternal matter before our Heavenly Parents (who are glorified beings) organized us into Spirit Beings, using the same reproductive proceedure that we do on earth (but without all the pain and mess). At that point, we were organized, concious matter. We were a soul, if you will, with a distinct personality and gender attributes. We learned, we grew, we made choices. We also saw the creation of this world and knew of the plan to gain mortality and, eventually, immortality. We watched the progress of this world, perhaps even specific people and events (thus "past life memories" or "deja vu"). We chose to come to earth to receive our mortal bodies and knew of the risks and conditions we would be born into. We knew that we would pass through a vail and that our knowledge of our pre-existence would become blurry (although sometimes we can gain glimpses), and this was for the necessity of our free agency. If we had a "sure knowledge" of God and our pre-existence, then we would not have to exercise faith, which is key to our eternal progression.

The fact that Jesus constantly went out in the desert with 12 hairy men for long stretches of time without any women tends to lean towards the indication that he was gay.

Nowm, show me where Jesus himself said that man loving man was wrong. NOT paul, because he's NOT GOD! I wanty Jesus' own words on it.

What are you talking about? Then most of our military must be gay, by your reasoning (of course, you'd probably think they are). As far as I know, most of the Apostles were married with children. It may not even be unrealistic to believe that Jesus himself was married (to Mary Magdelene). Some scholars believe that the wedding where he turned the water into wine may have been his own wedding...as it was customary for the groom to provide wine to their guests in his culture.

There are many topics which Christ did not sepcifically speak on during his mortal ministry which only lasted about three years and was recorded mostly second-hand. Who knows what he might have said that was not recorded. This much we do know however, that God has always raised up Prophets from among the people who are annointed to reveal the will of God to His children (Deut. 18:15 and Amos 3:7).

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

First of all, I do not believe that being homosexual means you are condemned to burn in hell, and even if you are that means you'll be having one hell of a party down there with all the other "sinners" homosexual or otherwise. Many, but not all fundamentalists are a group of people who do not tolerate gay people and attempt to trick them one way or another into the belief that it is wrong and immoral to explore the feelings that their own god placed there. Evangelists mostly quote bible passages for their arguments, (from what i've seen anyway) and if you don't believe me throw Jack Van Impe on the TV every once in awhile and you'll see what I mean. In keeping with the thread I admit that I am not homosexual, though may still have a bias since I am not a church-goer.

Cheers all!

I didnt say he endorsed homosexuality. I said he endorsed TOLERANCE. I thought you might be blind enought to miss that, so i capsed it, but obviously that didnt help. Why can't you just stick to the most important principles in christianity? Unless they are harming anybody, why should people not be allowed to make themselves happy? What did homosexuals ever do to you to make you feel they have a lesser right to happiness than you?

There is perfection. But perfection is an exhalted state of being, not obtainable in this mortal condition (although we can become "enlightened" or "quickened by the Spirit"). As it is, we are physically imperfect beings creating physically imperfect children, and have been since the last physically perfect man and woman to walk the earth, which were father Adam and mother Eve.
Then this perfection of physical form effectively does not exist. So the whole concept of defects in our physical form is ...defective. :)

Now, you mentioned "coming back as different beings in any of our life-times." Although I repect where you are coming from, I reject reincarnation as a misinterpretation of our pre-existent, mortal and post-mortal progression. Eternal progression, and the idea that we are not 'static' beings is something we can both agree on. But coming back into this world until it's "done right" is not something I can subscribe to. You are an eternal intelligence, and thus you have existed since before the world was created, you were eternal matter before our Heavenly Parents (who are glorified beings) organized us into Spirit Beings, using the same reproductive proceedure that we do on earth (but without all the pain and mess). At that point, we were organized, concious matter. We were a soul, if you will, with a distinct personality and gender attributes. We learned, we grew, we made choices. We also saw the creation of this world and knew of the plan to gain mortality and, eventually, immortality. We watched the progress of this world, perhaps even specific people and events (thus "past life memories" or "deja vu"). We chose to come to earth to receive our mortal bodies and knew of the risks and conditions we would be born into. We knew that we would pass through a vail and that our knowledge of our pre-existence would become blurry (although sometimes we can gain glimpses), and this was for the necessity of our free agency. If we had a "sure knowledge" of God and our pre-existence, then we would not have to exercise faith, which is key to our eternal progression.
I too respect your beliefs as stated here. However you yourself use the term "progression" which indicates a repeating series that builds upon what came before. I would suggest that your own beliefs (wherever they are drawn from) are ones that originally embraced reincarnation as truth.

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...

If you proclaim the roman culture for your own then you must believe it, no?
First of all, there's nothing at all in the Ancient Roman Religion (Pre-Christianity) about gay marriage, even in later times there was a leader of Constantinople named Nero who was really ugly and shit, but he was bisexual and did have sex with men and women. Eastern Orthodox people, that's what you have to look up to right there, an ugly bisexual man. Now for the Roman Catholics, well you guys were being CONTROLLED by barbarians, need I say more? Also, in refering to "people of the west" I believe you're referring to your people as the Eastern Roman Empire, and thusly that would make you christian --if not why even bother complaining about your culture? In addition, the west was already established way before the east, therefore they would consider the east making a mockry of them, not the inverse.

However, I will state that I am in no way Christian, nor Satanic, buddist, muslim, hindu, athiest, agnostic. I infact frown upon these religions because they are so rediculous, (Yes, I realize agnostic and athiesm is the absence of religion -- which would be the better of the ones listed above.) If you would like to know what my religion is -- I'm the head spiritual leader of the mdw, perhaps you should learn mdw-ntr. (try looking it up on google if you don't know what it is.) Additionally -- No, I am not gay nor do I ever wish to be. However, I don't support gay marriage but then again I don't support marriage at all. I would condone gay couples in the fact that I just don't care, and as long as they do nothing which affects me direcly (Such as touching me) then I have absoutely no problem. The point of this is... Among all of the religions Christianity is the most arrogant, ignorant one of all. No only within it's holy book, but the followers as well. If you choose not to follow ALL teachings, then you are NOT of that religion, simple. Does it ever occur to any of you that not every little fucking thing must be outlined in religion? You're setting yourself up for an unseen theocracy. I said arrogant earlier yes, this is because you could take live proof of something and they (I refer to they in this instance for christians) would whip out a bible and find SOMETHING that could remotely be similar and say you're wrong cause the bible says so. Well, I hate to tell all of you 'christian' people but the Bible was written by religiously biased people, you can never trust a book of religion written by religious men. If your bible were perhaps written by athiests which you inadverdently condemned, perhaps there would be a bit more understanding and a bit less stupidity in the writing where as it would not be biased. If you'd like to know why christianity spread and you don't have the time to look it up, the key reason is because people were STUPID and if you come along with this "bible" with ALL of the answers for anything people will instinctivly cling to it because they are looking for a survival tool -- something that makes their life easier and prolonged all animals do it, humans included.

The entire point of this has been, do not say "my culture" if it is not your culture, but simply your ancestors or even the region where you live. If you do so, would it not be good for Americans to say Slavery was my culture because when we were founded we have it -- So let's all go out and get a slave. No, we cannot do this nor can it be justified so speaking of Catholisism in the same way, if you are not catholic -- dont claim it as your culture.

After reading this if you decide "wow my religion is stupid" and would like to convert to the mdw ntr, well to start off -- We don't want you. This isn't christianity we dont accept people who 'want' to join our religion. Only those who are chosen are allowed within, you may not ask nor may you "choose yourself." If you are found worthy then you will be asked, if not -- don't bother.

That's all for now, but to answer the original topic -- Homosexuality is a sin because biased religions based on nonsence made it so, nothing more. Don't worry about the "wrath of god" or your afterlife. Live your life in the best way that makes you happy, try to keep strenth and honor while doing so. Life on this earth is the longest thing you will ever do, ever. I am not saying there is nothing after death, but If I go further I would be explaining my religion which I do not wish to get into at all thus far.

P.S. If you don't want to read all of the above, don't read any of it at all.

I understand people wanting to stick to the views of their religion. But i do not understand people who think that everybody in the world should stick to the views of their religion. Why cant they just let the rest of us be, sit back, and feel smug in the knowledge that they are right?


1) We (Christians, not all but many) believe that we should try and express our views to as many people as possible, we also believe people should be given the choice to believe or not.

2) If you are refering to Gay marriage then see a post I made earlier regarding that.


And if you are going to take a christian stand, at least read the bible. Jesus was supposed to bring people a NEW testament. The morals and values of the old one are totally incompatible with jesus' message of peace and TOLERANCE. So why not stick to that part of christianity rather than dig up the old, 'anybody who isnt like me is evil' attitude?

3) Jesus was not "Tollerant" of sin. While that doesnt mean he went around killing sinners (that would mean killing everyone on the planet) it does mean that he did not tell something wasnt a sin when it was. This is the nub when it comes to Jesus views on homosexuality. While he says nothing, the rest of the Bible seems to oppose it and there are no positive examples of homosexuality.

4) Christianity is not intolerant/hating/perceuting of homosexuals. It is to us (not all but many) a sin. We do not diffrenecate between sin. One is not "worse" than the other. Sin is sin in the eyes of God (the eyes of the law are diffrent).

Then this perfection of physical form effectively does not exist. So the whole concept of defects in our physical form is ...defective. :)

It does exist, but in post-mortal life. Or, when the earth receives again its paradisical, pre-Adamic glory, also called "the morning of the first resurrection."


I too respect your beliefs as stated here. However you yourself use the term "progression" which indicates a repeating series that builds upon what came before. I would suggest that your own beliefs (wherever they are drawn from) are ones that originally embraced reincarnation as truth.

I don't believe that progression and repitition are sacrosanct. You can walk forwards without repeating your footsteps. This is a point that we will simply have to shake hands on and agree that we have other things in common.

For the record, I don't believe that people with a homosexual propensity are condemned to hell. The notion stands against reason. I do believe, however, that acting on homosexual urges is similar in effect to acting on any adultrous desire, and can be a block (or a damning, if you will) of that persons eternal progression and divine potential. A homosexual man or woman, along with any other good person who is full of charity and love for others, will be welcomed in paradise, there is no question.

I didnt say he endorsed homosexuality. I said he endorsed TOLERANCE. I thought you might be blind enought to miss that, so i capsed it, but obviously that didnt help. Why can't you just stick to the most important principles in christianity? Unless they are harming anybody, why should people not be allowed to make themselves happy? What did homosexuals ever do to you to make you feel they have a lesser right to happiness than you?

How exactly does either of these two things make them any less happy

1) Believing that their actions are sin

2) Denying them marriage

Surely if they love each other enough then 2 does not matter.

Because your usage of the fox-huinting example is a piss poor example of an argument, and it proves that you are indeed a major-league fucktard to not notice the difference between to gay people loving each other and wishing to get married and not hurting anyone; and the suffering of innocent foxes at the hands of hunters and rich folks who just want something violent and bloody to perform at their mere whim.


I was using the foxhunting argument as a legal comparison not a moral one. Here it is

1) A tiny minority group engages in an activity which is detestable to the majority of the population (Foxhunting in the UK, Homosexuals in the US)

2) The majority rules and that particular group's activities must be curtailied (Foxhunting is banned in the UK, Homosexual marriage outlawed in the US (not yet))

The legal comparison is sound.

It does exist, but in post-mortal life. Or, when the earth receives again its paradisical, pre-Adamic glory, also called "the morning of the first resurrection."
But then it is not a physical form, because the physical form is the mortal one. There can be no comparison between post-mortal form and mortal form (i.e. apples and oranges).

I don't believe that progression and repitition are sacrosanct. You can walk forwards without repeating your footsteps. This is a point that we will simply have to shake hands on and agree that we have other things in common.
Consider hands shaken. :)

I didnt say he endorsed homosexuality. I said he endorsed TOLERANCE

Contary to popular belief, Christianity is not "Intollerent" of homosexuals, just homosexuality. Love sinner, hate sin.

How exactly does either of these two things make them any less happy

1) Believing that their actions are sin

2) Denying them marriage

Surely if they love each other enough then 2 does not matter.

well, it may make them less than happy that they are denied all the legal advantages of a normal married coulple, and that, in their marriage being banned, society is refusing to acknowldedge their feelings and attitude towards one another

Nowm, show me where Jesus himself said that man loving man was wrong. NOT paul, because he's NOT GOD! I wanty Jesus' own words on it.

Jesus never endorced or condemed homosexuality which therefore means that he must have supported the original teaching of homosexuality in Leviticus.

well, it may make them less than happy that they are denied all the legal advantages of a normal married coulple, and that, in their marriage being banned, society is refusing to acknowldedge their feelings and attitude towards one another

If they are somehow going to become "More happy" by society accepting their union then they are very unstable people who need others to aprove of them before they do anything. And as I said, only 0.3% of homosexuals have ever been involved or have a desire to be involved in a long term monogmous relationship according to the largest ever study into homosexual behaviour. So given that homosexuals make up aprox 5% of any population, that would mean that the total percentage of a nation population that are homosexual and want gay marriage are 0.015% of the population. Should we rearly acomadiate that kind of percentage of people in law when the majority find it detestable to do so (the Christian population of the US).

why do ppl want to ban gay marridge, all maridge is is a piece of paper that says "so and so is married to so and so" i mean you can love someone just as much and not be married to them

why do ppl want to ban gay marridge, all maridge is is a piece of paper that says "so and so is married to so and so" i mean you can love someone just as much and not be married to them

Because many Christians believe the following two things

1) Homosexual sex is a sin

2) Marriage was given to Humans as a gift of a speical relationship between a man and a women.

So the idea of adapting a god given gift for use as part of a sin is destable to many Christians.