NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

1) Irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriages.

2) Why does that mean other forms are not allowed?

3) What sin? Besides, it's not like we want to get married in your church.

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).
It's not about approval, it's about recognition, and that is an important thing.

Hey, it feels good, it's up to me who I love or how and frankly, I don't really care who doesn't like it. Of course, given my chosen name of 'nation', I should think you're not the only one with that same 'bias'.

1) Irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriages.


Not so. What you are doing in a Christians eyes by allowing homsexual marriages is like saying to a murderer "here is a town full of people we are quite happy for you to kill because we feel you shouldnt be repressed". Homosexual marriage is gloryfying the sin of homosexual sex and the temptations of homosexuality.


2) Why does that mean other forms are not allowed?


No other provision for them is made in the Bible.


3) What sin? Besides, it's not like we want to get married in your church.

Sin is the action of disobeying God.

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.


So? Who said we were all Christians? I dropped the christian church like a hot rock years ago. I found it to be a stiff, cold, hard-hearted and unbendingly rigid institution. I dropped it long before I even realized I was gay, so don't even GO there. :sniper:

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.
i see what your saying, i think that view makes me able to repect christians and their beliefs a bit more, now only if they could learn to mind their own business i mean sure they bleieve its a sin and all but its really the persons own choice, its liek taking away free will.

It's not about approval, it's about recognition, and that is an important thing.

Missed the rest of my post there and why is recognition important. We (society) regocgnise they are two homosexuals in a relationship. They (the law) however does not.


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).


Care to answer this?

Not so. What you are doing in a Christians eyes by allowing homsexual marriages is like saying to a murderer "here is a town full of people we are quite happy for you to kill because we feel you shouldnt be repressed". Homosexual marriage is gloryfying the sin of homosexual sex and the temptations of homosexuality.

Buddy, you're a bigot...and as far as I'm concerned, that's worse.



No other provision for them is made in the Bible.

That's because old Constastine decided to NOT INCLUDE about 80% of the writings available for inclusion back when the first one was put together. And that means you're missing, by definition, 80% of all new testement information,



Sin is the action of disobeying God.

WHOSE?


:gundge:

i see what your saying, i think that view makes me able to repect christians and their beliefs a bit more, now only if they could learn to mind their own business i mean sure they bleieve its a sin and all but its really the persons own choice, its liek taking away free will.

If by taking away a persons choice you mean the outlawing of Gay marriage, as I have said it is the right of any individual, group or instiution to lobby the government on what it wants them to do. If the Government is democratic and choses to do as the lobby says who is anyone to argue. Espically if that group makes up a majority perspective.

So? Who said we were all Christians? I dropped the christian church like a hot rock years ago. I found it to be a stiff, cold, hard-hearted and unbendingly rigid institution. I dropped it long before I even realized I was gay, so don't even GO there. :sniper:

See the title of the debate "Why is homosexuality a sin?"

If by taking away a persons choice you mean the outlawing of Gay marriage, as I have said it is the right of any individual, group or instiution to lobby the government on what it wants them to do. If the Government is democratic and choses to do as the lobby says who is anyone to argue. Espically if that group makes up a majority perspective.
yes however the US was founded on the principles of freedom and equality for everyone and so and so forth

taking away the right for gays to be married is taking away equality and freedom to a certain extent

Not so. What you are doing in a Christians eyes by allowing homsexual marriages is like saying to a murderer "here is a town full of people we are quite happy for you to kill because we feel you shouldnt be repressed". Homosexual marriage is gloryfying the sin of homosexual sex and the temptations of homosexuality.

Not this bullshit again.
Murder is a sin, same-sex marriage is not.

No other provision for them is made in the Bible.

So we make our own, problem solved.

Sin is the action of disobeying God.

So... where did God say "Two Men Cannot Be Married." again?
If you can't find the quote, it means that same-sex marriage is, at worst, not exactly as God intended, but not particulary bad either.

Missed the rest of my post there and why is recognition important. We (society) regocgnise they are two homosexuals in a relationship. They (the law) however does not.
Because recognition imparts respect and dignity and is a token of cooperation necessary for all human interactions. Legal recognition is also an internationally recognized basic human right (Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
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).
Care to answer this?
As I said before, the number of people wanting to get married is really irrelevant to their deserving the right to marry. No matter how many people find it repulsive, that doesn't make it "right" to deny them the right to have their relationship legally recognized.

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).

That is totally untrue and unfair. Otherwise what is the point of any marriage? if we dont need recognition or approval of society, then it is ok to do just about anything we want regardless? people cannot be happy without feeling respected and like an equal of everybody else

and with the statistic. well, guess what? i hate statistics. And i promise you that i could find you one saying more or less the opposite. Besides, the marriage of these people, even though such a small group, will do nothing to hurt any of the people who are against it, and a lot to further the happiness of those involved, in the ways i have just outlined, and which you have attempted to deny in a totally nonsensical manner

Ok howabout we just sum this up seeing as to how this is pretty meaningless. You all know there is nothing you can say or do that is goign to sway the other people's minds which are set the oposite of yours. Basic fact of life, most people (99.3%) never change religions more than once in their life. With that said, they're also not going to change their religious views then are they?

Personally this entire "marriage" thing is rediculous it's drawn out to be such a great thing when it's really not all it is is the government acknowledging when your partner dies you will have rights to a (welfare? i forgot the name of it) check and that's just about it. Now why oh why do people nowadays make such a big deal of it? Well, it's because it shows commitment to a greater scale -- someone is willing to spend thousands of dollars on you, and be clad in a ring signifying that "hey, im taken" which will ward most people off. Well, if that's the big deal then why don't you just buy a ring, doesn't even have to be an expensive one. The fact is, most people probably arn't going to know of you're gay or straight but if they see a ring on your finger (lock-down finger) they will most likily not hit on you and leave you alone for the most part.

Actually, let's go back to religion, I'll explain it in detail to all of you people:
Religion. An interesting subject, and we can safely say that it's one of the most controversial as well. in this little piece of text here I'm going to try and address a couple of issues concerning religion:

Why does a thing like religion exist in the first place?
How does a religion survive?
What kind of people "believe"?
What does evolution have to do with religion?
What's the difference between a religion and a cult?
How powerful is a religion within a community, and how powerful are the leaders?
Is religion "good" or "bad"?
And, believe it or not, I'm going to answer the following question:

Is there a god?
Why does a thing like religion exist in the first place?

First, and very interesting I believe, why does a thing like religion exist. First of all, we're blessed (cursed?) with intelligence; this means we "think" about things. Some would say that we're trying to make sense out of chaos around us, but, to go back to very basic, instinctive thinking, I think we are trying to create comprehensive patterns in our minds to explain what happens around us. I say "instinctive", because it's a simple survival thing: if you can make out a pattern of what is happening around you, then you can use that pattern to predict what will happen next time if the same situation occurs. Through simple trial and error this is a very useful protocol to enhance your chances to survive enormously. Man evolved very fast though, and went from simple patternrecognition to more complex cognitive processes, of which the most important three are:

Memory capacity expansion
Development of communicative skills
Conciousness, or self-awareness (self-reflection if you will)
Which of the above came first is ofcourse hard to say. Most probably the evolvement of each one seperately, enhanced the evolvement of itself and the others, as each seperate concept allows the others to expand. But as usual, I digress. In this evolutionary process, a very important thing happened for mankind: he started to realize there were restrictions to his mental abilities.

Ai. Problem. I mean, we're human, we're intelligently the most advanced creature on this planet, and yet we are restricted in our ability to understand things? How frustrating. There must be an explanation for that as well! Anyway, what kind of questions exist that are left unanswered due to our inability to see things in the correct perspective? Well, for example:

How did "life" come to be?
Why do we have "special" cognitive abilities, as opposed to other creatures?
Why do we suffer so much demise for no apparent reason?
What's our purpose in life?
Welcome to the World of Religion. We're here to provide you with any answers to the questions as mentioned above, as long as you obey our leaders, laws and rituals. Please sign here.

The answer to the first question is easy: creational theory. God created earth, heaven and life. Next question please. Seriously though, I do understand that the first people involved with religion weren't too bright, but isn't this a bit too simplistic? This explanation has far too much resemblance with a homunculus idea: we were created by an intelligent being, which is why we are intelligent. But who created this original intelligent being then? Oh, simple answer to that question: he's omni-present, omnipotent, omniscient. Whew, that was a hard question, but we weasled our way out of it. Note: throughout this essay, try to ask yourself the question whether creating an explanation to a certain question is useful, if this explanation itself raises questions at least as puzzling as the original one (and keep in mind that proof is a key word here).

The second question then. Well, this shouldn't be too difficult either. God created a world as complex, dazzling and overwhelming as he did, to allow for a symbiotic society at all levels, which was to be enjoyed by mankind, the elite creature he made after his own image. This society was completely self-sufficient, leaving enough useful remains (food for example) to nourish mankind. Why does the word "arrogant" pop into mind while I'm writing this?

The third question is one that is possibly the most interesting of the four. If god (yes, lowercase g, god is a concept, a simple noun, not a name) created us after his own image, then why would he knowlingly hurt, damage or even kill his own children, the pride and masterpiece of his creation? The answer (or even answers) to this question varies per religion, and usually has a strong moral foundation, of which punishment is the most common version. In many religions it's possible to prevent from being punished by praying, sacrificing or simply by living a morally correct life (a life without "sin"). Since there is no explanation for the demise that is sometimes cast upon some of us (imagine the young well-mannered girl who gets the most awful illness), some religions state that all people are sinners at birth, which creates an opening for punishment for even the seemingly most innocent person. Why are all people sinners then? Well, for example, see Adam and Eve and how they got themselves thrown out of paradise. They condemned mankind to punishment for eternity by doing so. Note that the paradise concept matches closely with the answer to the second question: we were put down on earth to enjoy a perfect life, but sadly that went wrong. On the other hand there are also religions that state that good and evil are always in balance, although this balance might not be apparent to us. A simple explanation, extremely difficult to grasp, and once again it raises many questions to keep us busy.

Then the final question I mentioned: what's our purpose in life. Again, the answer to this question as given by many religions acts upon our strong feelings for morality. We are here to "do good", to obey and glorify our creator, to create a firm foundation for a good afterlife (be it in heaven or after reincarnation) and so on.

Before I continue, let me interrupt my own thoughts and ask you a question. Was any one of the explanations above satisfactory? Completely and without a doubt? Ofcourse, I might have missed important things, and I probably do not grasp to the full extent what religion is, but I do think I've addressed the most important issues, right? This is why I have a bit of a problem with religion. Not a specific one, but the concept of religion as a whole. We humans have a certain greed for knowledge, explanations and clarity. As one grows older, one might be less hungry for those things, since trial and error has learned you that you'll never understand life to the fullest. But to accept the fact that "god created us" is just not satisfactory to me. Even very plausible answers to the question "why" cannot still my hunger; as I stated earlier, I need proof! A dream of a man, a vision that seven good years will pass, to be followed by seven bad years, is nice, but still, where's the evidence? And please... "it's written in the bible" is not proof! (Why not? Because the bible was written by religious humans; it's very doubtful that these humans were objective, and their writing hardly consisted of any hard evidence.) I think that my strong inclination towards science can also be seen as a sort of religion: the teachings of scientific research provide me with answers to certain questions (evolution theory), and create a mental foundation on which I can build my view of the world. There are two very distinct differences between science and religion though: first, science relies on proof. Without proof, scientists will not accept theories or concepts as true before sufficient proof has been delivered. Secondly, science evolves. A certain proven fact can easily be disproven if the facts are there to support that, and scientists all over the world will accept it. Ofcourse, there are things as egos and "higher goods" that sometimes prevent the whole truth to come out, but generally I believe this system works, especially in due time. Sure, you might say that religion evolves as well. Just look at the enormous variety which exists amongst christian religions. I dare to state though that within one lifetime, not many people change religion more than once, if they ever change religion. This tells me that not many individuals will change their opinions, even if the proof is there. If these kinds of people are gathered within a religious group, then chances of them changing their minds will be even smaller. To illustrate the stubbornness of religions: in 1992 Pope John II admitted that Galileo Galilei was actually right when he stated in the 17th century that the earth was round, and not flat. 1992. That's 11 years ago, yes. Need I say more?

My apologies for the above interruption, and without further adue I move on. I think we covered the part about why religion exists: it's to answer questions and give explanations to things we cannot grasp. Sadly, religion is doing a poor job at this as well, but we cannot let that spoil our fun. Still, how painfully obvious it may seem that religion is not the answer, why is it that people stick to a certain religion? Or, as I stated in the introduction:

How does a religion survive?

First of all, man is stubborn. This may sound like a silly reason, but in actuality it is not. The innate stubbornness of humankind provides the species with continuity. As I said before, religion (or any other set of basic moral and conceptual rules) can be your foundation of how you view the world. In other words, it provides with a basic toolset to perceive what happens around you, and how you respond to it. If you'd change your basis like this, you can imagine that you might have to learn all over again how to perceive the world from that new point of view, and how to respond to things that happen around you. This would also render an important part of your memory databank useless, since those memories are built upon an old, from then on invalid ruleset. Those memories might generate very odd and incomprehensible output. So, changing your mind should not be done lightly, and certainly not without being conciously convinced that the newly accepted rule(set) is the right one.

Secondly, people have a strong notion of wanting to belong to a certain group. Religion is a good form of glue to keep people together. People of similar backgrounds traditionally stick together (whether the sticking together or the religion came first, I leave up to you to decide), mostly because it provides for solid grounds to relate; when your mindset (and with that your way of thinking, responding and ways of social behaviour) is close to that of other people, it's easy to live within such a community. Especially if religion is an active part of that community, the religion can keep itself alive very well, by being a cornerstone of that society.

Finally, and closely related to the last explanation, there are reasons that come very much from within the values of religions itself. One of the most important values of each religion is to honour and practice that religion actively. This ofcourse creates a self-satisfying system, not really allowing any room to move to another (or none) for any of the followers of that religion. Also, religions can contain explicit warnings, which tell you that abandoning your faith will lead to "bad things happening to you", now or in the afterlife (not going to heaven for instance, or reincarnating as a rat). Then, ofcourse, each religion is filled with promises that that particular religion will bring you enlightenment, peace, happiness, glory, power and riches, referring to simple dreams embraced by probably every single human being. Advertisement is nothing new, religion has embraced the cheapest form: holding a piece of candy in front of your face and "could you please sign here... in blood" was invented long before television (wow Mike, that's an amazing discovery!).

What kind of people "believe"?

Moving on to the next issue: what kind of people "believe"? Can we possibly grab someone's profile, without knowing anything of his/her religious background, and state correctly whether this person is religious or not? Let's see, what kind of information could be useful to determine such a fact:

Age
IQ
Educational level
Wealth
Rural or urban
Nationality
Skincolour
Age is a funny one. There are different stages each person goes through during the course of his / her lifetime. There are different stages, during which a person can either rebel against the the morals, values and rules which are familiar to him / her, or periods where this person might actually seek out those old values to find peace in those things that are familiar and comforting.

Both a high IQ and educational level should, almost logically, imply less affinity with religion. An IQ test is a scientific tool, attempting to measure one's intelligence. An education (as defined in western terms) and natural insight into scientific matters will give you a high score on this test. But, does this mean you're intelligent? Well, I guess it does, but only because the test defines intelligence. An important issue to note though, is that people with higher IQ's tend to ask more questions (why...? what...?), and they are less likely to be satisfied with simple answers as "because god said so" or "it's written in the bible". Because of this, it's more likely for people with high IQ's to be inclined to think in a scientific way, wanting proof, than to accept a religiously based answer to their questions. I would love to see studies and statistics on this subject.

Next is wealth. Wealthy people are often just too busy to deal with religion. And if they do have the time, then they go overboard with it. Poor people on the other hand, they often need eachother, and need a strong bond between eachother to survive. This works just like I explained when discussing the "why" of religion, and gets reinforced if the need is there. It can both be comforting and uplifting to a community, as well as useful when it comes to caring for eachother and basically enhancing the primal instinct for survival of the group. This is not a necessity for wealthy people, as they can take care of themselves just fine; an important reason why religion isn't as popular in western countries compared to other parts of the world.

Another way to see who's more accepting towards religion is what kind of area they live in: rural or urban. This is quite obvious, I would say. In rural areas there's much more social control, so people keep an eye on eachother; they know who was and who wasn't in church last sunday. In urban areas life moves faster, people live more irregularly and will not accept having to go to church each sunday. On top of that, no one is watching them anyway, so skipping once or twice is not a problem... and becomes a habit.

Nationality then. I think that looking at religion form a national perspective makes much sense. Regions on the other hand can definitely say something. Compare for example the Benelux with the Middle East. I don't think this needs any further explaining.

And then finally, skincolour. A hot topic. Some people are just waiting to pin me down on racism and racial slurs. I can just say three things about it: people might be drawn to eachother because of their skincolour, and religion might enforce that bond. Also, skincolour relates to having a heritage from a certain region in the world, which I discussed before. The third thing is that on average, people with a non-caucasian skincolour are on average less wealthy than people with a caucasian skincolour, which relates to the wealth issue I already dealt with. So in a limited way, skincolour might have something to say about the level of affinity with religion, but hardly consists of more than a circumstancial pointer.

So, to sum this part up: yes, some of the forementioned properties can give you some idea about whether a person will be religious or not, and even say something about the power of that religion for that person. But, since we're human, we're always confusing and never completely predictable. So, these properties can be an indication, but not more than that.

What does evolution have to do with religion?

To jump to the next topic: what does evolution have to do with religion? I would like to discuss two major topics: how has religion evolved, and how does religion itself explain evolution.

The evolution of religion itself is hard to describe, since there are so many different religions who all have their own origin and evolved without any interaction between communities which practiced them. Most religions do share a few commonalities though:

Their origin lies in times of primitive civilisations
They try to explain life's questions
Religions go hand in hand with habits and rituals
One or more deities form the centre of the religions
"Holy places" are a part of every major religion
They support a form of afterlife
The first three issues are very important when it comes to evolution of religion. As the second statement poses, religion is an explanation for difficult or inexplicable issues, that keep our minds running in circles during our entire lifespan. Since religion fills up that void, and gives humankind something that nothing else (not even science) can do, it's something that humans hold on to very tightly; it's one of those certainties in life that can give you peace of mind. This conflicts heavily with the first statement though; if a certain concept is explained in an environment that lacks basic knowledge of the concept and its circumstances, then this explanation should be reviewed when the knowledge is available. But we are reluctant to change our views, so this change takes an enormous amount of time (often generations, since these views will not change in one person, but only next generations will accept the flaws in the earlier views - as I stated before, not many people change religion even once in their lifetime).

If you combine this all with the third statement, that habits, rites and rituals are embedded within every religion, and you consider that man is a creature of habit, you can see that evolution of religion is slow, intolerant and often completely against logics. This concurs with my earlier statement about catholicism and their recent discovery of the fact that the earth is indeed a sphere.

Ofcourse, most religions do not mention their own evolution. The religions have always been the same, will always be the same and are right and true in all their facets. Most religions are extremely criticising about everything, except the religion itself; not very introspective, so to speak. Mind you, most of them do mention their history, but that's fundamentally different from the evolution. The history will fail to mention changes within the views, except if the changes created a new (sub-) religion and the new religion tries to prove the fact that it's "better" than the old one (for example second testament versus first in christian religion).

Therefor, the only two sorts of evolutions mentioned by most religions are how the world and mankind were created, and how a person should "evolve" in his or her lifetime. The last kind is not mentioned much in christian religions, but more so in buddhism and other, more spiritually focussed religions.

The first type of evolution mentioned by religions is immensely interesting though. How did the world, nature, and everything in it, come to be. I believe that was deep enough into basic religion for the most part, but with that said: No, I'm not athiest, my religion is the mdw ntr. This is all I'm going to say, respond if you will.

It's not just about a ring. legal recognition is important. It is not so much the difference marriage makes to you, but rather, being recognised as being just as capable of loving someone, anyone in a deeply committed way just like a hetero. To have equality this is a necessary step.

endless rehearsals, your letter to doctor laura cracked me up man. i love to point out many of the same scriptures when speaking with christian friends about a lot of issues

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).


Well, 2 reasons:

1) What is it about christians and the Jewish 'ten commandments'? It confuses me to no end to see people with the 'ten commandmants' displayed, when they were revoked by Jesus, and he gave a different set!

but 2) mainly because I'll have to tell YOU what they are, because you are clearly unaware, and are, like most 'christians', quoting the wrong part of the bible.... (again)...

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

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.

How did you become such an expert on the 'gay culture', Neo?

See, I actually do know homosexuals - and you are certainly not a representative voice for most of them.

Regarding your 4 points:

1) They do not want it? IS your opinion - and based on nothing. And quoting statistics that may or may not have been fictional or to support a party line, especially OLD statistics, is proving nothing.

2) You are right. And, of course, why do heterosexuals really need it, if they really love each other. Everyone should join Neo's campaign to stamp out marriage.

3) In America, at least, about 70% of people said they DID want some kind of union for homosexuals - so homosexual unity is popularly approved - even if some people are squeemish about sharing the name 'marriage'.

4) Proved wrong on every point. Not going to debate that religious angle against you, as I can't stand running into stubborn pride.

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.

What a dumbass. Just replace these words:
Asshole=Vagina
Shit=Menstrual Blood

Yeah, it still sounds nasty, but I like to do it. When did you confuse vulgarity with intelligent debate?
Yes, our bodily functions are pretty nasty, whatever your sex or sexual preference.
Point being?

"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.

Having lived for a quarter century in two major fox-hunting areas of the UK, I can assure you that fox-hunting is a very poor parallel.

1) There are so few 'native' foxes left, that foxes are bred in captivity specifically for the hunt.

2) Unlike homosexuality - the hunt cause injuries to people who are not involved in it - it is, therefore, ACTUALLY harmful to the greater populace.

Must try to look up the statistics on how many people have been horse-trampled, or had property damage, due to 'gay' sex....

I hate gay men! I never want gay marriage to be legalized because what would happen if I met someone and they asked me to marry them and I did then 20 years later I end up getting a divorce because I realize my parents screwed me up mentally and that it is in fact MY problem in the relationship. I actually think it should be legal, but thats because I also beleive that we still have a country with freedom.
-=Down with Bush=-

but why is it a sin?
can anyone give me a direct quote from the bible that says it is a sin to be gay? i cant say there isnt one because i havent read it myself.
but simply out of curiousity does the bible actually come out and say "Its a sin to be gay"?

but why is it a sin?
can anyone give me a direct quote from the bible that says it is a sin to be gay? i cant say there isnt one because i havent read it myself.
but simply out of curiousity does the bible actually come out and say "Its a sin to be gay"?

There are passages that are taken as being directly anti-gay... but that is usually either misunderstanding (deliberate, it seems) by christians, or because of very poor translation from the original language of the scripture.

(i.e. The passages usually end up being about slavery, idol worship, or having sex wih menstruating women.)

Read my post again. Homesexuality is part of the MORAL LAW of the old testement. This still stands into the new and beyond. And as for God given gift, at the garden of Eden he says to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and increase in number" or something to that effect.

Still stands into "the new and beyond"?
Well then, the rest of the points he wrote aren't moot, they are just as valid.

but why is it a sin?
can anyone give me a direct quote from the bible that says it is a sin to be gay? i cant say there isnt one because i havent read it myself.
but simply out of curiousity does the bible actually come out and say "Its a sin to be gay"?

Homosexuality is a form of sodomy, fornication and adultury. The Bible says that these things are sin:

Old Testament:

Leviticus 18:12"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Deut 23:17
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor sodomite of the sons of Israel."

Isa 3:3
"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

New Testament:

Romans 1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

1 Cor 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

and in response to the post by Endless Rehearsals...

All of that is based off the Mosaic law, which was fulfilled and replaced with a higher law (see ST Matthew chapter 5) at the time Christ, and therefore not aplicable to Christianity.

Well Thank Jesus! That make homosexuality okay because CHRIST NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
So why aren't Christians throwing out the old stigmatism about homosexuality along with those on pork, menstruation, haircutting, shellfish, etc.?
Simple. It's NOT about Christianity, it's about old time prejudice.
Check out what the South was doing with your bible when slavery was being challenged.
They brought out the "Good Book" and tried to prove that God wants our Niggers to be owned by Whitey.
The same thing is going on here. Jesus wasn't concerned with where you put your penis, he was concerned with where you put your heart.

Homosexuality is a form of sodomy, fornication and adultury.

Read that sentence again, and then explain to me why it is wrong.

The Bible says that these things are sin:

Old Testament:

Leviticus 18:12"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Unless you are prepared to follow every single Levitical law other than the food ones, you cannot use this as evidence.

Deut 23:17
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor sodomite of the sons of Israel."

Ditto.

Isa 3:3
"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

The sins in Sodom were numerous, and homosexuality itself was not one of them.

New Testament:

Romans 1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

Lust != sexuality != love

1 Cor 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Nothing really about homosexuality here, unless you count "effeminate," which would apply to some homosexual men. I suppose the last part could be used to condemn

Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Again, nothing here really about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a form of sodomy, fornication and adultury. The Bible says that these things are sin:

Old Testament:

Leviticus 18:12"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Deut 23:17
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor sodomite of the sons of Israel."

Isa 3:3
"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

New Testament:

Romans 1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

1 Cor 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."


Since you are setting yourself up as an authority, is it safe to assume you have read the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scripture?

The reason I asked is that, for example, Leviticus 18:12 is CLEARLY a prohibition against men having intercourse with menstruating women - in the Hebrew.

Oh, by the way - Jude 1:7 refers to the Book of Enoch. Ths sin of "Going after strange flesh" is men trying to have intercourse with angels - which lead to the creation of the 'giants' of Genesis.

Again, nothing here really about homosexuality.

Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

Fornication: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other (or to anyone else).

Sodomy: Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

...what was so incorrect about my sentence? Homosexuality is, by its nature, both fornication and sodomy. It can also occassionally be adultery, as there are many married men who sadly lead double-lives...to the utter destruction of their families.

This holds true for any sexual act outside the covenant of marriage...it's not just limited to homosexuality. I also believe that this includes pornography, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality...and any other number of disgusting perversions.

You argue that Old Testament scriputeres do not apply to us because we are no longer observing all of the Levitical laws? Fair enough.

You argue that New Testament scriptures are vague and inconclusive? You and I would probably both agree that there have been a thousand different churches and denominations created from different interpretations of New Testament scriptures...so yes, much of New Testamsnt scripture is obviously not exhaustive or conclusive.

For many, it seems that God has worked with a different set of "rules" when it comes to the Old Testament Israelites and the New Testament Jews & Gentiles. For example, the Old Testament commands the Israelites to stone to death any prostitute within their society. In the New Testament, Chist forgave prostitutes and commanded that we should as well. Other examples include: Killing our enemies vs. loving our enemies. It all gets terribly confusing.

This is why God has always called up prophets. To declare His will to His children in dealing with the problems of their own society, cultural environment, etc.

I do not have to worry about how someone interprets the New Testament differently from me, or about how someone may claim that the Old Testament is not applicable to our times, becasue I believe that there is a living Prophet of God today who receives revelation from God on behalf of us in this day and age, concerning our modern challenges. The current Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, minces no words when it comes to the question of homosexuality:

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The powers of procreation are sacred. God has commanded that the sacred power and privilege of sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married. This is the law of chastity." - Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Now, you can argue that you don't believe Gordon B. Hinckley to be a Prophet of God, and that's your choice. Many didn't believe Elijah was a Prophet of God, either. But you cannot say that Gordon B. Hinckley is anything other than clear and direct on this point.

Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

Fornication: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other (or to anyone else).

Sodomy: Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

...what was so incorrect about my sentence? Homosexuality is, by its nature, both fornication and sodomy. It can also occassionally be adultery, as there are many married men who sadly lead double-lives...to the utter destruction of their families.

Homosexuality is the state of being only attracted to members of the same sex. By its nature, it is simply attraction. Fornication, adultery, and sodomy don't ever have to enter into it. Fornication doesn't make sense if you consider the fact that many homosexual couples are married by any reasonable definition - and is no more prevalent in the homosexual community than the heterosexual one. Adultery is wrong no matter how you do it. Sodomy *might* be part of a homosexual couple's life, but does not have to be.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The powers of procreation are sacred. God has commanded that the sacred power and privilege of sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married. This is the law of chastity." - Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Now, you can argue that you don't believe Gordon B. Hinckley to be a Prophet of God, and that's your choice. Many didn't believe Elijah was a Prophet of God, either. But you cannot say that Gordon B. Hinckley is anything other than clear and direct.

I am sure that you also believe that the Native Americans were Jews, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Human beings are flawed. Plain and simple. The only voice that matters in this discourse is that of God, which you have to hear for yourself, not from someone else who (a) may not be hearing it at all and (b) is a flawed filter through which to hear it.

...what was so incorrect about my sentence? Homosexuality is, by its nature, both fornication and sodomy. It can also occassionally be adultery, as there are many married men who sadly lead double-lives...to the utter destruction of their families.
A "homosexual" is a person in a homosexual relationship. A relationship is two people filling each other's lives with love and companionship, etc. A relationship need not involve sexual intercourse.

Homosexuality is the state of being only attracted to members of the same sex. By its nature, it is simply attraction. Fornication, adultery, and sodomy don't ever have to enter into it.
I agree.

Fornication...is no more prevalent in the homosexual community than the heterosexual one. Adultery is wrong no matter how you do it.
I don't have any statistics to prove whether or not this is true, but by principle I agree.

Sodomy *might* be part of a homosexual couple's life, but does not have to be.
Again, I agree.


I am sure that you also believe that the Native Americans were Jews, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
No, I do not believe that the Native Americans were jews. I believe that the most of teh modern native tribes are probably decendents of many different nationalities which have at one time or another inhabited The Americas. Among these inhabitants, I do believe that there were decendents of Israel, particularly in the northern parts of Mexico and eastern parts of the U.S. (where there there is actaully quite a bit of evidence). These decendents of Israel were the sons of Lehi of the tribe of Joseph. The tribes of the West are probably mostly of asian decent. But thanks for asking.


Human beings are flawed. Plain and simple. The only voice that matters in this discourse is that of God, which you have to hear for yourself, not from someone else who (a) may not be hearing it at all and (b) is a flawed filter through which to hear it.
I agree, and I would never claim that a Prophet of God is perfect. The only man who ever walked this earth in Perfection was Christ, who we don't have a whole lot of direct teaching from. However, I will say that God calls servants, despite their imperfections, for the purpose of revealing His will. I believe that this is just as true for Moses and Abraham as it is with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or, currently, Gordon B. Hinckley.

I am thankful that our Father has not abandoned His children without a clear voice, even in these modern times.

I agree.


I don't have any statistics to prove whether or not this is true, but by principle I agree.


Again, I agree.


No, I do not believe that the Native Americans were jews. I believe that the most of teh modern native tribes are probably decendents of many different nationalities which have at one time or another inhabited The Americas. Among these inhabitants, I do believe that there were decendents of Israel, particularly in the northern parts of Mexico and eastern parts of the U.S. (where there there is actaully quite a bit of evidence). These decendents of Israel were the sons of Lehi of the tribe of Joseph. The tribes of the West are probably mostly of asian decent. But thanks for asking.


I agree, and I would never claim that a Prophet of God is perfect. The only man who ever walked this earth in Perfection was Christ, who we don't have a whole lot of direct teaching from. However, I will say that God calls servants, despite their imperfections, for the purpose of revealing His will. I believe that this is just as true for Moses and Abraham as it is with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or, currently, Gordon B. Hinckley.

I am thankful that our Father has not abandoned His children without a clear voice, even in these modern times.

And who declared Gordon B Hinckley a prophet?

I agree, and I would never claim that a Prophet of God is perfect. The only man who ever walked this earth in Perfection was Christ, who we don't have a whole lot of direct teaching from. However, I will say that God calls servants, despite their imperfections, for the purpose of revealing His will. I believe that this is just as true for Moses and Abraham as it is with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or, currently, Gordon B. Hinckley.

And this is where we would disagree. I believe that God reveals to all of us. This relevation comes in many forms, but I see no reason to trust that any human being has a clearer revelation than I do.

A "homosexual" is a person in a homosexual relationship. A relationship is two people filling each other's lives with love and companionship, etc. A relationship need not involve sexual intercourse.

I agree. I have a tremendous amount of love and companionship from my family and close friends.

I stated this above, but let me state it again...I don't believe that person with a propensity towards homosexuality is necessarily damned. I do believe that homosexual intercourse is fornication and sodomy, and is in direct opposition to the commandment of God. However, I recognise it is fornication and sodomy that is the sin, not the homosexual propensity in and of itself.

Let me make one more clear statement given by Gordon B. Hinckley (who I sustain as a living Prophet) about homosexuality. This was directed more towards Church membership:

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

I don't believe this is inequal or unfair treatment.

Well Thank Jesus! That make homosexuality okay because CHRIST NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
So why aren't Christians throwing out the old stigmatism about homosexuality along with those on pork, menstruation, haircutting, shellfish, etc.?
Simple. It's NOT about Christianity, it's about old time prejudice.
Check out what the South was doing with your bible when slavery was being challenged.
They brought out the "Good Book" and tried to prove that God wants our Niggers to be owned by Whitey.
The same thing is going on here. Jesus wasn't concerned with where you put your penis, he was concerned with where you put your heart.

Applauds! :) The bible has been used as more diverse and contradictory propagander than any other communication. Maybe Ye who are without sin should cast the first stone? And what happened to turning the other cheek? It's amazing that people who interpret the bible literaly have so little christian charity.

There is so evidence for an Adam. The Bible. You are believing that there was no Adam. No I ask you is it easier to believe that adam and eve were the first people on earth or that eve was soley the first person on earth and go completely against recorded history?

According to this brilliant line of reasoning, there seems to be sufficient evidence for Peter Pan, Tyler Durden, and even Buddha, Mohammed and Krishna!

And who declared Gordon B Hinckley a prophet?

Gordon B. Hincley was called as an Apostle by the President (and Prophet) before him, Howard W. Hunter. Gordon was sustained by the general membership of the Church in this position. After President Hunter passed away, Gordon took his position and was set apart by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles as a Prophet, Seer & Revelator. President Hinckley is now 93 years old, and will likely not be around very much longer. When he passes, another will be named as his successor...likley Thomas S. Monson, who is currently serving as the Senior Apostle.

That is how Gordon B. Hinckley "rose to his position," so to speak, but I would quickly add that I believe he was called of God for this purpose...as will be the next in one line.

And this is where we would disagree. I believe that God reveals to all of us. This relevation comes in many forms, but I see no reason to trust that any human being has a clearer revelation than I do.

That's fine. You have a right to believe according to the dictates of your heart. For the record, however, I also believe that you are entitled to direct revelation, given to you by the Holy Ghost. I have no problem with that. However, I believe that the revelation that you receive is for you, personally, and perhaps for your family...I do not believe that you can receive revelation fromGod on behalf of all of his children. This is the role of a Prophet. Any personal revelation that you receive, which is true, will not be in conflict with the revelation that has been given by his annointed Prophet. I have no question about this. In other words, I cannot claim that I have received a revelation that we need to start practicing polygamy again. Firstly, The Holy Spirit would not tell me something that is in conflict with the will of God. Secondly, God would not reveal His will through me for something which affects the entire church. I am not ordained and annointed to be this conduit.

Gordon B. Hincley was called as an Apostle by the President (and Prophet) before him, Howard W. Hunter. Gordon was sustained by the general membership of the Church in this position. After President Hunter passed away, Gordon took his position and was set apart by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles as a Prophet, Seer & Revelator. President Hinckley is now 93 years old, and will likely not be around very much longer. When he passes, another will be named as his successor...likley Thomas S. Monson, who is currently serving as the Senior Apostle.

That is how Gordon B. Hinckley "rose to his position," so to speak, but I would quickly add that I believe he was called of God for this purpose...as will be the next in one line.


It looks like each new "Prophet" in your chosen religion gets the title almost by default.
It's like a board of governors choosing a new Managing director!
Now you may be very happy with your religion (and I am happy that your happy) but how do you expect people to take your religion seriously if you choose prophets in this way?
Gordon B HInckley is just a guy like you and me who happened to be in the right place at the right time within your organisation, he is no more a prophet and a seer than I am. (I am sure he is a very nice man and a sincere person but to elevate anyone to a demi-god status is really quite silly)

I agree. I have a tremendous amount of love and companionship from my family and close friends.

I stated this above, but let me state it again...I don't believe that person with a propensity towards homosexuality is necessarily damned. I do believe that homosexual intercourse is fornication and sodomy, and is in direct opposition to the commandment of God. However, I recognise it is fornication and sodomy that is the sin, not the homosexual propensity in and of itself.

Let me make one more clear statement given by Gordon B. Hinckley (who I sustain as a living Prophet) about homosexuality. This was directed more towards Church membership:

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

I don't believe this is inequal or unfair treatment.

Sodomy is a legal term, yes? Not a scriptural one? Based on the 'supposed' crime of the inhabitants of Sodom, who lusted after 'strange flesh'?

I don't really recall the Bible ever using the word 'sodomy'...

So, you wouldn't be opposed to sodomy if the law allowed it, then?

Regarding fornication: there is no such thing. It's another construct of the 'church'. In biblical times, it was not necessary for the average individual to undergo a 'ceremony' to be married, although ceremonies DID happen. What made a couple married was the 'consumation of the marriage', which is still carried in most "marriage laws/divorce laws" today.

So - if you had sex, you were 'married' - and, therefore, incapable of fornication

In fact, in biblical times, the implications of the word "fornication" were: the exchange of sexual favours for money; unfaithfulness (including religious 'infidelity'); being a temple-prostitute; and being adulterous.

So - by your reasons for not allowing homosexual sex - you WOULD allow it if the state law allowed it, and if no money was exchanged, or adultery commited.

Am I right?

Jesus never endorced or condemed homosexuality which therefore means that he must have supported the original teaching of homosexuality in Leviticus.]

Ergo, working on the Sabbath should be punished by Death, as GOD HIMSELF ordered the execution orders himself, and never rescinded them. Ergom, as GOD HIMSELF has stated punishment for an action, it can't be rescinded, because then God wouild be an impotent worthless being. So why don't you go out and murder everyone you know who does ANY work on the Sabbath?

Also, I see your bluindnesss has caused you to see my question and thus andswer it: WHICH SET OF COMMANDMENTS ARE THE TRUE ONES?

Since you obviously didn't see it before, that might make get you to see them easier.

And to the idiots using Jude 1:7 - READ THE WHOLE G*D DAMN SEGMENT OF JUDE! JUDE 1:6 TELLS WHAT JUDE 1:7 WAS FOR!

And those who say the sins of Sodom and Gommorah are homosexuality: QUIT WORSHIPPING PAUL DAMMNIT! SEE WHAT YOUR GOD JESUS HIMSELF SAID ABOUT THEIR SINS!

It looks like each new "Prophet" in your chosen religion gets the title almost by default.
It's like a board of governors choosing a new Managing director!
Now you may be very happy with your religion (and I am happy that your happy) but how do you expect people to take your religion seriously if you choose prophets in this way?
Gordon B Hinckley is just a guy like you and me who happened to be in the right place at the right time within your organisation, he is no more a prophet and a seer than I am. (I am sure he is a very nice man and a sincere person but to elevate anyone to a demi-god status is really quite silly)

Well, firstly, I would never elevate Gordon B. Hinckley to demi-god status, that would be just plain silly. Of course he's a man. Now, as far as his "happening to be in the right place at the right time," I would call that divine providence. Gordon B. Hinckley didn't just spring up out of nowhere and claim himself to be a prophet. Is this teh method you would have preferred? This would be anarchy and would create disorder. Gordon served in the Quorom of Twelve Apostles for over twenty five years. I was five years old when he was called. I've known of him practically my whole life. So, any serious misdeeds he would have committed within the past twenty-five years would have certainly become public knowledge. In 1996, when Gordon B. Hinckley was called as the President of the Church, I was delighted that I could proudly raise my hand in sustainment of him because I knew who he was and what he stood for. I am thankful that we have a system whereby we know the hearts and testimony of these men.

Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet in the same way that Peter was a prophet, when Christ gave to him the keys of the kingdom and said that he would be the rock by which the church would stand upon. Thus, he was the Senior Apostle who presided over the other twelve. In other words, Peter was the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Along those lines, read the New Testament and tell me what the Apostles did after Judas hung himself? They ordained another in his place. How did they choose this new apostle? They cast lots. You can't tell me that this is any more "silly" than the system of order that we have now.

Oh joy, we're quoting old scripts Goody goody:

In the Testament of Solomon (1st-3rd centuries CE), Solomon learns that Beelzeboul is one of the fallen angels who destroys by means of tyrants, causes demons to be worshipped, arouses desires in priests, brings about jealousies and murders, and instigates wars. The other demon he refers to as being imprisoned in the Red Sea is the one-winged demon, Abezethibou, Moses' adversary in Egypt.

"Then I summoned Beelzeboul to appear before me again. When he was seated, I thought it appropriate to ask him, 'Why are you alone Prince of the Demons?' He replied, 'Because I am the only one left of the heavenly angels (who fell). I was the highest-ranking angel in heaven, the one called Beelzeboul. There is also accompanied me another ungodly (angel) whom God cut off and now, imprisoned here, he holds in his power the race of those bound by me in Tartarus. He is being nurtured in the Red Sea; when he is ready, he will come in triumph."

"I said to him, 'What are your activities?' He replied, 'I bring destruction by means of tyrants; I cause the demons to be worshiped alongside men; and I arouse desire in holy men and select priests. I bring about jealousies and murders in a country, and I instigate wars." - TSol 6:1-4
Beelzeboul then prophecizes that the wind demon, Ephippas will bind the demon imprisoned in the Red Sea and bring him out of the abyss. He then tells Solomon that he is thwarted by the Almighty God and the oath "the Elo-i".

"Then I said, 'Tell me which angel thwarts you.' 'The Almighty God,' he replied. 'He is called by the Hebrews Patike, the one who descends from the heights' he is (called) by the Greeks Emmanouel. I am always afraid of him, and trembling. If anyone adjures me with the oath (called) 'the Elo-i', a great name for his power, I disappear." - TSol 6:8
Another manuscript (MS P) of the passage found includes the numeric sum of the name of God. The letters translate as follows. E = 5, m = 40, m = 40, a = 1, n = 50, o = 70, u = 400, e = 8, l = 30.

"I, said to him, 'Tell me by what angel you are thwarted.' And he replied, 'By the holy and precious name of the almighty God, the one called by the Hebrews by a row of numbers, or which the sum is 644, and among the Greeks, it is Emmanouel. And if one of the Romans adjure me by the great name of power, Eleeth, I disappear. " - TSol 6:8 MS P
Finally, Beelzeboul informs Solomon about heavenly things.

"Listen, King, if you burn oil of myrrh, frankincense, and bulbs of the sea along with spikenard and saffron, and light seven lamps during an earthquake, you will strengthen (your) house. And if, being ritually clean, you light (them) at the crack of dawn, just before the sun comes up, you will see the heavenly dragons and the way the wriggle along and pull the chariot of the sun." - TSol 6:10-11

"Then Hell, receiving Satan the prince, with sore reproach said unto him: O prince of perdition and chief of destruction, Beelzebub, the scorn of the angels and spitting of the righteous why wouldest thou do this? Thou wouldest crucify the King of glory and at his decease didst promise us great spoils of his death: like a fool thou knewest not what thou didst. For behold now, this Jesus putteth to flight by the brightness of his majesty all the darkness of death, and hath broken the strong depths of the prisons, and let out the prisoners and loosed them that were bound. And all that were sighing in our torments do rejoice against us, and at their prayers our dominions are vanquished and our realms conquered, and now no nation of men feareth us any more. And beside this, the dead which were never wont to be proud triumph over us, and the captives which never could be joyful do threaten us.

O prince Satan, father of all the wicked and ungodly and renegades wherefore wouldest thou do this? They that from the beginning until now have despaired of life and salvation-now is none of their wonted roarings heard, neither doth any groan from them sound in our ears, nor is there any sign of tears upon the face of any of them. O prince Satan, holder of the keys of hell, those thy riches which thou hadst gained by the tree of transgression and the losing of paradise, thou hast lost by the tree of the cross, and all thy gladness hath perished. When thou didst hang up Christ Jesus the King of glory thou wroughtest against thyself and against me. Henceforth thou shalt know what eternal torments and infinite pains thou art to suffer in my keeping for ever.

O prince Satan, author of death and head of all pride, thou oughtest first to have sought out matter of evil in this Jesus: Wherefore didst thou adventure without cause to crucify him unjustly against whom thou foundest no blame, and to bring into our realm the innocent and righteous one, and to lose the guilty and the ungodly and unrighteous of the whole world? And when Hell had spoken thus unto Satan the prince, then said the King of glory unto Hell: Satan the prince shall be in thy power unto all ages in the stead of Adam and his children, even those that are my righteous ones" - Gospel of Nicodemus VII (XXIII)


There's some proof that the Elo-i (the christian god -- if you don't believe me get the original bible where it says "Elo-i, Eloi, Lama Sabathane") is an angel, and not a god. Live with it. Also, a lot of people quoting stuff may not understand what people back in the day meant... Words like angel, demon, god didn't quiet mean what we percieve today... It's kind of a heirarchy It's something like this:
Titan God
+
Titan
+
God\Demi-Gods
/\ /\
Angels Demons
| /
Men

I hope you might somewhat understand that... However, I don't really care if you shall but I will shed a little insight.. The proper translation of "god" is "divine" meaning 'Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.' The ones in service of the deity is going to most certainly have an advantage over those who do not, but those "gods" do bow down to someone that's greater than them. ie - Titan God, (they didn't serve titans because they were just creations of the titan god therefore the name) the god of the titans, yes he (i say he but he could appear as he would) was more powerfull than all of the gods and titans combined. His universe and all others ruled by him with absolute power. Of course you don't have to believe me, infact I 'pray' you don't. Go about your ways, it doesn't really matter what you do anyways no matter how monumental it may seem, it is always outdone and there shall always be one greater. People live their entire lives striving to complete goals which when done undoes all of the work they have stroven for.. None of you will understand this -- At this point I should feel to delete these writings however, I will not.

P.S. Your 'god' (The Elo-i) doesn't speak an earthly language. If you were enlighted enough you would be taught Ast the language of the Gods, and through this language alone would you communicate with he. If you were to adjure the prince of demons, you must speak Gaia. And for earth itself you must speak the forgotten language of Eith. For there is one more speech though -- the divine speech, all of knowledge may understand yet none may speak it. The language of the Titan god, his mdw-ntr. And I shall leave you with a name of his power so in your darkest hour you may call upon it and be filled with great malice and ascendancy. Twdneanc.
And then you will know all I have said is true.

What? From homofobia to this? This thread is incredible! :) Hehe, I'm a prophet of God too, and I say: "Verily, I declare, this is utter weirdness!"

It isn't a sin, and all you so called humans who think that it is are a bunch of ignorant idiots! That's that, end of discussion!

Well, firstly, I would never elevate Gordon B. Hinckley to demi-god status, that would be just plain silly. Of course he's a man. Now, as far as his "happening to be in the right place at the right time," I would call that divine providence. Gordon B. Hinckley didn't just spring up out of nowhere and claim himself to be a prophet. Is this teh method you would have preferred? This would be anarchy and would create disorder. Gordon served in the Quorom of Twelve Apostles for over twenty five years. I was five years old when he was called. I've known of him practically my whole life. So, any serious misdeeds he would have committed within the past twenty-five years would have certainly become public knowledge. In 1996, when Gordon B. Hinckley was called as the President of the Church, I was delighted that I could proudly raise my hand in sustainment of him because I knew who he was and what he stood for. I am thankful that we have a system whereby we know the hearts and testimony of these men.

Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet in the same way that Peter was a prophet, when Christ gave to him the keys of the kingdom and said that he would be the rock by which the church would stand upon. Thus, he was the Senior Apostle who presided over the other twelve. In other words, Peter was the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Along those lines, read the New Testament and tell me what the Apostles did after Judas hung himself? They ordained another in his place. How did they choose this new apostle? They cast lots. You can't tell me that this is any more "silly" than the system of order that we have now.

I never said GBH "sprung out of nowhere", I have no doubts that he is as good a man as you can be, my point was that anyone could call themselves a prophet, or be called a prophet, if they had either a) the balls and the ego to proclaim themselves a conduit to whatever god they worship or b) they had the backing of a group of like minded people (people of the same religious persuation) who saw him as the one most likely to carry their belief forward.
That goes for anyone calling themselves a prophet or seer, all the way back in time.
Personally, I have no religion though I do not have a problem with those who do except when they bring it to my doorstep and try to "convert" me, much like Jehova's witnessess or Mormons.
As my old mother used to say(she is Church of Scotland), "Religion is a personal thing and should remain so, a religion that needs door to door salesmen has something sadly lacking"
This isn't a dig at you, I am just letting you know where I come from in this debate.
To me, most religion is cultish and invasive and where I stay it is also sectarian, all these things are detrimental to a harmonious neighbourhood and country.

Homosexuality is just a combined product of genetic influence (a link has already been posted) and societal circumstances (see: molested as child, jailhouse gay).
Debate it all you like: it happened then and it happens now. It makes no difference, pro- or anti- , same as in most cases.
It's just like you own personal nation: too much social freedom leads to corruption, governments falling to waste and people becoming opressed by biker gangs, the law of survival of the fittest. Too little leads to despotism, where people can barely move without being restricted. When the issue comes up, condemn it or support it, it's just another fluctuating societal belief.
Deal with it.

Homosexuality is nice :) People who label them sinners are not nice. :mad: Give me one good reason why I should respect anybody's lack of respect for other people?

GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm :) It's also a drug, which may (apparently) lead to grievous mental harm.

I never said GBH "sprung out of nowhere", I have no doubts that he is as good a man as you can be, my point was that anyone could call themselves a prophet, or be called a prophet, if they had either a) the balls and the ego to proclaim themselves a conduit to whatever god they worship or b) they had the backing of a group of like minded people (people of the same religious persuation) who saw him as the one most likely to carry their belief forward.
That goes for anyone calling themselves a prophet or seer, all the way back in time.
Personally, I have no religion though I do not have a problem with those who do except when they bring it to my doorstep and try to "convert" me, much like Jehova's witnessess or Mormons.
As my old mother used to say(she is Church of Scotland), "Religion is a personal thing and should remain so, a religion that needs door to door salesmen has something sadly lacking"
This isn't a dig at you, I am just letting you know where I come from in this debate.
To me, most religion is cultish and invasive and where I stay it is also sectarian, all these things are detrimental to a harmonious neighbourhood and country.

Your points and perspectives are valid, and so was your old mother's sentiment. Religion is a personal thing, and people should be free to choose for themselves what or how they worship. Of course, I would beg to differ that organized religion is detrimental to a neighbourhood or country...in fact, I think just the opposite...but you are entitled to your views.

It was a good debate though, eh? ;)

Ergo, working on the Sabbath should be punished by Death, as GOD HIMSELF ordered the execution orders himself, and never rescinded them. Ergom, as GOD HIMSELF has stated punishment for an action, it can't be rescinded, because then God wouild be an impotent worthless being. So why don't you go out and murder everyone you know who does ANY work on the Sabbath?


Nothing is punishable by death anymore, as Jesus made the point of "judge not or you will be judged" in regard to sin. Crime is diffrent.


And to the idiots using Jude 1:7 - READ THE WHOLE G*D DAMN SEGMENT OF JUDE! JUDE 1:6 TELLS WHAT JUDE 1:7 WAS FOR!


I have read Jude 1: 6. It just talks about the fact that angels who left their positions who went to Earth (Nephamim and others) will be punished in the same way that those at Soddom and Gomourgh were punished. The punishment is the same but the sins are diffrent.

It isn't a sin, and all you so called humans who think that it is are a bunch of ignorant idiots! That's that, end of discussion!

Nice try. Care to prove yourself. Like say a positive endorcement of homosexuality anywhere in the Bible?

Unless you are prepared to follow every single Levitical law other than the food ones, you cannot use this as evidence.


We can. As I have explained parts of the Old Testement apply still parts do not. The key is to see which parts are adressed in the new.


The sins in Sodom were numerous, and homosexuality itself was not one of them.


I agree that sins of soddom were numerous but it was homosexuality that seemed to push it over the edge when the men of the city wanted to have sex with the angels that appered to be men. That is when it was destroyed.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the desire to rape some of God's angels. :rolleyes:
Are you saying that if the angels were female, it would have been ok?

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the desire to rape some of God's angels. :rolleyes:
Are you saying that if the angels were female, it would have been ok?

Of course not. But this was still homosexuality. Men wanting to have sex with men. It was destroyed when this happened. We cannot judge whether or not it would have been ok if it happened another way because it didn't. However we can judge what we do know.

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

I would just like to see what people think of this site

Of course not. But this was still homosexuality. Men wanting to have sex with men. It was destroyed when this happened. We cannot judge whether or not it would have been ok if it happened another way because it didn't. However we can judge what we do know.

So why do you assume it's because of homosexuality, and not because of rape of angels, that Sodom was destroyed?
Because quite frankly I find it hard to believe that the mob at Lot's house were the first people in Sodom to desire sex with other men.

So why do you assume it's because of homosexuality, and not because of rape of angels, that Sodom was destroyed?
Because quite frankly I find it hard to believe that the mob at Lot's house were the first people in Sodom to desire sex with other men.

Because simmilar fates were demanded of other nations that praciced homosexuality later on in the Old Testement (See Cannanites)

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

Because simmilar fates were demanded of other nations that praciced homosexuality later on in the Old Testement (See Cannanites)

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

Then why wasn't Sodom destroyed sooner?
And were these fates also demanded for nations that practiced any of the other sins of Sodom, like inhospitability and cruelty to the poor?

And I can't find anything about Cannanites in that document you have posted twice in a row now.

Then why wasn't Sodom destroyed sooner?
And were these fates also demanded for nations that practiced any of the other sins of Sodom, like inhospitability and cruelty to the poor?


I dont know exactly but I think that the idea of homosexuality with an angel pushed it over the edge. Thats just my opinion though


And I can't find anything about Cannanites in that document you have posted twice in a row now.

Not about the Cannites, I just wanted to know what people thought of it.

I dont know exactly but I think that the idea of homosexuality with an angel pushed it over the edge. Thats just my opinion though

Ah, so it was the angel thing.
And you do say that it would have been ok if the angels had been female.

Not about the Cannites, I just wanted to know what people thought of it.

Ah ok, well, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the bible to really comment on that. I'm sure you'll get a better response from some of the others who have been posting here.

Ah, so it was the angel thing.
And you do say that it would have been ok if the angels had been female.


Angels are neither female nor male so what you are sugesting would be impossible. They appered male. I do not think that it would have been "ok" if the angels had been female though. I do think that they it is less likely that the city would have been destroyed but I dont know.

Angels are neither female nor male so what you are sugesting would be impossible. They appered male. I do not think that it would have been "ok" if the angels had been female though. I do think that they it is less likely that the city would have been destroyed but I dont know.

And how do you know the mob wanted to rape them because they were male?
For all I know, it was because they were 'strangers', and it was some wicked form of a welcoming party.

At any rate, this does not explain why homosexuality is a sin, only that it might be.

And how do you know the mob wanted to rape them because they were male?
For all I know, it was because they were 'strangers', and it was some wicked form of a welcoming party.

At any rate, this does not explain why homosexuality is a sin, only that it might be.

Well the reason we think this is that it specificly says the "MEN" of the city came out and they called the angels "MEN". It is this event that is the trigger for the destruction of the city. Granted the city was already evil and nasty but this tips the scales. It is the trigger and the trigger of a destruction of a nasty city is useally something very nasty.

And how do you know the mob wanted to rape them because they were male?
For all I know, it was because they were 'strangers', and it was some wicked form of a welcoming party.

At any rate, this does not explain why homosexuality is a sin, only that it might be.
I think the point is that the fact that they wanted to rape anyone was their problem. Let's face it, even if the angels had said "yeah, we're up for that" it would still have been adultery, male or female.

Who can explain why anything's a sin? Why actually is killing someone a sin? If they're a Christian to kill them would be doing them a kind of twisted favour by sending them to be with God. Adultery may be recognised as a sin, doesn't stop people doing it because it feels good at the time. Who's defined human sin for us (Moses' chiselling skills notwithstanding) ?

I think the point is that the fact that they wanted to rape anyone was their problem. Let's face it, even if the angels had said "yeah, we're up for that" it would still have been adultery, male or female.


Jude 1: 6 - 7 gives a diffrent picture. It describes Soddom and Gommorugh as genral sexual immorality, which at the time meant homosexuality along with a load of other offences.


Who can explain why anything's a sin? Why actually is killing someone a sin? If they're a Christian to kill them would be doing them a kind of twisted favour by sending them to be with God. Adultery may be recognised as a sin, doesn't stop people doing it because it feels good at the time. Who's defined human sin for us (Moses' chiselling skills notwithstanding) ?

God as he shows us in the Bible what is and isnt a sin. It seems to me a curious debate on homosexuality. If all the passages in refrence to homosexuality are disproved (Which is far from the case) then what you are left with is the Bible saying nothing on the subject. There are no positive refernces to homosexuality in the Bible, not a single endorcement anywhere. So why do people have this idea that homosexuality is not a sin?

Jude 1: 6 - 7 gives a diffrent picture. It describes Soddom and Gommorugh as genral sexual immorality, which at the time meant homosexuality along with a load of other offences.



God as he shows us in the Bible what is and isnt a sin. It seems to me a curious debate on homosexuality. If all the passages in refrence to homosexuality are disproved (Which is far from the case) then what you are left with is the Bible saying nothing on the subject. There are no positive refernces to homosexuality in the Bible, not a single endorcement anywhere. So why do people have this idea that homosexuality is not a sin?


Because, if we are to take what other people (other than you Neo) say about the so called references (or non-references as the case may be) regarding homosexuality then there are no negative references to it either, therefor, it is not a sin.

You asked why so please dont ridicule me if you dont agree with this. I am a Chirstian baptist, and this is what the Bible says about it :
Romans 1:
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
God even new that there would be penalties for these sins such as AIDs and all the other sicknesses related with it.
Thats my veiw

Jude 1: 6 - 7 gives a diffrent picture. It describes Soddom and Gommorugh as general sexual immorality, which at the time meant homosexuality along with a load of other offences.

God as he shows us in the Bible what is and isnt a sin. It seems to me a curious debate on homosexuality. If all the passages in reference to homosexuality are disproved (Which is far from the case) then what you are left with is the Bible saying nothing on the subject. There are no positive refernces to homosexuality in the Bible, not a single endorcement anywhere. So why do people have this idea that homosexuality is not a sin?
I have a problem with the whole 'humans disproving God-breathed text' thing. They should be focusing their thought on making a time machine so we can go back and straighten out the whole sin thing. Yeah

GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm It's also a drug, which may (apparently) lead to grievous mental harm.
Close. The drug is GHB and can lead to mental harm but usually just complete loss of physical control.

God as he shows us in the Bible what is and isnt a sin. It seems to me a curious debate on homosexuality. If all the passages in refrence to homosexuality are disproved (Which is far from the case) then what you are left with is the Bible saying nothing on the subject. There are no positive refernces to homosexuality in the Bible, not a single endorcement anywhere. So why do people have this idea that homosexuality is not a sin?

Newsflash: God didn’t write the bible, people and their prejudices did. All the bible is is a tool to control people’s actions (as are many religions) and making it the word of god is just the stick to make people do what their told out of fear (or some other blindness). And as for there being nothing in the bible in support of homosexuality, didn’t Jesus direct us to love thy fellow man?

Because, if we are to take what other people (other than you Neo) say about the so called references (or non-references as the case may be) regarding homosexuality then there are no negative references to it either, therefor, it is not a sin.

Well firstly the verses havent been disproven and secondly that doesnt remove the adultury arguement, IE

Marriage is the only situation for sex according to the Bible

Marrigae acording to the Bible is man women only (IE there being no refrences to other ideas of marriage espically not the same sex varity)

Therefore any sex outside marriage is a sin and therefore homosexual sex is a sin

Even without specific refences to homosexuality this arguemnt stands.

Newsflash: God didn’t write the bible, people and their prejudices did. All the bible is is a tool to control people’s actions (as are many religions) and making it the word of god is just the stick to make people do what their told out of fear (or some other blindness). And as for there being nothing in the bible in support of homosexuality, didn’t Jesus direct us to love thy fellow man?
Except the prejudices of the time didn't ran much past a certain dislike of Eygptians and Canaanites.

Yes love thy fellow man. Unfortunately that part of the Bible was written in Greek was it not? Greek and it's five words for love, the one used here almost certainly not being the one dealing with the love between sexual partners.

Newsflash: God didn’t write the bible, people and their prejudices did. All the bible is is a tool to control people’s actions (as are many religions) and making it the word of god is just the stick to make people do what their told out of fear (or some other blindness). And as for there being nothing in the bible in support of homosexuality, didn’t Jesus direct us to love thy fellow man?

1) The Bible is not a tool for control. If it was surely it would have a few more tightening rules. There is no refrence to instiutional structure of any kind or anything like that, it has a moral code and a belief system. Nothing to create opression or control of a nation.

2) Are you serious about the "Love your fellow man" quote? If you are then I really must tell you now that if you believe that the only kind of love is the romantic type then I feel very sorry for you now. And the word "Man" in this context is not just members of the same sex but the context of all humans. note here humans

Both imply the torture and broad-ness of "paganism" which usually refers to some celtic-barbarian stuff over the greatest religious belief system the world has ever known..

Ahem. The Greatest Belief System Ever Known" You say? No offense, but Christianity is a religion. Just like every religion and belief sytem before it, it will eventually die out in favor of a new one (or then again, it could be replaced by aetheism. Whatever.)

As for the question here, yes it's a sin. You know why? Because people are afraid of gays, which I am sure had SOME bearing on what was written in the Bible, IF it truly is "God's word". After all, is it not human nature to get twist words for their own benifit? Look at poloticians, lawyers, they do it all the time!

Another thing to think about: Is it not also human nature to Overthrow those in power who dissatisfied them? Could this ALSO not be made true towards your precious god?

As for seperation of Church and State? It won't happen anytime soon. The Church is holds too much sway in the government.

And I think I heard something saying something disrespectful towards Celts and Pagans? Just because they do not follow your path doesn't mean that you don't have anything to be thankful for towards them. Example? A Pagan bumper sticker: "My god gave birth to the idea of your god!" and you know what? It's TRUE. Am I Pagan? No. Am I Celtic? Yes, I do have irish/welsh blood in me, and I'm damn proud of it. Am I gay? No. But that doesn't mean other people have a right to persecute them becuase they are!

At anyrate, I shall leave you people to your debate, so may the Goddess be with you all. You may need her...

Well firstly the verses havent been disproven and secondly that doesnt remove the adultury arguement, IE

Marriage is the only situation for sex according to the Bible

Marrigae acording to the Bible is man women only (IE there being no refrences to other ideas of marriage espically not the same sex varity)

Therefore any sex outside marriage is a sin and therefore homosexual sex is a sin

Even without specific refences to homosexuality this arguemnt stands.

Not if the homosexual couple are married it doesn't.

Except the prejudices of the time didn't ran much past a certain dislike of Eygptians and Canaanites.

Yes love thy fellow man. Unfortunately that part of the Bible was written in Greek was it not? Greek and it's five words for love, the one used here almost certainly not being the one dealing with the love between sexual partners.

Oh please, I was being facetious. And besides, it's common practice it seems to interpret the bible in whatever way best suits your purpose. And besides that again, they were GREEK. Do you know how common, and how accepted, gay sex was in those times?

Ahem. The Greatest Belief System Ever Known" You say? No offense, but Christianity is a religion. Just like every religion and belief sytem before it, it will eventually die out in favor of a new one (or then again, it could be replaced by aetheism. Whatever.)


Funny, despite all the worlds presures Christianity is still the largest religion in the world. There is no sign of it dieing out. While organised religious churches may be in decline in terms of attendence, Chrstian prayer groups and more informal forms of Chrsitian worship are on the rise. Granted Christanity is no longer the fasted growing religion in the world (Islam now) but I think that is mainly because Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect death threats where as vice versa is met with acceptence.


As for the question here, yes it's a sin. You know why? Because people are afraid of gays, which I am sure had SOME bearing on what was written in the Bible, IF it truly is "God's word". After all, is it not human nature to get twist words for their own benifit? Look at poloticians, lawyers, they do it all the time!


1) Prove anywhere in the Bible where people are "Afraid" of Gays

2) What benefit would people get from believing homosexual sex is a sin?


Another thing to think about: Is it not also human nature to Overthrow those in power who dissatisfied them? Could this ALSO not be made true towards your precious god?


Thats not human nature. That only happens when the people of the lowest order of society are being repressed. And even if it was, how exactly would you "Overthrow" God.


Am I gay? No. But that doesn't mean other people have a right to persecute them becuase they are!


Christians do not "Persecute" Gays. When will you get this idea through your head. Christians believe it is a sin but that does not mean we have any right to persecute those who practice it.

1) The Bible is not a tool for control. If it was surely it would have a few more tightening rules. There is no refrence to instiutional structure of any kind or anything like that, it has a moral code and a belief system. Nothing to create opression or control of a nation.

It is so a tool of control. The New testament was compiled in the early 4th century BC by a Roman Emperor (who's name evades me at the moment, but it begins with C) who was trying to combine the competing faiths of paganism and christianity to avoid civil unrest. He chose the books he liked and dumped the rest, and when people complained about it, he accued them of heresy and had them killed.

Not if the homosexual couple are married it doesn't.

Read the post. Homosexauls cannot be married in God's eyes, even if they can be in the state's eyes. Therefore any sex they have is outside of marriage and therefore a sin.

It is so a tool of control. The New testament was compiled in the early 4th century BC by a Roman Emperor (who's name evades me at the moment, but it begins with C) who was trying to combine the competing faiths of paganism and christianity to avoid civil unrest. He chose the books he liked and dumped the rest, and when people complained about it, he accued them of heresy and had them killed.

No. The New Testement was written by those who witnessesed what Jesus had done and was published in the lifetimes of others who saw Jesus. So when it was published, people did not say "Thats not true/that didnt happen" as they would have done had it not been true. And you havent answered my question. HOW does it control them. It has moral codes and belif systems but no instutional structure and no mention of tax or anything else that is used to control people in most other cases. Plus it doesnt seem to "Control" any more yet people still believe it so your arguemnt holds no water.

Oh please, I was being facetious. And besides, it's common practice it seems to interpret the bible in whatever way best suits your purpose. And besides that again, they were GREEK. Do you know how common, and how accepted, gay sex was in those times?

They were not Greek. They were Israllie. God made it clear in both the old and new testement that homosexuality was a sin. See this web page to understand more

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

Christians do not "Persecute" Gays. When will you get this idea through your head. Christians believe it is a sin but that does not mean we have any right to persecute those who practice it.

That's ridiculous. How can you sit there and say that a whole group of people, by virtue of their natural and unchosen sexual attraction, are sinful just by being who they are, thus invalidating their love, and relationships and families and promoting hatred against them, and not think that you are persecuting them.

That's ridiculous. How can you sit there and say that a whole group of people, by virtue of their natural and unchosen sexual attraction, are sinful just by being who they are, thus invalidating their love, and relationships and families and promoting hatred against them, and not think that you are persecuting them.

1) Homosexual attraction is not the sin. Homosexual atraction is the temptation to sin. Homosexual sex is the sin

2) Homosexual attraction can be resisted and so it is possible not to sin.

3) Christianity does not promote hatred against them. You are making the same mistake that so many on this forum have done. Love the sinner hate the sin. Simple Christian logic which while the direct refrence is not in the Bible, it is still a nice and susinct way of explaining how God feels towards us and how we should feel towards each other.

4) Homosexual behavior may or may not be inate (IE nautral to individuals and thus uncontrolable). Even if it is though that still does not make it not a sin, anymore so than those people to whom vilonce is inate. Just because something is inate does not make it right.

5) It has not been proven conclusively that homosexual orrientation is/is not learned behaviour.

No. The New Testement was written by those who witnessesed what Jesus had done and was published in the lifetimes of others who saw Jesus. So when it was published, people did not say "Thats not true/that didnt happen" as they would have done had it not been true. And you havent answered my question. HOW does it control them. It has moral codes and belif systems but no instutional structure and no mention of tax or anything else that is used to control people in most other cases. Plus it doesnt seem to "Control" any more yet people still believe it so your arguemnt holds no water.

You'll notice that I didn't say written, I said compiled. Before then the gospels existed as separate documents, and he just selected the ones that suited his purpose and discareded the rest. No, more than that, outlwed them and had them destroyed. And don't try and tell me that imposing moral codes onto people isn't control.

You'll notice that I didn't say written, I said compiled. Before then the gospels existed as separate documents, and he just selected the ones that suited his purpose and discareded the rest. No, more than that, outlwed them and had them destroyed. And don't try and tell me that imposing moral codes onto people isn't control.

While he may or may not have used the Bible to impose control the Bible itself is not an instremnt of control. You are missing the point. The Bible is a moral code and belief system. It was never meant to be used as an instrument of control. Becuase some people do does not invalidate it as a book

1) Homosexual attraction is not the sin. Homosexual atraction is the temptation to sin. Homosexual sex is the sin

2) Homosexual attraction can be resisted and so it is possible not to sin.

3) Christianity does not promote hatred against them. You are making the same mistake that so many on this forum have done. Love the sinner hate the sin. Simple Christian logic which while the direct refrence is not in the Bible, it is still a nice and susinct way of explaining how God feels towards us and how we should feel towards each other.

You're wrong on all of these points. Unlike many of the other sins, the bible stares that being homosexual (rather than participating in homosexual acts) is sinful (don't ask me to state where, I don't have my bible handy, but believe me, that line has stuck in my head for a long time, and i know it's there). Whether homosexual attraction can be resisted or not, for those whom same sex attractin is a major part of their sexuality, it is not healty for them to do so - ask anybody who knows anything about psychology. And it is not possible not to sin. Christian dogma holds that everyone sins everyday, and cannot live without sinning. Heck, you're even born with sin. Even telling someone that their homosexuality is sinful is sinful.

While he may or may not have used the Bible to impose control the Bible itself is not an instremnt of control. You are missing the point. The Bible is a moral code and belief system. It was never meant to be used as an instrument of control. Becuase some people do does not invalidate it as a book

no, you're missing the point, the current compilation of the new testament as it is used today was collated and put together with the specific purpose of controlling the populace of the time.

I have a question for you Neo, for no other reason than I'd be interested in your answer.

Why is it valid to use the bible as a basis for morality?

no, you're missing the point, the current compilation of the new testament as it is used today was collated and put together with the specific purpose of controlling the populace of the time.

I have currently been watching this particular part of this thread for a bit now, and I believe you two have a slight problem.

The problem? Your belief of the function of the New Testament is different than his in pretty much every way. He believes in the historical dates of those documents, which I believe (I'm not totally sure, this is just an anecdotal post) is supported by some historical and archaeological evidence. Your belief is a particular conspiracy theory which I have not heard. Ever. Considering my time exposed to the liberalities of this board, that's quite a feat.

So, despite the fact that from his standpoint, Neo Cannan has beat you in this debate, he hasn't. Because you regard this debate as something different than he does, I believe neither of you can win. But as a response to a post you have made since I started reading this, read the whole thing that he linked. I'd pretty much say that covers your thing.

I have currently been watching this particular part of this thread for a bit now, and I believe you two have a slight problem.

The problem? Your belief of the function of the New Testament is different than his in pretty much every way. He believes in the historical dates of those documents, which I believe (I'm not totally sure, this is just an anecdotal post) is supported by some historical and archaeological evidence. Your belief is a particular conspiracy theory which I have not heard. Ever. Considering my time exposed to the liberalities of this board, that's quite a feat.

So, despite the fact that from his standpoint, Neo Cannan has beat you in this debate, he hasn't. Because you regard this debate as something different than he does, I believe neither of you can win. But as a response to a post you have made since I started reading this, read the whole thing that he linked. I'd pretty much say that covers your thing.

Yeah, i started reading it, but it just sounded like a load of dogmatic tripe, so I didn't make it very far. All it will do will offend me, I'm sure. And you're right, we have very different points of view, and I doubt there would be much we could agree on for with this topic. Heck I bet it's hard to even listen to each others' points seriously, because their so contrary to what we believe in ourselves. Oh well.

Yeah, i started reading it, but it just sounded like a load of dogmatic tripe, so I didn't make it very far. All it will do will offend me, I'm sure. And you're right, we have very different points of view, and I doubt there would be much we could agree on for with this topic. Heck I bet it's hard to even listen to each others' points seriously, because their so contrary to what we believe in ourselves. Oh well.

Actually, if you read most of it concerning the references, you will be startled by the fact that *shock* you maybe wrong.

God forbid.

Actually, if you read most of it concerning the references, you will be startled by the fact that *shock* you maybe wrong.

God forbid.

wrong about what?

You're wrong on all of these points. Unlike many of the other sins, the bible stares that being homosexual (rather than participating in homosexual acts) is sinful


You cant just state this and then provide no proof. The Leviticus laws, Soddom and Gommorugh etc. None of the refrences to homosexuality in the Bible refer to the act of being a homosexual. Just the act. Not the attraction.


Whether homosexual attraction can be resisted or not, for those whom same sex attractin is a major part of their sexuality, it is not healty for them to do so - ask anybody who knows anything about psychology


I didn't say homosexual attraction could be resisted (though I believe it can). The need to have homosexual sex however can be resisted.


And it is not possible not to sin. Christian dogma holds that everyone sins everyday, and cannot live without sinning. Heck, you're even born with sin. Even telling someone that their homosexuality is sinful is sinful.

It is not possible not to sin throught your entire life. It is however possible to minimise the number of sins you commit every day.

I didn't say homosexual attraction could be resisted (though I believe it can). The need to have homosexual sex however can be resisted.


Hmmm, let me see.

2) Homosexual attraction can be resisted and so it is possible not to sin..

no, you're missing the point, the current compilation of the new testament as it is used today was collated and put together with the specific purpose of controlling the populace of the time.

Compelation, NOT actual writings. The actual writings are a moral code and a beleif system. These have not been twisted.

wrong about what?

That homosexuality/homosexual acts are considered a sin by the Bible.

Compelation, NOT actual writings. The actual writings are a moral code and a beleif system. These have not been twisted.

not twisted, but they are not a complete set, and thus do not present the whole story.

And if it's not too much trouble, could you answer that question soon? I want to go to bed.

Hmmm, let me see.

When I say attraction I mean the need to have homosexual sex. That can be resisted.

Why is it valid to use the bible as a basis for morality?

The Bible is a valid use for morality because it is God's word. See John 1: 1. It is all about how GOD wants us to live our lives, nay how we should live our lives. Even non-Christians agree with the basic moral ideas. Since God created us and is far supiror to us in understanding and power, nay he is GOD, he knows how we should best live our lives.

You cant just state this and then provide no proof. The Leviticus laws, Soddom and Gommorugh etc. None of the refrences to homosexuality in the Bible refer to the act of being a homosexual. Just the act. Not the attraction.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, {10} nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, {10} nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Look at it in context. The word adulters does not mean people who are predisposed to commit adultery and do so. It just means people who commit adulteury. Idolaters are not people who through no fault of their own worship Idols. They are people who chose to take part in the act of worshiping Idols. In the same way Homosexuals in this context does not mean people with homosexual attractions and participate in homosexual sex. It means just those who participate in homosexual sex.

The Bible is a valid use for morality because it is God's word. See John 1: 1

Did god write the bible? No. Did god dictate to a writer to write the bible? No. If you get your information from the bible, your doomed, you know, the bible promotes slavery. Maybe thats one reason why after the North gave it up the south was so unwilling to give up slavery, besides it backed their econemy.

The Bible is a valid use for morality because it is God's word. See John 1: 1


Oh yeah, that's really enlightened me.

You can't use the bible to invalidate itself, that's just circular reasoning.

But form what you've said, it seems like the underlying message of the moral code is "because God said so". See, it would have been nice to think that a moral code would be based on something like "don't hurt other people" rather than "do what I say" but I guess that's too much to ask.

Did god write the bible? No. Did god dictate to a writer to write the bible? No. If you get your information from the bible, your doomed, you know, the bible promotes slavery. Maybe thats one reason why after the North gave it up the south was so unwilling to give up slavery, besides it backed their econemy.

Backed up slavery in OLD COVENENT. And Slavey in ANE is far far diffrent from new world slavery.

Look at it in context. The word adulters does not mean people who are predisposed to commit adultery and do so. It just means people who commit adulteury. Idolaters are not people who through no fault of their own worship Idols. They are people who chose to take part in the act of worshiping Idols. In the same way Homosexuals in this context does not mean people with homosexual attractions and participate in homosexual sex. It means just those who participate in homosexual sex.

Perhaps, but in all these other cases it is easy to see that the person is separate from the act, but it's not like that with being gay. You're an alcoholic because you drink alcohol, but with homosexuality it's the other way around. You participate in homosexual sex because you are a homosexual.

But form what you've said, it seems like the underlying message of the moral code is "because God said so". See, it would have been nice to think that a moral code would be based on something like "don't hurt other people" rather than "do what I say" but I guess that's too much to ask.

The moral code is more than "because God says so". It is basicly "Do good to people" but the reasoning behind it becasue it is as God wanted.

You participate in homosexual sex because you are a homosexual.

But it is possible to be a homosexual (IE be physicaly attracted to members of the same sex) and not have homosexual sex. And it is homosexual sex which is the sin.

The moral code is more than "because God says so". It is basicly "Do good to people" but the reasoning behind it becasue it is as God wanted.

So how does homoseual sex go against the moral code of "do good to people"?

You can't use the bible to invalidate itself, that's just circular reasoning.


Like any part of any religion, a mesure of faith is required when accepting parts of it that we do not fully understand.

So how does homoseual sex go against the moral code of "do good to people"?

Check again. I also said that the moral code was "BASICLY" do good to people. I also said that God created us and he did so with a design in mind. Homosexuality is a misuse of said design. He makes it clear what the said design is in the Bible.

Check again. I also said that the moral code was "BASICLY" do good to people. I also said that God created us and he did so with a design in mind. Homosexuality is a misuse of said design. He makes it clear what the said design is in the Bible.
That's incorrect, though, because God's design for us doesn't include what we freely choose to do --if it does, then there is no free will.

But it is possible to be a homosexual (IE be physicaly attracted to members of the same sex) and not have homosexual sex. And it is homosexual sex which is the sin.

But it's not possible to be an alcoholic and not drink alcohol, it's not possible to be an idolater and not commit idolatry. Sure, you can commit these things and stop, but once you cease drinking, you cease to be an alcoholic. If you never drank, you never were an alcoholic. Even if you cease homosexual sex, you are still gay.

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

Knob Jockey, see what you think of this website

That's incorrect, though, because God's design for us doesn't include what we freely choose to do --if it does, then there is no free will.

God has an intened idea for human life, and he has explained this in the Bible. It is up to us whether or not we choose to follow it.

Well, I myself am a Christian (belonging to the Roman Catholic Church), and I am gay. I know all the passages in the Bible about homosexuality. I won't comment on all of them, but on a few.

I want to place the most important one (Leviticus 20, 13) in the setting of that time. Stricktly, it is a prohibition of anal sex. Nothing is said about homosexuality as such. It was probably added due to hygienic concerns in a time in which the average age of people was around 30 due to infectious diseases. In present times, the hygienic aspect has been solved, thanks to the condom.

Sodom and Gomorrah have been nuked by God, according to the Bible, but the reason for it is not stated as homosexuality. Further in the passage about those two cities, there is talked about a group of men wanting to rape two other men. I don't condemn homosexuality, but I condemn rape. And probably God, too.

And let's look at David and Jonathan. They explicitly loved each other. Nothing is said about them having sex with each other, but they loved each other.

For the remaining part, I believe that God induced the Big Bang, leading to our universe. After then, He sometimes intervened but almost always stayed out. He supports people, but cannot change a bad situation into a good one with a snap of His fingers.
But to get back to the topic, He did not prevent the possibillity of homosexuality. His creation is not perfect, but we cannot condemn Him for that, for our own creations aren't perfect, either. If I do any harm to other people, then He may condemn me, but I don't harm anyone if I sleep with a boy. He must understand that, and I consider Him wise enough to understand that.

Check again. I also said that the moral code was "BASICLY" do good to people. I also said that God created us and he did so with a design in mind. Homosexuality is a misuse of said design. He makes it clear what the said design is in the Bible.

Ah, so it is "do what I say" then. I couldn't have said it more clearly if I tried.

I'd really love to sit here and discuss it with you more, bit I really need to go to bed.

But it's not possible to be an alcoholic and not drink alcohol, it's not possible to be an idolater and not commit idolatry. Sure, you can commit these things and stop, but once you cease drinking, you cease to be an alcoholic. If you never drank, you never were an alcoholic. Even if you cease homosexual sex, you are still gay.
You alcoholism analogy is incorrect. An alcoholic is someone who abuses alcohol to the point where it becomes a problem. Alcoholism is the problem (i.e. it's not a "disease"). It is possible to be an alcoholic and not drink alcohol, because the problem remains.

God has an intened idea for human life, and he has explained this in the Bible. It is up to us whether or not we choose to follow it.
Exactly, so whether or not we follow it is not part of the design.

But it's not possible to be an alcoholic and not drink alcohol, it's not possible to be an idolater and not commit idolatry. Sure, you can commit these things and stop, but once you cease drinking, you cease to be an alcoholic. If you never drank, you never were an alcoholic. Even if you cease homosexual sex, you are still gay.

But the "BEING" gay (IE being attracted to members of your own sex) is not the sin. The action is. If you stop that you have stoped sinning. Look at the verse again

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, {10} nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

idoliters = people who commit idolitary
adulters = people who commit adultery
homosexuals = people who commit homosexual acts

The act and the person are SEPRATE. Love sinner hate sin. If you accept Jesus into your life, admit your a sinner and thank him genuinely for what he did on the cross then the acts are gone in God's eyes and you can go the hevean. The whole purpose of Jesus death was to seperate sinners from sin.

Exactly, so whether or not we follow it is not part of the design.

If you mean free will to chose then yes. God wants us to lead our lives as the bible says we should but he wont force us. It is up to us.

I want to place the most important one (Leviticus 20, 13) in the setting of that time. Stricktly, it is a prohibition of anal sex. Nothing is said about homosexuality.

See, I always saw the "thou shall not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" as prohibiting bisexuality, because really, if you're gay, you don't sleep with women as you would with a man

If you mean free will to chose then yes. God wants us to lead our lives as the bible says we should but he wont force us. It is up to us.
Free will means to choose, yes. God wants us to lead our lives as the Bible says, but that's not the design. It's the goal.

I want to place the most important one (Leviticus 20, 13) in the setting of that time. Stricktly, it is a prohibition of anal sex. Nothing is said about homosexuality as such. It was probably added due to hygienic concerns in a time in which the average age of people was around 30 due to infectious diseases. In present times, the hygienic aspect has been solved, thanks to the condom.


See, I always saw the "thou shall not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" as prohibiting bisexuality, because really, if you're gay, you don't sleep with women as you would with a man

LOL. That's a very nice way to see it :) But then I even go further. Even bisexuals sleep with a man in a different way than with a woman, so the complete verse is non-sense :) :)

I want to place the most important one (Leviticus 20, 13) in the setting of that time. Stricktly, it is a prohibition of anal sex. Nothing is said about homosexuality as such. It was probably added due to hygienic concerns in a time in which the average age of people was around 30 due to infectious diseases. In present times, the hygienic aspect has been solved, thanks to the condom.


While it is against homosexual sex and not the attraction, there is no proof to suggest that it is to do with hygene. The word used is abomination. Detestable to God.


And let's look at David and Jonathan. They explicitly loved each other. Nothing is said about them having sex with each other, but they loved each other.


This makes me sad. Is it rearly so incocieveable in the modern world that two men can be close friends and not Gay. They loved each other, not as sexual partners but as friends.



But to get back to the topic, He did not prevent the possibillity of homosexuality. His creation is not perfect, but we cannot condemn Him for that, for our own creations aren't perfect, either. If I do any harm to other people, then He may condemn me, but I don't harm anyone if I sleep with a boy. He must understand that, and I consider Him wise enough to understand that.

Gods commands are not just "Do no harm". They are to live life as he would have it lived. He created us with a moral code in mind. That code is explored in the Bible. Post-fall the creation was no longer perfect and so the creation was misused. That is what homosexual sex is. A misuse of Gods creation which he spoke against.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, {10} nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

I just checked http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp and did a search.

The word 'homosexual' is not in the bible.

And just so you know: The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and Soddom and Gommorrah (Sp?) are all make believe.

They are parables, all of which try to explain away something important.

Eden (all of Genesis, really): How the world began so people would stop nagging about it. And it provides reasons behind different languages and the like.

Noah: To explain why a horrendous flood occurred. Evidence of a lot of large floods have occurred in the past and it calms the nerves of everyone if you say that God won't do that again.

S and G: The location of S and G is in an area loaded with pitch and sulfur. Highly explosive. Its theorized that the town exploded one day and the S and G parable explains away why since chemistry wasn't a strong point for many people back then. And Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt: Salt pillars are common in the area. they are a natural land formation. Seeing salt pillars there connects the story to the real world and makes it more believeable. No on is sure sodomy even occurred at S and G. It could have been imagined later on by a homophobic storyteller. Who knows.

Free will means to choose, yes. God wants us to lead our lives as the Bible says, but that's not the design. It's the goal.

True, but in terms of biology, he designed us in a certian way. That way was hetrosexual sex. While it is possible to have homosexual sex that is a misuse of something. In the same way God gave us alcohol but we misuse it.

See, I always saw the "thou shall not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" as prohibiting bisexuality, because really, if you're gay, you don't sleep with women as you would with a man

Are you sure that's a correct quote?

"thou shall not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman"

I can't find it at http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

I just checked http://www.bible.com and did a search.

The word 'homosexual' is not in the bible.

And just so you know: The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and Soddom and Gommorrah (Sp?) are all make believe.

They are parables, all of which try to explain away something important.

Eden (all of Genesis, really): How the world began so people would stop nagging about it. And it provides reasons behind different languages and the like.

Noah: To explain why a horrendous flood occurred. Evidence of a lot of large floods have occurred in the past and it calms the nerves of everyone if you say that God won't do that again.

S and G: The location of S and G is in an area loaded with pitch and sulfur. Highly explosive. Its theorized that the town exploded one day and the S and G parable explains away why since chemistry wasn't a strong point for many people back then. And Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt: Salt pillars are common in the area. they are a natural land formation. Seeing salt pillars there connects the story to the real world and makes it more believeable. No on is sure sodomy even occurred at S and G. It could have been imagined later on by a homophobic storyteller. Who knows.

Since you cant prove that any part of the Bible is fictional unless it specifilcly says so (IE the parables) dont make the claim that it is. And which bible is the word homosexual not in. It is in mine (NIV) and the NSRV, the NKJV and many others. Untill you can be sure that any part of the bible is ficticous, dont claim it is.

While it is against homosexual sex and not the attraction, there is no proof to suggest that it is to do with hygene. The word used is abomination. Detestable to God.
Abomination originally meant "to become polluted", so in that sense it could be seen to be about hygene.

Are you sure that's a correct quote?

"thou shall not lay with a man as thou wouldst with a woman"

I can't find it at http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

Try http://www.ibs.org/niv/

Abomination originally meant "to become polluted", so in that sense it could be seen to be about hygene.

Proof bitte. And anyway it didnt mean that. The Hebrew to'evah means something utterly repugnuent to God. See this site for more infomation on why homosexuality is a sin.

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

Gods commands are not just "Do no harm". They are to live life as he would have it lived. He created us with a moral code in mind. That code is explored in the Bible. Post-fall the creation was no longer perfect and so the creation was misused. That is what homosexual sex is. A misuse of Gods creation which he spoke against.

Really? Then I suggest God to look at the results of that misuse. If I use a tree branch which broke off of a tree (not by me) to scratch my itchy back, then I misuse it, for I use it for something else than that tree branch has been designed for. Result of that action? My hand doesn't itch any more. Following your philosophy, I am sinner though, for I misused that tree branch.

Come on, even God doesn't believe in the kind of rubbish you state, Neo Cannen.

Really? Then I suggest God to look at the results of that misuse. If I use a tree branch which broke off of a tree (not by me) to scratch my itchy back, then I misuse it, for I use it for something else than that tree branch has been designed for. Result of that action? My hand doesn't itch any more. Following your philosophy, I am sinner though, for I misused that tree branch.

Come on, even God doesn't believe in that kind of rubbish.

Check the Bible for that example. I am talking about Biblical refrences to misuse.

S and G: The location of S and G is in an area loaded with pitch and sulfur. Highly explosive. Its theorized that the town exploded one day and the S and G parable explains away why since chemistry wasn't a strong point for many people back then. And Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt: Salt pillars are common in the area. they are a natural land formation. Seeing salt pillars there connects the story to the real world and makes it more believeable. No on is sure sodomy even occurred at S and G. It could have been imagined later on by a homophobic storyteller. Who knows.
Actually, some engineering geologists (http://www.archaeology.org/9607/newsbriefs/sodom.html) a few years ago speculated that the ground beneath the cities was liquified because of an earthquake, based on the geological make-up of the area that was the probable location for the two close-knit cities.

Since you cant prove that any part of the Bible is fictional unless it specifilcly says so (IE the parables) dont make the claim that it is. And which bible is the word homosexual not in. It is in mine (NIV) and the NSRV, the NKJV and many others. Untill you can be sure that any part of the bible is ficticous, dont claim it is.

I looked in the King James Version, Darby and Revised Standard Versions of the Bible. 'Homosexual' is not in them. I just proved that quote is false.

http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

And yes I searched the ENTIRE Bible. Both testaments.

EDIT

I'm checking out the NIV site now. 'NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION'. The word 'NEW' doesn't sit with me too well. The homosexual bit may have been added since it is not in the older texts.

True, but in terms of biology, he designed us in a certian way. That way was hetrosexual sex. While it is possible to have homosexual sex that is a misuse of something. In the same way God gave us alcohol but we misuse it.
God fashioned the body from earth and mist, but no two bodies are the same, and no two work the same. Someone born without, say, an extra kidney is not violating God's design. And what a person chooses functionaly to do with their body does not violate the design either.

I looked in the King James Version, Darby and Revised Standard Versions of the Bible. 'Homosexual' is not in them. I just proved that quote is false.

http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

And yes I searched the ENTIRE Bible. Both testaments.

EDIT

I'm checking out the NIV site now. 'NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION'. The word 'NEW' doesn't sit with me too well. The homosexual bit may have been added since it is not in the older texts.

While the word "Homosexual" may not come up in certian versions, the words "Sexually immoral" does. And those words mean amoungst other things

-Sex between humans and animals
-Sex between members of the same gender
-Sex outside of marriage

and various other sexual offences

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

See here for more explination

Actually, some engineering geologists (http://www.archaeology.org/9607/newsbriefs/sodom.html) a few years ago speculated that the ground beneath the cities was liquified because of an earthquake, based on the geological make-up of the area that was the probable location for the two close-knit cities.

Very interesting. I think I remember that as well from somewhere now that you mention it. Maybe it was an earthquake plus flammable substances that gave the two cities a death worthy of Jerry Bruckheimer :)

God fashioned the body from earth and mist, but no two bodies are the same, and no two work the same. Someone born without, say, an extra kidney is not violating God's design. And what a person chooses functionaly to do with their body does not violate the design either.

The design of the body it does not. But what people do with there bodies does violate the life God said we should attemt to lead.

Very interesting. I think I remember that as well from somewhere now that you mention it. Maybe it was an earthquake plus flammable substances that gave the two cities a death worthy of Jerry Bruckheimer :)

The fact that S & G were subject to a nautral disaster is more proof that it was God as he has power over said nautral disasters.

The most common explanation for the eeeeeevilness of homosexuality is that "It's not natural! You don't see two male dogs getting it on, do you?"

No, but then again, you don't see dogs hunting with spears and developing nuclear weapons to blow the hell out of those pesky squirrels, now do you?

My point is, humanity has evolved past the point at which sex is merely for propagating the species. We create the marriage bond out of love, not a desparate attempt to ensure the survival of the species (cuz frankly, those numbers dwell beyond our expectations ~_^). Therefore, should we, as sentient beings, not be able to choose whom we love?

As for the Scriptures condemning homosexuality, big friggin' deal. They were written by men, translated by men, and explained to the masses yet again by men. All it takes is one disgruntled scribe translating it from Latin to English, and there goes the reputation of half the known world.

That said, I would like to annouce myself as bisexual and formerly of the Catholic, Baptist, and Episcopalian faiths. ^_^

Proof bitte. And anyway it didnt mean that. The Hebrew to'evah means something utterly repugnuent to God. See this site for more infomation on why homosexuality is a sin.

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf
The proof is at dictionary.com, you can look it up as easily as me. ;-)

This word is used, (1.) To express the idea that the Egyptians considered
themselves as defiled when they ate with strangers (Gen. 43:32). The Jews
subsequently followed the same practice, holding it unlawful to eat or drink
with foreigners (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:3).

The fact that S & G were subject to a nautral disaster is more proof that it was God as he has power over said nautral disasters.

Nah. That isn't proof at all. Natural disaters occur all the time killing innocent and evil alike.

And since they didn't know how these disasters occured way back then...God did it! :)

It does rest easier on the soul if you say that everyone in S & G were evil and punished by God since this means YOU won't die in a horrible way.

Check the Bible for that example. I am talking about Biblical refrences to misuse.

Nice save, you think. But it isn't. For the broken branch, I leave it to that. For the homosexuality part, we are back at my first reply :P :P No explicit prohibition of homosexuality can be found in the Bible, unless it has recently been changed by HUMANS. All passages in the Bible about homosexuality, at least in the translation I have, which is sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, can be interpreted in other ways than a prohibition of homosexuality.

And that's the last thing I say about it here.

The most common explanation for the eeeeeevilness of homosexuality is that "It's not natural! You don't see two male dogs getting it on, do you?"

What if they hump your leg?


BLAH

My point is, humanity has evolved past the point at which sex is merely for propagating the species. We create the marriage bond out of love, not a desparate attempt to ensure the survival of the species (cuz frankly, those numbers dwell beyond our expectations ~_^). Therefore, should we, as sentient beings, not be able to choose whom we love?

ETC....


Well, this brings up that marriage was more of a legal institution for the succession of property. Love did not exist because they invented marriage, obviously, and expressing love can simply mean saying "I love you". I bet its all very complicated on how property was handled before marriage was invented so I'll ignore it.

While the word "Homosexual" may not come up in certian versions, the words "Sexually immoral" does. And those words mean amoungst other things

-Sex between humans and animals
-Sex between members of the same gender
-Sex outside of marriage

and various other sexual offences

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

See here for more explination

Sexually 'immoral'...now there is an open category. I find it a little funny and disturbing that pedophilia wasn't mentioned. S & M Bondage? Fecalphilia? Autoerotic Asphyxiation?

Originally Posted by Willamena
God fashioned the body from earth and mist, but no two bodies are the same, and no two work the same. Someone born without, say, an extra kidney is not violating God's design. And what a person chooses functionaly to do with their body does not violate the design either.
The design of the body it does not. But what people do with there bodies does violate the life God said we should attemt to lead.
I don't think you're using the term "violation" correctly. God gave us free will to choose what to do with our lives, whether to follow him or not: both a choice to be with him and a choice to turn away are exercises of that free will. Free will is the only "design" God has on our heart/mind/soul.

The only thing violated is the law laid out by man for man to follow. And those laws are constantly changing as society changes.

For those who don't believe animals are involved in 'sexual immorality' since its humans who are sinners, etc.

Look at this

http://members.cox.net/dacarrol/Pwned.jpg

Nah. That isn't proof at all. Natural disaters occur all the time killing innocent and evil alike.
Well, they do call them Acts of God. ;-)

k...its not a sin. theres no such thing as god. get over it.

I don't think you're using the term "violation" correctly. God gave us free will to choose what to do with our lives, whether to follow him or not: both a choice to be with him and a choice to turn away are exercises of that free will. Free will is the only "design" God has on our heart/mind/soul.

The only thing violated is the law laid out by man for man to follow. And those laws are constantly changing as society changes.

God did say we'd be eating the fruit of knowledge the rest of our lives. That is God's words, his warning, his punishment and also his command. We will learn more and move further away from Him. Like children who leave their parent's home we too will also become less dependant on our creators. It's inevitable and the natural flow of things. Anything else IMHO would be unnatural.

For those who don't believe animals are involved in 'sexual immorality' since its humans who are sinners, etc.

Look at this

http://members.cox.net/dacarrol/Pwned.jpg

Exactly, damn sodomites aren't even using the missionary position.

Well, they do call them Acts of God. ;-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Humans are such dramatic creatures. That just sounds better than "An act of a high front colliding with a low front' or 'an act of a strike-slip fault moving sharply at a northeast angle'

Exactly, damn sodomites aren't even using the missionary position.

Right! Its doggy style! :D

For those who don't believe animals are involved in 'sexual immorality' since its humans who are sinners, etc.

Look at this

http://members.cox.net/dacarrol/Pwned.jpg

There are plenty of things that animals do that when applyed to a human situation are sins. Eg Killing each other over sexual partners.

Sexually 'immoral'...now there is an open category. I find it a little funny and disturbing that pedophilia wasn't mentioned. S & M Bondage? Fecalphilia? Autoerotic Asphyxiation?

Go to the website and you will see more.

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

The only thing violated is the law laid out by man for man to follow. And those laws are constantly changing as society changes.

Intersting thought here. People say society is a far better thing to base your morals on yet society is constantly changing. The Bible and its views have not changed in over several thousand years. Yet there morals still ring true today. Why is it that people believe that something which will have totally changed in say twenty/thirty years time is something to judge morals on rather than something which has stood the test of time for more than two thousand years.

Intersting thought here. People say society is a far better thing to base your morals on yet society is constantly changing. The Bible and its views have not changed in over several thousand years. Yet there morals still ring true today. Why is it that people believe that something which will have totally changed in say twenty/thirty years time is something to judge morals on rather than something which has stood the test of time for more than two thousand years.

I think you miss the crucial part... The Book was written by men, to reflect their desires for control. The book then becomes the dominant religion of the world (Rome) backed by a million troops. Be moral or die. We lived under that for thousands of years and it's abolsolutely retarded to think that the decisions of people who wrote it can be construed as good because we do it now... We do it now because we all come from these societies, and until we spread out of our cocoons and realized how big the world is (internet/TV etc) then we began to question it. Before it was unquestionable because we only had small communities and if we didn't comply they would... Oh I dunno, burn us at the stake or something...

The thousand of years prior to the book what occured? Were they all evil and went striaght to hell? Are you absolutely absurd? They lived, breathed and died with the morals of their respective cultures. They didn't even know the book existed, but we know from their writings that they had thought and morals, and regularly considered ethical questions...

From my understanding, unerring faith simply means "closed to change" not because of the world outside, but because it would shatter a mind that is built on abolutes. News for you... Asides from a few mathematical constants, nothing remains the same. We must do good by our fellow man. we must relise that homosexuals are HUMAN F**KING BEINGS and we can't just persecute them (In the US), and that stupid things like marijuana are still criminal (in the US) because of who smokes it, not because of its actual effects.

Hold people down, and guess what.... They fight back.

I think you miss the crucial part... The Book was written by men, to reflect their desires for control. The book then becomes the dominant religion of the world (Rome) backed by a million troops. Be moral or die. We lived under that for thousands of years and it's abolsolutely retarded to think that the decisions of people who wrote it can be construed as good because we do it now... We do it now because we all come from these societies, and until we spread out of our cocoons and realized how big the world is (internet/TV etc) then we began to question it. Before it was unquestionable because we only had small communities and if we didn't comply they would... Oh I dunno, burn us at the stake or something...


1) The Bible was not written as an instrument of control. It is many things amoungst which are

- A historical account of the Anchient Near East's tribe of Israel and how God interacted with them
- The basis of the Christian faiths morallity, belief system and life code.

2) The Bibles message is not "Love God/be moral etc or burn" read it and you will see why. Here to is a website explaining why to help

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

3) My point was society is constantly changing so why is it good to base morals on it when the Bible is certian.


The thousand of years prior to the book what occured? Were they all evil and went striaght to hell? Are you absolutely absurd? They lived, breathed and died with the morals of their respective cultures. They didn't even know the book existed, but we know from their writings that they had thought and morals, and regularly considered ethical questions...


If you read the book you will see that there was nothing except God before the events it described. And the fact that so many independent societys built up simmilar morals to those in the Bible proves that God gave them to all humans from the begining


From my understanding, unerring faith simply means "closed to change" not because of the world outside, but because it would shatter a mind that is built on abolutes. News for you... Asides from a few mathematical constants, nothing remains the same.


What God did/Who God is/God's charachter never changes. That is explained throughly in the Bible.


We must do good by our fellow man. we must relise that homosexuals are HUMAN F**KING BEINGS and we can't just persecute them (In the US), and that stupid things like marijuana are still criminal (in the US) because of who smokes it, not because of its actual effects.


Who said anything about persecuting them. Christians do not perceute homosexuals. Beliveing homosexual practice is a sin and persecuting them are two diffrent things. Read this web page for a better understanding.

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

Intersting thought here. People say society is a far better thing to base your morals on yet society is constantly changing. The Bible and its views have not changed in over several thousand years. Yet there morals still ring true today. Why is it that people believe that something which will have totally changed in say twenty/thirty years time is something to judge morals on rather than something which has stood the test of time for more than two thousand years.
Actually, this is one of the biggest criticisms of the Bible, and the reason the Bible is said to have out-lived its usefulness. Concretizing its laws in writing was the mistake, you see, because it makes them apparently immutable. And yet, we no longer have adultresses being stoned to death in the Western world, not legally anyway. Not all their morals ring true.

A moral idea's immutability or longevity does not increase it's value.

noooo its not an instrument of control, its all about LOVE.

deut 8:19,20
19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

nothing controlling in THAT

noooo its not an instrument of control, its all about LOVE.

deut 8:19,20
19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

nothing controlling in THAT

Two words for you here "OLD COVENENT" check that up if you dont know what it means.

EDIT
and note if you look in judges you will see how this comes true. There is a sort of cycle to it all

Stage one: Israel does evil in the eyes of God
Stage two: God sees this and allows them to be kidnapped into slavery
Stage three: Israel realises they have done evil and cries to God for dileverance
Stage four: God delieves them eventually
Stage five: The Isralites are truely thankful and live in peace for many years untill....
Stage one: Israel does evil in the eyes of the lord etc

But notice this, Israel is never destroyed as it rightfully should have been. After all the wages of sin are death and not just physical death but spirtiual death pre crucifixtion (Post Crucifixtion there is a way out of the Sin-Death cycle, via Jesus).

Actually, this is one of the biggest criticisms of the Bible, and the reason the Bible is said to have out-lived its usefulness. Concretizing its laws in writing was the mistake, you see, because it makes them apparently immutable. And yet, we no longer have adultresses being stoned to death in the Western world, not legally anyway. Not all their morals ring true.


Check up. The Bible is not a document where everything in it is relevent now. Parts are parts arent. The key to finding those parts are in the new testement. If the old and new testement agree then it is right and indeed still is so. Jesus deals with said punishment laws "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" and "judge not lest ye be judged" basicly saying humans have no right to pass judgement on sin. That is God's job.


A moral idea's immutability or longevity does not increase it's value.

I would beg to differ. In victorian England it was a soical "Moral" that women would be nothing more than housewives but that has now gone. A moral has to stand the test of time like anything else. If its flash in the pan then it can be said to be of less value than that which has lasted for a thousand years. Jesus's central moral in regard to human-human interaction "Do to others as you would have done to you" has stood times test. Social morals however do not last. So why is it people think "Society" is a good thing to base morals on?

WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN CAN THEIR BE FOR YOU THAT THOSE PEOPLE THAT LOVES EACHOTHER ARE BANNED FROM MARRIGE??


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.


And gay marriage should be banned because of this?


3) Marriage was a religous instiution before a govenmental one. It existed at the begining of the world (see Genesis 2: 24)


According to you and your bible.

So don't get a gay marriage. Nobody is forcing you.


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.

There are a surprisingly large amount of people who couldn't give a stuff about foxhunting, and that debate is far from over.

And.. you want gay marriages banned because your god tells you it's wrong?

So you do want us all forced into your religion?

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?

Possibly because the parts that are accepted and the parts that aren't accepted change according to the will of the people currently controlling the religion, and the flow of the argument that is being undertaken. In other words: It chops and changes depending on which is the most convenient.

If there was a cast iron, set in stone list of what is and isn't accepted, this may (or may not) help your case, but there isn't.

There are a surprisingly large amount of people who couldn't give a stuff about foxhunting, and that debate is far from over.


Actually the debate is over. Foxhunting is now going to be banned by parliament, the question is when. And most people in Britain are oposed to foxhunting, 82%


And.. you want gay marriages banned because your god tells you it's wrong?

So you do want us all forced into your religion?

Banning Gay marriage is not forcing you all into a religion this is just a democratic decsion. Every group of people from the individual to the mutinational corperation has the right to pressureise the government in legitamate ways to get them to do what they would like to. Christians in the US have this right as much as any other. And as I have said, the Christians of the US want to ban gay marriage and they are the vast majority. However in the homosexual community only 0.3% actually want have been involved in any kind of monogmous commited relationship with another member of the same sex. Given that homosexuals make up aproximately 5% of any population the actual percentage of the population that want gay marriage is aprox 0.015%. Given that Christians who oppose Gay marriage are the vastly larger number who should get there way.

EDIT

And for those who say "What if Islam got in as the largest religon? Should they make up the laws etc" I say that this example here (Banning Gay marriage) is not nearly as extreme as most muslim laws (IE cutting off hands when someone steals etc)

If there was a cast iron, set in stone list of what is and isn't accepted, this may (or may not) help your case, but there isn't.

If you read the New Testement you will find said list. Its not actually a list but it does explain itself. See here for further info

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

and here

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

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

Ive posted this website a lot and so far no one has said anything about its content. This is one of the more clear websites explaining the Bibles view on homosexuality and I am wondering why people are ignoring it?

Boo.

Just two lickle points to make here:

ONE: The Bible can usually be interpreted in just about any old way.

TWO: Christianity as a religion stems from the old Greek sects which argue Zeus was the one and only God. That seeped into Roman religion simply because the Romans nabbed Greek polytheism in tribute to the great country (who they changed their minds about later and conquered) and so brought the sects in too. So Zeus became The One True God instead.

What does the Bible say about Marriage? hmmmmhhh.. well if we are going to have an argument about the sancity of marriage. We have to talk about divorce. In the New Testament, Jesus says that the only way you can get a divorce is if the other parnter commits adultery. Hmmm he does not mention well I didn't like my husband so I divorced him. Now does he. Here's a fun fact, did you know that half of all marriages end in divorce. Thats one-half. Flip a coin. Now let us get back to the main topic, sanctity of marriage. Would you not say that hurts marriage? Lots of Christians get divorced all the time. Aren't they sinning? Well Susie-que can get married and if things are not working out. She can just get a divorce. It doesn't matter right? Divorce is the real wrong thing, not whether some man wants to marry another man! also, hypothetically ok "gay marriage is a sin" What gives you the right to judge them and say you can not do it. Divorce for the wrong reasons happens all the time among Christians and is not that a sin. Will we then take away their right to get married. They are sinning just as much as Gay people do. Lets think about what we say and just worry about ourselves and our own problems.

I can think of a couplea reasons
doesnt take a genius
unless even Steven Hawking doesnt even know the answer lol
mwahahaha
wel thats my evil say
c yaz every 1
signed
The Evil omnipotent Geniuses of The Evilist Evil Ones (tm)
(johnmc1152@hotmail.com)
byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
mwahahahahahahahaha

P.S. doz any1 like Jehovas witnesses?
neva mind il make anuva thread

It's a sin that this retarded thread is still here.

I cannot believe that anythong of substance can be contributed to it at this point.

What does the Bible say about Marriage? hmmmmhhh.. well if we are going to have an argument about the sancity of marriage. We have to talk about divorce. In the New Testament, Jesus says that the only way you can get a divorce is if the other parnter commits adultery. Hmmm he does not mention well I didn't like my husband so I divorced him. Now does he. Here's a fun fact, did you know that half of all marriages end in divorce. Thats one-half. Flip a coin. Now let us get back to the main topic, sanctity of marriage. Would you not say that hurts marriage? Lots of Christians get divorced all the time. Aren't they sinning? Well Susie-que can get married and if things are not working out. She can just get a divorce. It doesn't matter right? Divorce is the real wrong thing, not whether some man wants to marry another man! also, hypothetically ok "gay marriage is a sin" What gives you the right to judge them and say you can not do it. Divorce for the wrong reasons happens all the time among Christians and is not that a sin. Will we then take away their right to get married. They are sinning just as much as Gay people do. Lets think about what we say and just worry about ourselves and our own problems.

I personally am appauled at the way marriage is being treeted these days. People think its just a progression from a serious relationship. Its not. Its a life long commitment. You have to be seriously ready for it. Jesus did not say "Divorce is a sin" but he strongly advised against divorce if at all possible.
Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:

A) Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
B) Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
C) Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8)

Intersting thought here. People say society is a far better thing to base your morals on yet society is constantly changing. The Bible and its views have not changed in over several thousand years. Yet there morals still ring true today. Why is it that people believe that something which will have totally changed in say twenty/thirty years time is something to judge morals on rather than something which has stood the test of time for more than two thousand years.

Herpes, booze and war has been with humans a long time as well.

And the Bible has changed over time. There are more than a few versions/translations of it. Then there are the many Christian sects out there who interpret it differently. Sometimes with gravely sinful results.

You don't really need religion to tell you its bad to steal and kill. The commandments forbid known conflict-creating behaviours to keep the peace and stabilize society. Every organized religion has similar views and places these values in writing. Why? Its basic human nature to recognize these things as sources of trouble or just outright wrong. If all traces of the past, including memories, would disappear tomorrow they would all figure out how to run a stable society once again sooner or later and the new laws would mimic the ones we have now.

Even remembering the Sabbath is important for more reasons that the blatant religious ones. It brings the whole community together in one spot and give you the day off to spend time with friends and family. Otherwise you'd spend all your time working and not enjoy life one bit.

As for your "twenty/thirty years" comment I'll have you know that the whole world can change in a moment let alone decades. Moon landing, cures for diseases being discovered, discovery of human psychology, and finding out the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun are all major discoveries that changed the world (especially that last one which got Galleleo charged with heresy when he pissed of the religious folk.)

Boo.

Just two lickle points to make here:

ONE: The Bible can usually be interpreted in just about any old way.

TWO: Christianity as a religion stems from the old Greek sects which argue Zeus was the one and only God. That seeped into Roman religion simply because the Romans nabbed Greek polytheism in tribute to the great country (who they changed their minds about later and conquered) and so brought the sects in too. So Zeus became The One True God instead.

That would explain his perchant for living in the sky and smiting people with lightning bolts.

It isn't .... next question.

It is considered a sin.

As far as gay marriage goes, and I have not been reading or keeping up with these posts, so do forgive me...

What I don't understand is why people care so much that someone else is condemning themselves to Inferno. Why they care so much that homosexuals have the ability to get married. They are not the ones marrying a homosexual and therefore they are not going to hell. The nation itself is not an actual human being and therefore can not go to hell because the bible states that everything is judged upon the individual. If you state that the law is violating your beliefs - how? Because a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman? Okay, good for you. Go get married to the opposite sex. You can do that. Why interrupt someone else's life? It's not your life. Are you scared that the younger generation will be more free and your bloodline will condemn itself? Well - there's nothing you can do to stop them other than filling their heads with ideas. It was the same with black slaves - people believed that they were below us and therefore belong to man because God said it was so. It was the same for a woman's right to vote - woman below men and therefore do not deserve an equal seat by man's side because God deemed it so. In my eyes person's race, sex, religious beliefs, or sexual preference does not make them beautiful or pure or blessed. It's the way they make the people around them smile that makes them truly wonderful.

All in all, eventually, we will see a generation that is tolerant of homosexuals, it just takes a couple centuries for us to take off that blind fold.

They are not sinful, no. They are simply - tolerant.

1)
Who said anything about persecuting them. Christians do not perceute homosexuals. Beliveing homosexual practice is a sin and persecuting them are two diffrent things.

Yes they do......

I'm gay, I was happy with what I was, who I was, what I did and I had accepted it.

Then I had the misfortune to run up against a group of people I worked with, some religious, some not. These people made my life sheer hell - I was told that I was a 'freak', 'should have been shot at birth', 'should be shot now', 'accident of genetics' and other such comments.

This led to a nervous breakdown and a severe lack of confidence which affects me very badly even now, nearly 4 years later.

You want to know what? I very rarely drink, don't get violent, don't swear or lose my temper with people. I look after my friends - gay, straight or bi - and love my closest friends dearly, and would do anything for them, and they know it and accept it. I have a reputation for being one of the nicest people that they know (their words, not mine).

Tell me exactly what I've done to deserve the treatment I've had. Tell me why what I do in private is so wrong that 'Christians' and others can get away with treating me in that way. Tell me what right ANY being, God or mortal, has to tell me who I should care about or who I should love and want to spend my life with. Tell me why a religion which has so many two-faced followers (Thou shalt not kill - Crusades anybody?, Adultery - various priests, TV evangelists etc etc) can even CONSIDER saying that I sin because of who I am.

Answer these and then, only then, will I even consider that Christianity is not just some pathetic, money grabbing, excuse to have a go at anybody who doesn't conform, or is different, to what they claim is right.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." New Living Translation

If the courts allow gay marraige, then what's to stop them from taking it one step further? If the courts allow two men in love to be lawfully wed, what's to stop them from allowing three men in love to be wed? Gay marraige, if legalized, will be a government condonement of sin and will even open the door to polygamy, somewhere down the road.

God destroyed two cities because of sin. One of them was called Sodom, and it was full of homosexuals. Guess where we get the word "sodomy"?

And homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Christ proved that sin is inherent in the nature of man, not the genetic code. Christ was 100% human, physically, and he committed absolutely no sin in his life. He had the nature of God rather than the nature of man, but he had the genetic code of man, because, obviously, he was a man.

We are witnessing the moral decay of the United States. Fifty years ago the vast majority of the population would have been disgusted if the subject of homosexuality even came up. Now people want to allow gay marraige, and they murder their little babies but let violent murderers leave prison on parole after a few years.

Remember a little empire in the Mediterranean a couple thousand years ago? The one called Rome? Guess why it fell? It had nothing to do with military conquest, as they were the strongest nation in the world and would laugh at any foreign threat. It was internal decay. Sin was running rampant through the empire, and it brought it down.

How about we ship all the gays to San Francisco and kick California out of the country? Then maybe God will punish California and leave us alone.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." New Living Translation

If the courts allow gay marraige, then what's to stop them from taking it one step further? If the courts allow two men in love to be lawfully wed, what's to stop them from allowing three men in love to be wed? Gay marraige, if legalized, will be a government condonement of sin and will even open the door to polygamy, somewhere down the road.

God destroyed two cities because of sin. One of them was called Sodom, and it was full of homosexuals. Guess where we get the word "sodomy"?

And homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Christ proved that sin is inherent in the nature of man, not the genetic code. Christ was 100% human, physically, and he committed absolutely no sin in his life. He had the nature of God rather than the nature of man, but he had the genetic code of man, because, obviously, he was a man.

We are witnessing the moral decay of the United States. Fifty years ago the vast majority of the population would have been disgusted if the subject of homosexuality even came up. Now people want to allow gay marraige, and they murder their little babies but let violent murderers leave prison on parole after a few years.

Remember a little empire in the Mediterranean a couple thousand years ago? The one called Rome? Guess why it fell? It had nothing to do with military conquest, as they were the strongest nation in the world and would laugh at any foreign threat. It was internal decay. Sin was running rampant through the empire, and it brought it down.

How about we ship all the gays to San Francisco and kick California out of the country? Then maybe God will punish California and leave us alone.

But what about the factor that GOD FORGIVES ALL

God is supposed to be this omnipotent, omnipresent being, he supposedly gave man free will and then sat back and watched them kill each other or persecute homosexuals and other minority groups.

If he [god] knows all, before it even happens how can he be even remotely looked upon as a benevolent God?
How can a good God sit back and watch all the misery he inflicted on the planet?

Before you spout some rubbish about free will Neo, you believe God to be the all knowing sentient being, he must have "known" that by giving man free will he was setting them up for misery and pain, he must have known this even before he gave them free will so how can you justify him be the "good guy" and all us down here as the "sinners"?

re: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Might want to actually look around for sites that have the words "geology", "Dead Sea" and "Sodom" in them, because I've seen that disaster used to justify "Don't be gay" when perhaps a more relevant lesson might be "Don't build your city on a fault line"



Of course, no one knew geology back then, they just knew they could make a lot of money mining natural tar, that shit about it being due to the presence of gay people in the cities is no different than Pat Robertson (among others) blaming the presence of gay people for 9/11 (which has more to do with the US spoiling Isreal rotten).

Seriously, if God really did that to excessively gay places, why is Holland still here?

Yes they do......

I'm gay, I was happy with what I was, who I was, what I did and I had accepted it.

Then I had the misfortune to run up against a group of people I worked with, some religious, some not. These people made my life sheer hell - I was told that I was a 'freak', 'should have been shot at birth', 'should be shot now', 'accident of genetics' and other such comments.

This led to a nervous breakdown and a severe lack of confidence which affects me very badly even now, nearly 4 years later.

You want to know what? I very rarely drink, don't get violent, don't swear or lose my temper with people. I look after my friends - gay, straight or bi - and love my closest friends dearly, and would do anything for them, and they know it and accept it. I have a reputation for being one of the nicest people that they know (their words, not mine).

Tell me exactly what I've done to deserve the treatment I've had. Tell me why what I do in private is so wrong that 'Christians' and others can get away with treating me in that way. Tell me what right ANY being, God or mortal, has to tell me who I should care about or who I should love and want to spend my life with. Tell me why a religion which has so many two-faced followers (Thou shalt not kill - Crusades anybody?, Adultery - various priests, TV evangelists etc etc) can even CONSIDER saying that I sin because of who I am.

Answer these and then, only then, will I even consider that Christianity is not just some pathetic, money grabbing, excuse to have a go at anybody who doesn't conform, or is different, to what they claim is right.

I am sorry for what happened to you. I can assue you that Christianity as a doctrine says nothing about persecuting anyone. All have sinned therefore persecuting sinners would be to perscute ourselves. The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin, but sin can be delt with thanks to Jesus. Tell these people if you see them again of Matthew 7: 1 "Judge not or you will be judged". Humans have no right to judge others sin, to say "Im better than X because I sin less" or anything like that. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3: 23. The Bible may say things are sins but that does not mean we should perceute the perpretators of sin. That is for God to do later.

God is supposed to be this omnipotent, omnipresent being, he supposedly gave man free will and then sat back and watched them kill each other or persecute homosexuals and other minority groups.

If he [god] knows all, before it even happens how can he be even remotely looked upon as a benevolent God?
How can a good God sit back and watch all the misery he inflicted on the planet?

Before you spout some rubbish about free will Neo, you believe God to be the all knowing sentient being, he must have "known" that by giving man free will he was setting them up for misery and pain, he must have known this even before he gave them free will so how can you justify him be the "good guy" and all us down here as the "sinners"?

So what would you have him do? Control us to the point of us not being able to control it? If your angry with what God has done fine but provide an alternitve.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part3.html


Explains more

As for your "twenty/thirty years" comment I'll have you know that the whole world can change in a moment let alone decades. Moon landing, cures for diseases being discovered, discovery of human psychology, and finding out the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun are all major discoveries that changed the world (especially that last one which got Galleleo charged with heresy when he pissed of the religious folk.)

My point was why do people think that they should base their morality on society when it clearly changes all the time. Social morals may mean one thing one year and another the next. So why is it good to base your ideals on society?

re: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Might want to actually look around for sites that have the words "geology", "Dead Sea" and "Sodom" in them, because I've seen that disaster used to justify "Don't be gay" when perhaps a more relevant lesson might be "Don't build your city on a fault line"


Doesnt the fact that it is a nautral disaster prove that it is God's doing?


Seriously, if God really did that to excessively gay places, why is Holland still here?

Old Covenent time God could kill anyone he liked at any becuase sin and sinner were inseprable and all had sinned and the wages of sin were death. Then the Crucifixtion happened and God could no longer do this because people had a choice. They could accept that they were a sinner, thank Jesus and with sincere faith become a Christian or they could not. God had to let them have the time and oppotunity to do this. The reason he does not destroy places that are full of sin any is that he wants them to come around.

But what about the factor that GOD FORGIVES ALL

You have to accept forgiveness to get it.

So why doesn't God test us all equally?

Why do some people, like homosexuals, need an extra temptation that the rest of us don't have?

So why doesn't God test us all equally?

Why do some people, like homosexuals, need an extra temptation that the rest of us don't have?

Because we are not all the same.

Because we are not all the same.

We are not all the same because of our experiences through life and our genetic make-up. But discounting life experience, where we are able to choose our path, why do some people need an additional burden in their genetic make-up, in this case homosexuality, as part of their test?

Because we are not all the same.

Oh really? And what is it that makes us different, saaaaay . . . gender? Race? Legitimacy? Because I must say, I am frankly sick and tired of the demeaning views of Christianity as a whole. That woman was created merely for the use of man is the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard; there wouldn't BE a human race if it wasn't for women. And just what is so wonderful about men that your God sends them his praises and favor? Does a penis give you any special gifts that make you better than us? Believe me, pal, both genders are in this together. There is very little that a man can do that a woman is incapable of, and there are many things we do better. Just don't forget that you came from a woman, and that a man had an equal part in your existence.

We can. As I have explained parts of the Old Testement apply still parts do not. The key is to see which parts are adressed in the new.

Which is why I said "all Levitical laws except the food and ritual ones which were specifically gotten rid of in the NT." You don't follow every law that wasn't addressed in the NT - in fact, you go to great lengths to try and rationalize some of the worst of them.

I agree that sins of soddom were numerous but it was homosexuality that seemed to push it over the edge when the men of the city wanted to have sex with the angels that appered to be men. That is when it was destroyed.

You haven't read the account then, have you. It was already going to be destroyed. The angels went to go tell Lot to get out because he was a good man. However, the city was going to be destroyed even if no one bothered them at all while leaving. The fact that they wanted to rape the guests was a symptom, but had little to do with homosexuality.

Read the post. Homosexauls cannot be married in God's eyes, even if they can be in the state's eyes. Therefore any sex they have is outside of marriage and therefore a sin.

According to your personal interpretation of a proven-to-be-flawed document, rather than introspection and communion with God. Why should anyone believe your opinion?

Compelation, NOT actual writings. The actual writings are a moral code and a beleif system. These have not been twisted.

Someone obviously hasn't studied the history of the church. Politics was the name of the game Neo, and the current ruler generally had more pull over what got included than any of the bishops.

We are not all the same because of our experiences through life and our genetic make-up. But discounting life experience, where we are able to choose our path, why do some people need an additional burden in their genetic make-up, in this case homosexuality, as part of their test?

Why are some children born into squalid poverty? Why are some people born during war and then raised as child soldiers? Why are some peoples lives clearly worse than others? If I knew the answers to these I would be God.

But it's not possible to be an alcoholic and not drink alcohol,

This is an untrue statement. Once you are an alcoholic, you are *always* an alcoholic, albeit a sober one hopefully.

According to your personal interpretation of a proven-to-be-flawed document, rather than introspection and communion with God. Why should anyone believe your opinion?

Care to explain how said document is proven to be flawed? I am just providing an interpretation, the one shared by my chruch and all the churchs I have been too. I believe my interpreation to be correct because it falls into line with everything in the Bible. I have not found anything to openly disprove it.

Oh really? And what is it that makes us different, saaaaay . . . gender? Race? Legitimacy? Because I must say, I am frankly sick and tired of the demeaning views of Christianity as a whole. That woman was created merely for the use of man is the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard; there wouldn't BE a human race if it wasn't for women. And just what is so wonderful about men that your God sends them his praises and favor? Does a penis give you any special gifts that make you better than us? Believe me, pal, both genders are in this together. There is very little that a man can do that a woman is incapable of, and there are many things we do better. Just don't forget that you came from a woman, and that a man had an equal part in your existence.

How exactly is the Bible or Christianity as a whole sexist?

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

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

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

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

Proves that it isnt.

Why are some children born into squalid poverty? Why are some people born during war and then raised as child soldiers? Why are some peoples lives clearly worse than others? If I knew the answers to these I would be God.

1..Because their parents, who were poor, had sex.
2..See answer 1 and add that the child soldiers part relates to their society and parenting.
3..Incorparate answer 1 and add that sometimes people make bad choices.

None of which relates to people being born with a greater inclination to act against God.

Why are some children born into squalid poverty? Why are some people born during war and then raised as child soldiers? Why are some peoples lives clearly worse than others? If I knew the answers to these I would be God.

So, you're saying it's their fault that they don't look, act, and live like everyone else. How nice. You know, we do not have complete control over the conditions into which we are born, believe it or not. There are some things we cannot easily change, with or without the approval of God.

As for being God, judging by some of your earlier posts, you seem to think you already are.

Proof bitte. And anyway it didnt mean that. The Hebrew to'evah means something utterly repugnuent to God. See this site for more infomation on why homosexuality is a sin.

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

If it isn't hygenic and is truly repugnant to God, then God - being omniscient and omnipotent, can't change God's mind.

If "abomination" means "utterly repugnant to God," then you have argued against God being omniscient and omnipotent, as several abominations suddenly became not repugnant in the NT.

Doesnt the fact that it is a nautral disaster prove that it is God's doing?

No. Only an idiot would have that belief, because ity would prove that God doesn't give ine flying fuck about anyone. Considering that if Natural Disasters are God's doing, then he really doesn't care who he kills.

As for being God, judging by some of your earlier posts, you seem to think you already are.

LOL Very true!

So, you're saying it's their fault that they don't look, act, and live like everyone else. How nice. You know, we do not have complete control over the conditions into which we are born, believe it or not. There are some things we cannot easily change, with or without the approval of God.


I am not saying it is their own fault. And the idea you are "Born Gay" still has not been proven. And the sin is homosexual sex, not attraction (being Gay) so therefore you can control that. And even if you do sin there is a way out. Via Jesus.

If "abomination" means "utterly repugnant to God," then you have argued against God being omniscient and omnipotent, as several abominations suddenly became not repugnant in the NT.

Please show an example of something described as an abomination being accepted in the new testement. And specific use of the word "abomination" please.

How exactly is the Bible or Christianity as a whole sexist?

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

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

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

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

Proves that it isnt.

No, merely that this particualar oraganization has stepped back from the original view. The holy books of any Christian denomination - The Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. - comes right out and says, "Women were created after man, and therefore are inferior to man," or, "Women must obey men," or in a nutshell, "Women make men do bad things." It's all in there. The people who do not follow this point of view are those who have stepped back slightly from the Bible view and started thinking just a little more for themselves. And no, it's not the fault of Christianity; more the fault of those who put the "word of God" into text and based Christ's teachings on what they thought acceptable for the society in which they were situated.

Banning Gay marriage is not forcing you all into a religion this is just a democratic decsion. Every group of people from the individual to the mutinational corperation has the right to pressureise the government in legitamate ways to get them to do what they would like to. Christians in the US have this right as much as any other. And as I have said, the Christians of the US want to ban gay marriage and they are the vast majority. However in the homosexual community only 0.3% actually want have been involved in any kind of monogmous commited relationship with another member of the same sex. Given that homosexuals make up aproximately 5% of any population the actual percentage of the population that want gay marriage is aprox 0.015%. Given that Christians who oppose Gay marriage are the vastly larger number who should get there way.

This is the most idiotic argument ever. Tyranny of the majority is wrong - plain and simple. By this logic, we should go back to black people getting kicked out of white restaraunts and being forced to sit in the back of the bus - the majority wanted that too. By your logic, they should've "gotten their way."

And for those who say "What if Islam got in as the largest religon? Should they make up the laws etc" I say that this example here (Banning Gay marriage) is not nearly as extreme as most muslim laws (IE cutting off hands when someone steals etc)

Wait, so it isn't "the majority should get their way," it's "the majority should get their way as long as I'm in the majority." RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I am not saying it is their own fault. And the idea you are "Born Gay" still has not been proven. And the sin is homosexual sex, not attraction (being Gay) so therefore you can control that. And even if you do sin there is a way out. Via Jesus.

Forgive me for pushing the envelope, but at what point in his life did Jesus say that homosexual acts were wrong? After all, if he truly WAS God Incarnate, then would he not have mentioned that if it were really a big deal to him?

No, merely that this particualar oraganization has stepped back from the original view. The holy books of any Christian denomination - The Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. - comes right out and says, "Women were created after man, and therefore are inferior to man," or, "Women must obey men," or in a nutshell, "Women make men do bad things." It's all in there. The people who do not follow this point of view are those who have stepped back slightly from the Bible view and started thinking just a little more for themselves. And no, it's not the fault of Christianity; more the fault of those who put the "word of God" into text and based Christ's teachings on what they thought acceptable for the society in which they were situated.

Care to provide Bible verses that prove your standpoint. These websites here prove that women and men are equal in the eyes of God. You have provided no proof. Read the websites fully and you will see why.

This is the most idiotic argument ever. Tyranny of the majority is wrong - plain and simple. By this logic, we should go back to black people getting kicked out of white restaraunts and being forced to sit in the back of the bus - the majority wanted that too. By your logic, they should've "gotten their way."


Tryanny of the majority is one thing. Tyrrany over a minortity that is 0.015% of the population is something else.



Wait, so it isn't "the majority should get their way," it's "the majority should get their way as long as I'm in the majority." RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The Islamic majority do get there way in many Muslim nations. But I think you will agree that Islamic law on cutting hands off is far more extreme than banning Gay marriage. And in any case if it was a Muslim nation in power in the US and the Christian population was only 0.015% then they could easily leave. My point is insignificent minoritys do not deserve an entire re-working of the law just for them. That is unnessecary.

Care to explain how said document is proven to be flawed? I am just providing an interpretation, the one shared by my chruch and all the churchs I have been too. I believe my interpreation to be correct because it falls into line with everything in the Bible. I have not found anything to openly disprove it.

This whole discussion has been about flaws in the Bible. You have even acknowledged some of them. Thus, the document is flawed.


How exactly is the Bible or Christianity as a whole sexist?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnogod.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnoaccss.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wuppity.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wchurch.html
Proves that it isnt.

I have already shown that these leave out verses that they haven't figured out a way to explain away. Thus, they do not truly discount the fact that it *is* sexist.

Care to provide Bible verses that prove your standpoint. These websites here prove that women and men are equal in the eyes of God. You have provided no proof. Read the websites fully and you will see why.

What does it matter what GOD thinks?! People rarely read the Bible for themselves! Instead, most of the world relies on the voice of a preacher telling us what this passage means, and why that verse is important, etc, etc. And in the meantime, they can leave out certain parts, or add their own personal interpretation. God doesn't matter; he never did. It's the priests we all listen to.

And yes, that is an unfair generalization for these times, but it's true; I spent my childhood wondering why people with dark skin were evil in God's eyes.

Please show an example of something described as an abomination being accepted in the new testement. And specific use of the word "abomination" please.

Eating shellfish.

So what would you have him do? Control us to the point of us not being able to control it? If your angry with what God has done fine but provide an alternitve.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part3.html


Explains more

NO, you have completely or intentionally missed my point Neo.
I'm not looking for cleverly argumented points like the links you quoted give, I'm looking for a straight answer from you.

Why, if your god is/was such an omnipresent being did he give man free will *despite* the fact that he would have known exactly what the outcome would be?
Nothing mentioned in the links you gave gives a straight answer, just arguments for Christians to deliver to Athiests.

No offense to anyone here, but this topic has gotten a little out of control (to say the least, heh). :D Maybe it would be easier to continue the discussion in another board? Who wants dibs on creating it? :)

You know, this would be sooooo much easier if this were a chat room.

Tryanny of the majority is one thing. Tyrrany over a minortity that is 0.015% of the population is something else.

There is no tyrrany of a minority here. It would only be tyranny of a minority if people were being forced to bring homosexual marriage into their church or were being forced into homosexual marriage themselves - which is not being suggested.

Also, youer 0.015% figure has not been backed up - and, at least in the US, is most likely horribly wrong.

The Islamic majority do get there way in many Muslim nations. But I think you will agree that Islamic law on cutting hands off is far more extreme than banning Gay marriage.

It is also much more extreme than requiring that blacks sit in the back of the bus. Does the fact that stripping away one right is "worse* than another treatment somehow make it ok? So if I cut off one person's head but only slap the other, I didn't wrong the person I slapped?

And in any case if it was a Muslim nation in power in the US and the Christian population was only 0.015% then they could easily leave.

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that were true, they *would*.

My point is insignificent minoritys do not deserve an entire re-working of the law just for them. That is unnessecary.

It isn't an entire reworking, any more than allowing blacks equality was an entire reworking. In the US anyways, it is simply proper interpretation of the law in light of the 14th amendment.

NO, you have completely or intentionally missed my point Neo.
I'm not looking for cleverly argumented points like the links you quoted give, I'm looking for a straight answer from you.

Why, if your god is/was such an omnipresent being did he give man free will *despite* the fact that he would have known exactly what the outcome would be?
Nothing mentioned in the links you gave gives a straight answer, just arguments for Christians to deliver to Athiests.

More than that :

God creates us with free-will yet in his omnipotence knows exactly what the outcome of each of our lives will be. That being the case is free-will real, since our fate is already known?

If free-will does exist and we can change beyond God's omnipotent ability to foresee the outcome, is God omnipotent?

More than that :

God creates us with free-will yet in his omnipotence knows exactly what the outcome of each of our lives will be. That being the case is free-will real, since our fate is already known?

If free-will does exist and we can change beyond God's omnipotent ability to foresee the outcome, is God omnipotent?

Ah, just like the rock argument:

In all His omnipotence, could God possibly create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

I spent hours pondering that one. :rolleyes:

Ah, just like the rock argument:

In all His omnipotence, could God possibly create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

I spent hours pondering that one. :rolleyes:

Yes i suppose the second part certainly relates to that, but the first part is more about allowing yourself to believe an illusion.

Also, youer 0.015% figure has not been backed up - and, at least in the US, is most likely horribly wrong.


The Gay population of any country at present is aproximately 5% of the total. In Kaye Wellings an Anne Johnson study "Sexual Behaviour and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles" published in 1994 which remains to this date the largest study into homosexuality only 0.3% of the homosexuals they asked had ever had or ever wanted to have a monogmous relationship. So 5 / 0.3 = 0.015. Ergo 0.015 of the population want gay marraige


It is also much more extreme than requiring that blacks sit in the back of the bus. Does the fact that stripping away one right is "worse* than another treatment somehow make it ok? So if I cut off one person's head but only slap the other, I didn't wrong the person I slapped?


Your arguement falls down at this hurdle, marriage is not a right.


It isn't an entire reworking, any more than allowing blacks equality was an entire reworking. In the US anyways, it is simply proper interpretation of the law in light of the 14th amendment.

It is a reworking of the definition of marriage which to a Christian is abhorrent as marriage is acording to Christians and Jesus between a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-8

You forget, Neo Cannen, that Christianity is not the only religion with marriage.

I have already shown that these leave out verses that they haven't figured out a way to explain away. Thus, they do not truly discount the fact that it *is* sexist.

Actually I have never posted these pages before so you cant have. Read them.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnogod.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnoaccss.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wuppity.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wchurch.html

You forget, Neo Cannen, that Christianity is not the only religion with marriage.

I'm sorry, but we only seemed to be discussing Christianity. Sin is a Christian word is it not?

Eating shellfish.

I needed a verse refernce with specific use of the word abominantion. Can you provide said verse?

I'm sorry, but we only seemed to be discussing Christianity. Sin is a Christian word is it not?

No, because Sin is the ancient Babylonian Moon God of misery. And since Babylonian myths outdate the myths of the Bible(since the Edan myth is lifted entirely from the Babylonian creation story), Sin existed even before what could be considered the forerunner of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The Gay population of any country at present is aproximately 5% of the total. In Kaye Wellings an Anne Johnson study "Sexual Behaviour and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles" published in 1994 which remains to this date the largest study into homosexuality only 0.3% of the homosexuals they asked had ever had or ever wanted to have a monogmous relationship. So 5 / 0.3 = 0.015. Ergo 0.015 of the population want gay marraige

(a) The study was from 1994 - and thus would most likely not apply to today.
(b) The study was only in Britain and France, from what I can tell, and thus is not a large enough scale study to talk about *all* homosexuals.
(c) This same group has performed studies since that they say discount some of what they studied in the '90's.

So guess what, you're wrong.

You do realize that, in scientific discourse - especially in biology or behavioral sciences - a 10 year old paper is most likely obsolete?

Your arguement falls down at this hurdle, marriage is not a right.

Equal protection under the law is a right in the US. If the US passes laws that are protections for couples, then those laws must be applied equally to all couples unless they have a damn good reason to not do so. And "we find it icky" is not considered a damn good reason. Thus, if marriage licenses are going to be given out at all, they must be given out to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who request them.

It is a reworking of the definition of marriage which to a Christian is abhorrent as marriage is acording to Christians and Jesus between a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-8

(a) Which means absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law, since we are not a theocracy.

(b) It is abhorrent to your particular brand of Christianity - do not purport to speak for all Christians.

I needed a verse refernce with specific use of the word abominantion. Can you provide said verse?

Leviticus 11
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Merry Christmas.

Actually I have never posted these pages before so you cant have. Read them.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnogod.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnoaccss.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wuppity.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wchurch.html

Every page you have posted has been from www.christian-thinktank. I have shown that these people ignore key verses. Therefore, *anything* they say is *highly* suspect.

Since we have shown that they leave things out, you really should try and find new sources.

I'm sorry, but we only seemed to be discussing Christianity. Sin is a Christian word is it not?

It is indeed, but my point was that there IS more to marriage than just a Christian bonding for procreation. That's all.

It doesn't matter so much that it is considered a sin by Christians, because they should be allowed to believe what they want...what matters is that the Christians in the government are trying to force their religious views on everyone else by banning gay marriage.

*cough* Bush *cough*

Every page you have posted has been from www.christian-thinktank. I have shown that these people ignore key verses. Therefore, *anything* they say is *highly* suspect.

Since we have shown that they leave things out, you really should try and find new sources.

You cant dismiss everything just because of its source. You have to examine everything in its own right

You cant dismiss everything just because of its source. You have to examine everything in its own right

I can dismiss the source as biased. The fact that it is biased means that, if it contradicts a less biased source, the less biased source is almost definitely more correct. I have such sources - they are called the Bible itself and history books.

Now, your source leaves out key details, and also twists things that are obviously discriminatory as "extra protection" and other bogus nonsense. If you would like to find a source that actually pays attention to detail and doesn't try and twist things against the actual history but still agrees with you, you can go ahead. However, pretty much all such sources will state quite clearly that the societies at those times were very sexist. All you have right now is a bunch of people who are so stuck on the idea that everything in the Bible has to have flown directly from God's mouth, that they will twist themselves into very convoluted corners to rationalize injustices.

I'll ask you again. If I have 10 apples, and all of them are red except for one mysterious purple one, and all I report is "Hey guys, I found nine red apples - I guess that means all apples are red!" Do you trust me?

(a) The study was from 1994 - and thus would most likely not apply to today.
(b) The study was only in Britain and France, from what I can tell, and thus is not a large enough scale study to talk about *all* homosexuals.
(c) This same group has performed studies since that they say discount some of what they studied in the '90's.

So guess what, you're wrong.

You do realize that, in scientific discourse - especially in biology or behavioral sciences - a 10 year old paper is most likely obsolete?


But there is no larger study and so nothing to compare it to. And in ten years the population is unlikely to have signifently risen. Even if the number is 300% the original it still only makes it 0.045% and its extremely doubtful it has risen that much


Equal protection under the law is a right in the US. If the US passes laws that are protections for couples, then those laws must be applied equally to all couples unless they have a damn good reason to not do so. And "we find it icky" is not considered a damn good reason. Thus, if marriage licenses are going to be given out at all, they must be given out to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who request them.


Yes but the definition of marriage is man and woman under US law. And as I have said, marriage is not a right.


(a) Which means absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law, since we are not a theocracy.

(b) It is abhorrent to your particular brand of Christianity - do not purport to speak for all Christians.

But a majority of Christans do not want this. Are you going to tell me that the number of Gays who want Gay marriage even comes remotely close to the numbers of Christians lobbying for this not to go through. Christians have the right to lobby the government as much as any other group. Gays to have this right, but which group is larger and not by a short way, but significently.

I can dismiss the source as biased. The fact that it is biased means that, if it contradicts a less biased source, the less biased source is almost definitely more correct. I have such sources - they are called the Bible itself and history books.

Now, your source leaves out key details, and also twists things that are obviously discriminatory as "extra protection" and other bogus nonsense. If you would like to find a source that actually pays attention to detail and doesn't try and twist things against the actual history but still agrees with you, you can go ahead. However, pretty much all such sources will state quite clearly that the societies at those times were very sexist. All you have right now is a bunch of people who are so stuck on the idea that everything in the Bible has to have flown directly from God's mouth, that they will twist themselves into very convoluted corners to rationalize injustices.

I'll ask you again. If I have 10 apples, and all of them are red except for one mysterious purple one, and all I report is "Hey guys, I found nine red apples - I guess that means all apples are red!" Do you trust me?

You miss a key fact WHAT THEY SAY ON THE WEBSITES IS TRUE. God does not always describe himself as man, The bible does not describe women as only soft/evil charachters, the Bible does not have any problem with women leading churches. You cannot dismiss an entire source as biased. You have to look at each site for its validtity. If you know anything about these people you will know that they have done thousands of studys. You cant just say "They are biased" without proof. How about taking an extract from a site and disproving it or something reasonable like that instead of just tarring them all with the same brush?

But a majority of Christans do not want this. Are you going to tell me that the number of Gays who want Gay marriage even comes remotely close to the numbers of Christians lobbying for this not to go through. Christians have the right to lobby the government as much as any other group. Gays to have this right, but which group is larger and not by a short way, but significently.

So, you think that just because the majority thinks it's wrong, that their view is the correct one? What if the majority of the Indian population was taught for three hundred years that eating the intestines of cats would cure them of all diseases, thus eliminating the need for medicines, while a small minority was told that medication can help cure them of common maladies? Is the cat-eating majority still correct?

Leviticus 11
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Merry Christmas.

Detestable TO YOU. Not God. Thats what it says in my translation. And here to. Abomination TO YOU. Find one that says TO GOD or just abomination.

Yes but the definition of marriage is man and woman under US law. And as I have said, marriage is not a right.



But a majority of Christans do not want this. Are you going to tell me that the number of Gays who want Gay marriage even comes remotely close to the numbers of Christians lobbying for this not to go through. Christians have the right to lobby the government as much as any other group. Gays to have this right, but which group is larger and not by a short way, but significently.

How in sweet fuck is marraige not a right?? If it isn't why are straight couples allowed to marry? If it's a privilege what did straight people do to earn it? And you know why Christians shouldn't have the right to lobby the government? Because it's a disciminitory, unfair, oppressive for them to try and deny a group of people the same advantages bestowed upon the rest of their countrymen just because they are different!!

No one is trying to get you to change your beliefs or opinions on what is a sin, what the fuck is your problem anyways?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we deny homosexuals the right to marry, we deny them their happiness. And that is just plain wrong.

Period.

So, you think that just because the majority thinks it's wrong, that their view is the correct one? What if the majority of the Indian population was taught for three hundred years that eating the intestines of cats would cure them of all diseases, thus eliminating the need for medicines, while a small minority was told that medication can help cure them of common maladies? Is the cat-eating majority still correct?

No I dont think that just because its a majority view makes it right, I belive it is right but purely because its from God's word not because of it being a majoritys idea. However in a democracy it is the majority that rules. This is not trynnay of the majority since the minority that wants this are insignificent, only 0.015% of the population. The vast majority of Christians in the US do not want this and so its fair. Foxhunting is a comparable example. A large percentage of the population believe that what a tiny, insignificent percentage of the population is doing is wrong. Thus they put up laws against it (Gay marriage outlawing, Foxhunting outlawing). Since foxhunting was outlawed, whats to say gay marriage shouldnt be? If your going to say "Its their right" isnt it the hunters right to continue there tradition. No. Nowhere in law is tradional rights upheld, in the same way no where in law are the rights to marry upheld. It is not a "right" to marry.

But there is no larger study

Says who? You still have yet to reference this statement. And it still doesn't address the fact that this was a study of homosexuals in Britain, which has a very different societal structure than the US - which is actually a much larger country.

You also ignore the fact that, no matter how large a study is, if it has significant flaws, it means nothing. In '94, most of the openly gay people were going to be those who were just coming out - very flamboyant, often very promiscuous. The quiet stay-at-home gay couples probably weren't even included. Why? Because no one knew they were gay!

and so nothing to compare it to. And in ten years the population is unlikely to have signifently risen. Even if the number is 300% the original it still only makes it 0.045% and its extremely doubtful it has risen that much

You fail to take into account for the flaws of the study itself, which would have concentrated on a specific subset of the gay community which, much like many young and wild heterosexuals, are unlikely to worry about marriage at all.

Yes but the definition of marriage is man and woman under US law. And as I have said, marriage is not a right.

Nothing like completely ignoring the point.

Under the US Constitution, the law cannot offer special privileges to a subset of people without a good reason to do so. They have good reasons to offer marriage protections. However, these reasons apply to homosexual couples just as much as they do to heterosexual couples. The fact that the definition of marrage is "a man and a woman" is just as discriminatory and just as unconstitutional as it was when the definition was " a white man and a white woman."

But a majority of Christans do not want this. Are you going to tell me that the number of Gays who want Gay marriage even comes remotely close to the numbers of Christians lobbying for this not to go through. Christians have the right to lobby the government as much as any other group. Gays to have this right, but which group is larger and not by a short way, but significently.

And again you miss the point. The numbers mean nothing. If there were 9999999999999999999999990 people against it and only 2 for it, it would still be an unconstitutional law. Meanwhile, the difference is not nearly that large. In fact, there is a close to 50-50 split between those who want to extend the protections to homosexuals and those who don't. There is roughtly a 75-25 split when you worry about what to call it.

How in sweet fuck is marraige not a right?? If it isn't why are straight couples allowed to marry? If it's a privilege what did straight people do to earn it? And you know why Christians shouldn't have the right to lobby the government? Because it's a disciminitory, unfair, oppressive for them to try and deny a group of people the same advantages bestowed upon the rest of their countrymen just because they are different!!


Someone once said "I may kill you for what you say, but I will defend you with my last drop of blood for your right to say it". If your going to start saying "X, Y and Z only can lobby the governent but not A becuase A is opressive and nasty" then you are being opressive.

But there is no larger study and so nothing to compare it to. And in ten years the population is unlikely to have signifently risen. Even if the number is 300% the original it still only makes it 0.045% and its extremely doubtful it has risen that much



How do you not understand that just because a number of gay people in the early 90's said no they were not in long term monogomous relationships does not mean they didn't want to? Most gay couples do not have long term relationships because of the social stigma attached to it. If there was social support for gay relationships there would be more monogomous relationships because there would be no deterrent to it from outside forces anymore. I have stated this time and again and you continue to ignore it. You quote numbers as if they make your argument yet you don't understand the basic concepts how societies forces influence personal choices. You have to look at the big picture to understand the topic and you continue to build an argument based on small details and facts without stepping back to look at what you built. But you go right on ahead living in your own little world where everything is famaliar and inoffensive to your little bigot mind.

I'm out.

You miss a key fact WHAT THEY SAY ON THE WEBSITES IS TRUE.

Except of course that some of it isn't.

God does not always describe himself as man, The bible does not describe women as only soft/evil charachters, the Bible does not have any problem with women leading churches.

Wrong. The parts of the Bible that you have picked and chosen doesn't have a problem with it. However, some verses do.

You cannot dismiss an entire source as biased.

If it is biased, yes I can.

You have to look at each site for its validtity.

Wrong. I know you aren't really used to the idea of reasoned discourse, but you cannot use a biased source and then say "Wait, line 3 is right!! Therefore the whole site is right!!!"

If you know anything about these people you will know that they have done thousands of studys.

All of them from a biased standpoint - leaving out information when they couldn't explain it away.

You cant just say "They are biased" without proof. How about taking an extract from a site and disproving it or something reasonable like that instead of just tarring them all with the same brush?

I have done this.

Of course, every time you ask me for proof and I provide it, you ignore it altogether. So why should I reprovide it now?

How about you go back to when you first started posting these sites and look at it?

Detestable TO YOU. Not God. Thats what it says in my translation. And here to. Abomination TO YOU. Find one that says TO GOD or just abomination.

And here we see yet another example of you twisting yourself into illogical and convoluted corners to avoid the truth.

They mean the same thing darling. It is an abomination to the person because God doesn't like it. If you believe that God wrote these laws, then God is declaring it an abomination. If the people didn't like it, they just wouldn't have eaten it.

How do you not understand that just because a number of gay people in the early 90's said no they were not in long term monogomous relationships does not mean they didn't want to?

The study asked if they had either been in a relationship or if they wanted to. Only 0.3% of the homosexuals asked said yes. Since homosexuals only make up aprox 5% of any population, the total percentage of those who actually want Gay marriage and who are directly affected by it is 0.015%

If it is biased, yes I can.
Wrong. I know you aren't really used to the idea of reasoned discourse, but you cannot use a biased source and then say "Wait, line 3 is right!! Therefore the whole site is right!!!"
All of them from a biased standpoint - leaving out information when they couldn't explain it away.


You cant just dismiss an entire source. Quote from it and then disprove it, it uses the Bible. It uses fact, not opinon. You cannot say "Its Biased" and then ignore its viewpoints entirely. Anyone who has done year 9 history can tell you that.

However in a democracy it is the majority that rules.

And this is why we are not a pure democracy. Suppose the pure democracy were a bunch of wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If the wolves outnumbered the sheep, what do you think would be for dinner?

I don't know about Britain, but in the US we have specific prohibitions set up to keep the tyranny of the majority from being unfair to the minority.

This is not trynnay of the majority since the minority that wants this are insignificent, only 0.015% of the population.

Wait, so as long as the number of people being trampled on is small, it isn't tyranny of the majority? You have strange definitions hon.

Suppose in my example above, it were 9999999 wolves and 2 sheep. I guess it isn't tyranny of the majority though. Don't be an idiot.

The vast majority of Christians in the US do not want this and so its fair.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Here's one:

The vast number of white people in the US didn't want the blacks to have equality so it was fair.

The vast number of people in the US thought that marriage was only between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity so it was fair.

The vast number of people in the US think the KKK is wrong so we should just get rid of them - that would be fair.

The vast number of people in the US once thought that women shouldn't vote, so that was fair.

Foxhunting is a comparable example. A large percentage of the population believe that what a tiny, insignificent percentage of the population is doing is wrong. Thus they put up laws against it (Gay marriage outlawing, Foxhunting outlawing). Since foxhunting was outlawed, whats to say gay marriage shouldnt be?

Simple. And it has already been pointed out. Foxhunting was harming the land and property of people who were not involved in it. On many occasions, it was even causing them bodily harm. Guess what, homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone at all - whether they agree with it or not.

If your going to say "Its their right" isnt it the hunters right to continue there tradition. No. Nowhere in law is tradional rights upheld, in the same way no where in law are the rights to marry upheld. It is not a "right" to marry.

If there is a marriage law, it is the right of all citizens to have access to those protections. Since marriage is a list of protections afforded to a couple, all couples must have equal access to these protections unless there is a state interest in denying them (ie. harm to other people). There is no such interest.