NationStates Jolt Archive

A tiny number of people. If say the Fudal Japanese society of battle renactment requested the right to bear blunted arms in public then it is likely the government would not make a law permiting it. This does not equate to opression. If all the Jedi (which is an offical religion) demanded that the govenrment funded research into the possibility of forced plasma beam technology (lightsabers) and the government refused is that repression? How do you define it. A tiny ammount of people demanding something does not equal repression and does not mean that the government should change its attitude completely just for them.
You still don’t get it … I understand that sometimes out of necessity that the majority have to win for society but it is still OPPRESSION weather it is necessary or not!

(even by your deffinition)

No one is trying to redefine anything that is sacred to you, as your view of marriage (and your church's definition) would not be changed in the least.

By insisting on calling it marriage, it would be redefining something that I hold sacred.


Tyranny of the majority. What if the majority voted to ban Mormonism, would you support that as well? I think not.

Believe it or not, this actually did happen. That's why we crossed the great planes and left the U.S, going into Indian teritory. Of course, the U.S. later caught up with us and renamed it Utah.

If marriage is only a sacred, and not a secular institution to you - Then why do you care how the secular institution defined by civil marriage is handled?

Because I want my children to be able to grow up in a country where marriage is held as a sacred covenant. Now, I realise that it's not a reality with either gay or straight marriage, but I will always stand in defense of what I feel are neglected virtues, and that includes my vote. Just as much as you or anyone else has a right to stand up for their virtues.

If you truly have a problem with a secular institution being called marriage, then you should be lobbying for the government to stop using the word marriage and only grant civil unions. The government only grants civil marriage - and does not perform your religious marriage or the symbolism that you wish to uphold. If your problem truly is with the idea of a secular institution calling itself marriage - then you should be against *ALL* secular institutions using that name.

Hmmm. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Demopublicents, I think your reply to me was fair and not attacking. You obviously listened to my perspective and seem to respect my views (or at least my right to my views). This is the closest I think I have come to being able to find a happy medium between our two opposing positions. For that, I thank you.

So, by not supporting marriage for gay people,under the instance that your morales dictate otherwise, as does your religion. Where does my right to pracrise my religion, and to marry two people of the same sex, under the legal definition of marriage, since my religion does not descriminate upon the gender of the two parties.
I say there, is not your vey plea against descrimination of your beliefs, an act of descrimination of my beliefs?

I can only say that you have been given free agency to worship and minister according to the dictates of your own conscience. I personally believe your doctrine of marrying same-sex to be an abomination to Christianity, but then again, you may not consider yourself a Christian minister. I don't know. All I know is that you have every right to practice your religion, and that I have every right to stand up for my virtues as well. In the end, we will each be accountable for our own choices.

Ok now this is just getting silly. Ok get around this

1) Marriage is only defined between a man and a women in the Bible. No kind of same sex union was ever blessed by God in the Bible. Jesus himself said this in the new testement Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.

2) Sex of any kind outside marriage is a sin.

3) Therefore homosexuals are never married in God's eyes therefore any sex they do have is a sin.

And just for some new evidence there is no sugestion that Jesus was "Silent" on homosexuality. Remember that this was a man who removed a great deal of Mosaic law, yet did not remove homosexual practice. And also Jesus regularly spoke out aginst "porneia" which litrally translated means "Sexual Imorality" but at the time it was well known to include same sex relations. Basicly "porneia" and the various Mosiac laws about sex outlawed anything that was not "Nautral" in Eden. See here for more info

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

God never blesses any marriage, that I recall, in the Bible.

1) The Mark reference is quoted out of context - but that isn't going to surprise anyone... the whole passage refers to divorce, which would have been obvious if you'd included the next line.

It doesn't say that that is the ONLY marriage that is allowed, it is merely the framework for the definition around divorce. SImilarly, the Matthew element you posted is describing the same event.

2) Sex outside of marriage doesn't exist, in that jewish tradition - except in the case of adultery. Maybe you are too stubborn to go look into it yourself (and it is possible to do so without running to one of your "christian equivalent of facts" websites) but the consumation was what MADE the marriage. Look at modern divorce law - it's still in there.

3) Since it is better to 'marry than to burn', and we are constantly warned against 'burning' with lusts - it is logical that homosexuals SHOULD marry - and, since the Bible never actually denies gay marriage (no matter what your shallow translations tell you) - christianity really condones gay marriage.

Therefore, any sex they have WITHIN MARRIAGE, is not satisfying just their lusts, but is a sanctioned act.

4) Porneia does, often mean 'illicit sexual acts' - but doesn't specifically mention homosexuality. It is also often used to describe the worshipping of idols - although the english translation conveniently ignores that, for the most part.

I am glad to see you taking a passing interest in the original language, though.

Too little, and too late - but, at least you've shown SOME interest in the true scripture.

Are you avoiding my question Neo?

I'm afraid that Neo seems to avoid ANY question where he might have to admit he was wrong, less informed, or on dubious ground.

Take my request for a translation from the Hebrew, for example.

But then, it's hard to maintain a good argument based on prejudice, when pesky facts and logic keep getting in the way.

1) Provide proof


Been done, already.


3) Again we are discussing Christianity here and the Bible is the only source of morality for a Chrisitian.


Wrong - otherwise christians could make no moral judgements on things not mentioned in the bible.


4) Again we are discussing Christianity and Christianity makes it quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin.


Wrong - based on lack of understanding of scriptural marriage.


6) The reason that he does not destroy all homosexuals now is the same reason he does not destroy all blasphemers/adulterers/liers/thieves/rapeists/murders etc. He sent his son to die so that these people (sinners, like everyone else) have a chance to remove their sin and come to him. He wants as many people to be with him as possible and thus will not kill them if they have sinned.


Matter of opinion.


I did not say it was scientific fact. I said it was the view of the Bible

Wrong - based on lack of understanding of scripture.

The Bible never contridicts itself in regard to homosexuality

First: You wouldn't know, you've never read the whole thing.

You said so yourself. Therefore, all you know is what you were told.


Second: If a thing has a history of being flawed, of contradicting itself, why should that thing be considered trustworthy on some issues, but not on others?


Third: You haven't read the scripture in Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek - you have no idea what was written into scripture BEFORE good King James assigned a royal commission to the task.

Marriage is part of the Bible and it is supported in the Bible (note as a man and women). Marriage should only be a religious insitution, not a governmental one.

Except that marriages were being conducted while the Hebrews were still wandering the desert bopping each other with rocks.

Sorry, Neo Cannen - but your ENTIRE argument about marriage hinges on the Genesis account being factual, and even most christians don't believe it to be entirely true.

See - there were states out there with marriage (and recorded history) before the Genesis account says there was even a world... so, I don't think we can put TOO much store in your argument that marriage started out as a christian, religious institution.

What about "The majority dont want it". Regardless of the cause should the majority not be listend to? Espically if they are the overwhelming majority.

November 2004: 70% of the American Public DO want some form of union for homosexuals.

Retract statement, Neo.

(We've been here before).

what i see in this thread (which has made for a great read!) is one group of people making logical arguments for tolerance, understanding and progress... and another group dedicated to blind dogma and fear. even those against gay marraige who argue over the economics of taxes and benefits... as opposed to scripture... have fear (of higher taxes) as their motivation.

love is love... and a union is a union. we can deny gays "the title" or "the legitamacy" or whatever else you'd like to deny them... but their love and their unions will still exist... and those who deny that... are the ones with the problem.

Homosexuality is outlawed in Leviticus, a very rational and relevent text that serves as a real guide on how to live in the modern world. The letter below, sent to Dr Laura Schlessinger illustrates this point with more wit than I could muster when confronted with the load of antiquated and dangerous old cock that is the old testament....

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

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

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

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

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

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

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

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

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

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

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

First: You wouldn't know, you've never read the whole thing.


Fine, I challenge you to find a verse promoting homosexuality then

November 2004: 70% of the American Public DO want some form of union for homosexuals.


What percentage of them are going to use it? And that is some union, not marriage

Fine, I challenge you to find a verse promoting homosexuality then

I was just studying this in one of my Sociology classes. Since the bible is often read literally word-for-word, which is where many people get their prejudice against homosexuals, the point of the chapter was to point out the verses of the bible that condone homosexuality.

There are such verses, if you are going to be fair and read everything in the same fashion. Homosexual couples have used said verses in their wedding ceremonies.

I'll see if I can dig 'em up for you.

Equality is a fundamental part of our government system, as is separation of church and state. If you don't like equality, then you should move to a third world/fundamentalist country. Perhaps you should move to Saudi Arabia, or mabe Rwanda. You won't have equality forced upon you in either of those places. If you don't like separation of church and state, I would suggest Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan.

On top of that, we have *consistently* argued that *NOBODY* can restrict the rights and legal protections of others without providing a valid reason for why not doing so would endanger them. This is not discriminatory, as *NOBODY* can do it.

Your arguement comes from your idealogogy. You have yet to give an arguement that comes from a practial source of the need of marriage for homosexuals. There is no practical need that you have sugested that homosexual marriage needs. Your idea of freedom comes from your ideology, my idea of marriage comes from mine. What you are basicly saying is that it is fine for your ideology to be the force behind legislation but mine is not. Is or is not that discrimination? Why is your ideology any better than mine? Answer its not and so you should have no more right for your views to be made into legislation than mine. Your arguement against my views becoming law have so far been "Your views are religous" which means that you are discriminating against my views being allowed into politcs. If my views aren't allowed in and yours are, then that means that you think that your views are somehow "Better" than mine, which is discrimintory.

I was just studying this in one of my Sociology classes. Since the bible is often read literally word-for-word, which is where many people get their prejudice against homosexuals, the point of the chapter was to point out the verses of the bible that condone homosexuality.

There are such verses, if you are going to be fair and read everything in the same fashion. Homosexual couples have used said verses in their wedding ceremonies.

I'll see if I can dig 'em up for you.

There is nowhere in the Bible where God in anyway promotes homosexual unions of any kind. I can assure you of that.

Wrong - based on lack of understanding of scripture.

So far all you have done is attempt to disprove my understanding. You have not supported your own. Find verses that support homosexuality.

Fine, I challenge you to find a verse promoting homosexuality then

And, I challenge you to find a verse that condemns it, IN THE ACTUAL NATIVE SCRIPTURE.

3) Since it is better to 'marry than to burn', and we are constantly warned against 'burning' with lusts - it is logical that homosexuals SHOULD marry - and, since the Bible never actually denies gay marriage (no matter what your shallow translations tell you) - christianity really condones gay marriage.

Therefore, any sex they have WITHIN MARRIAGE, is not satisfying just their lusts, but is a sanctioned act.


Nowhere in the Bible is marriage defined as anything other than man and women. So your arguement is flawed

What percentage of them are going to use it? And that is some union, not marriage

It doesn't matter. I could back a law that provides oxygen to deep-sea divers... doesn't mean I'm going to use it, but you can bet they'd be grateful.

Union or marriage - it shows clearly that you .015% (or whatever) figure is, to use the vernacular, crap.

How many homosexual friends do you have, Neo?

There is nowhere in the Bible where God in anyway promotes homosexual unions of any kind. I can assure you of that.

You can assure away... you'll still be wrong.

Seriously, Neo Cannen...

Have you read the whole, entire bible???

Even just in English?

Nowhere in the Bible is marriage defined as anything other than man and women. So your arguement is flawed

Nowhere in the bible is it comprehensively defined as anything... even man and woman. So, your argument is flawed.

And don't go trotting out your 'Adam and Eve' line again... I have proved it wrong, repeatedly.

Actually Neo, I assure you that there is.

Remember that I'm saying this under the pretext of the way anti-homosexuality religious zealots interpret the bible--literal, word-for-word interpretations that don't take changing rhetoric and word structure, nor translation discrepencies into account.

There's one I should really find for you--mentions two males by name, and talks about their embrace and union being stronger love and intimacy that that of a man and a woman, something like that. When I find it, I will post it. Of course, I'm sure we could run an internet search and find similar literal verses that could be interpreted that way, as way.

So far all you have done is attempt to disprove my understanding. You have not supported your own. Find verses that support homosexuality.

It's not a matter of 'attempting'.

I HAVE disproved your understanding.

You lack the tools to understand scripture. It's a sad fact.

My understanding of scripture is backed by an understanding of the roots of scripture, and an understanding of the scripture in it's pure form, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Against which, you have a partial reading of the bible, no real grasp of the historical background, and zero knowledge of the scripture in any language other than english.

Fine, I challenge you to find a verse promoting homosexuality then

Ruth 1: 16-18 "Wherever you go I shall go"

"Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" - 1 Samuel 18:1-5

You still don’t get it … I understand that sometimes out of necessity that the majority have to win for society but it is still OPPRESSION weather it is necessary or not!

(even by your deffinition)

Um.....you quoted me on something that Neo said - could you change it please?

Post #4571

Your arguement comes from your idealogogy. You have yet to give an arguement that comes from a practial source of the need of marriage for homosexuals. There is no practical need that you have sugested that homosexual marriage needs. Your idea of freedom comes from your ideology, my idea of marriage comes from mine. What you are basicly saying is that it is fine for your ideology to be the force behind legislation but mine is not. Is or is not that discrimination? Why is your ideology any better than mine? Answer its not and so you should have no more right for your views to be made into legislation than mine. Your arguement against my views becoming law have so far been "Your views are religous" which means that you are discriminating against my views being allowed into politcs. If my views aren't allowed in and yours are, then that means that you think that your views are somehow "Better" than mine, which is discrimintory.

Neo, I'm really sorry that you can't read English, but I have already answered this.

Both equality and separation of church and state are *CORE* parts of the US government. It isn't *my* ideology, it is the entire ideology on which my country was founded.

As I said, if you don't like equality, move to Rwanda or some other third world country. If you don't like separation of church and state, move to Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

What the Bible actually says about marriage - courtesy of Vaughn Roste
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm

12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).

A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]!

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists

Neo, I'm really sorry that you can't read English, but I have already answered this.

Both equality and separation of church and state are *CORE* parts of the US government. It isn't *my* ideology, it is the entire ideology on which my country was founded.


You miss the point. Wether or not it is the "Founding" ideology is irrelevent. What you are saying is that relgion cannot affect laws but your ideologies can. Why are you allowed to and I not. Is that or is that not discrimination.

Ruth 1: 16-18 "Wherever you go I shall go"

"Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" - 1 Samuel 18:1-5

And? These do not support homosexuality. I find it sad that you people always assume that becuase the word "love" was used between David and Jonothan that it means sexual love. They were very close friends, made close by what they had both gone through.

You can assure away... you'll still be wrong.


Fine, then prove me wrong. Find a verse where God supports homosexual unions.

Nowhere in the bible is it comprehensively defined as anything... even man and woman. So, your argument is flawed.

And don't go trotting out your 'Adam and Eve' line again... I have proved it wrong, repeatedly.

No you havent Genesis 2:24 is defining marriage and why it is the way it is. No where anywhere else in the Bible is marriage shown as for two men or two women. No where when talking about marriage is there any refrence to the members of the party being the same sex.

It's not a matter of 'attempting'.

I HAVE disproved your understanding.

You lack the tools to understand scripture. It's a sad fact.

My understanding of scripture is backed by an understanding of the roots of scripture, and an understanding of the scripture in it's pure form, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Against which, you have a partial reading of the bible, no real grasp of the historical background, and zero knowledge of the scripture in any language other than english.

You have not disproved me. You have attempted to do so. And you have yet to provide positive refrence to why homosexuality is not a sin. Please admit that you cannot do that and move on.

There is nowhere in the Bible where God in anyway promotes homosexual unions of any kind. I can assure you of that.

“[David said] I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26).

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they [Jonathan and David] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (1 Samuel 20:41).

And, I challenge you to find a verse that condemns it, IN THE ACTUAL NATIVE SCRIPTURE.

The word "Porneia" was at the time

A) Condemned by Jesus
B) Used in refernce to any number of sexual sins including (though not limited to) homosexuality

“[David said] I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26).

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they [Jonathan and David] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (1 Samuel 20:41).

Oh you sad sad people. You cannot accept that David and Jonothan were close friends. That was it. Friends. The kissing thing was Isralie culture at the time. The love of woman quote shows that he places his friendship at higher value of that of women. I could say the same of everyone. How long are people friends, long periods of time, several years usealy. How long are people boyfriend/girlfriend? Can be years, more commonly is months. I think its clear that even now friends are very highly valued. Who do you turn to when a romantic partner fails you? Your friends.

Nowhere in the bible is it comprehensively defined as anything... even man and woman. So, your argument is flawed.


Well while it may or may not be comprehenisvely difined, there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that marriage could include anything other than man and women. That is the truth. Find a verse that says marriage can be for man and man or woman and women please? And here is another fault. If homosexuality condemnation was just a cultural thing, please explain why it is condemned in every culture they come across.

Is that not a good enough argument?
I don't see any reasonable counters to it.
It is a little different.
You are basing your arguments on "because God says so".
To use God as a reason to deny people life and liberty, or any form of legal right, is sectarian oppression. That's never been a good thing.


What you are saying with all these points is this "Religion is not allowed to influence politics" however political ideologies are. Your notions of equality come from nothing more than your ideology. There is no practical reason to grant gay marrigae. So this is basicly your ideology vs mine. But you are saying that my ideology has no right to be included in politics and I ask "Why not". Surely if a party is elected into government and it tells pepople before it is elected that it plans to ban gay marriage then it is fair that it does so. Why is your ideology allowed to influence government and mine not. Just saying "Because yours is religous" is not enough and by saying "Because yours doesnt promote equality" is not enough as all that is saying is "Your ideology is not mine therefore it cannot influence politics". So I will ask again, why are you allowed to pass laws that support your ideologies and I am not?

bigot who wants to deny equal protection - namely, you.

How are you any less of a "bigot" by your own definitons. You are labeling entire groups of people by one term just because they dont agree with you. Thats bigotrty.

No, the argument is not ideologically the same. You are trying to force your beliefs into the political system. We are trying to uphold the fundamental rights given to Americans that make our country free. BIG difference.

Are you not just trying to force your ideals on everyone else as much as you claim I am.

Because the group with which we lobby didn't execute hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people in the name of God during a paranoia outbreak. That's why.

Thanksgiving. Genocide of American Indieans? Ringing any bells?

Unfortunately, he is correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 regarding marriage is carefully worded so that the right is subservient to the concept of marriage.

Precisesly and the concept of marriage in the Bible is that it is man and woman. Christians have voted in a party that wants to ban gay marriage. For them not to do so would be to lie on an election promise. What is undemocratic about this?

I have said before, and will probably say to you many, many times again, the government protects the will of the Minority, not the Majority. The Majority doesn't need protecting; the Minority does.

Thats rediculous. The majority have the right to make laws that defend them more than the minority as they are the minority. Of couse there shoul not be tyrnnay but tryanny involves removal of rights and as has been stated marriage is not a right.

Wrong - based on lack of understanding of scriptural marriage.


Fine, then explain somewhere in the Bible that there is support for sex outside of marriage.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists

Nowhere in the Bible does it sugest marriage is man and man or women and women. And as for pologymoy, see here

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

Read the source fully

Are you not just trying to force your ideals on everyone else as much as you claim I am.
No

You are doing it out of a secular belief in sin

The other side is doing it for rights … a non secular belief (an institutional belief maybe) but none the less..

By preventing gay marriage you are imposing your views on those that wish to do so
Whereas if we allow it YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE IF YOU WANT TO OR NOT

You are taking away that choice for others because of a belief when we take away nothing from you personally (we are not telling you that your secular religion has to recognize it) only the government.
You can think them sinners all you want

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Because being a Christian is not the only reason to get married. After all marriage is a binding contract that is widely recognized by the world (or at least a majority) over, and that contract gives either spouse rights that they would not otherwise have. Plus, why should the Christians be allowed to take over a tradition that didn't originate with them in the first place? Why should people have to refrain from ceremonies just because they are widely recognized as religious? I'm Atheist but I plan to get married (perhaps not in the church, but that really depends on the guy I marry and whether he is religious or not).

Anyway, that was a side rant (Sorry). Back to the original question: It isn't a sin. It just isn't. Simple.

Because being a Christian is not the only reason to get married. After all marriage is a binding contract that is widely recognized by the world (or at least a majority) over, and that contract gives either spouse rights that they would not otherwise have. Plus, why should the Christians be allowed to take over a tradition that didn't originate with them in the first place? Why should people have to refrain from ceremonies just because they are widely recognized as religious? I'm Atheist but I plan to get married (perhaps not in the church, but that really depends on the guy I marry and whether he is religious or not).

Anyway, that was a side rant (Sorry). Back to the original question: It isn't a sin. It just isn't. Simple.
Good point … marriage even the religious institution didn’t start nor end with them :-P why the hell do they keep trying to control it :P
(not even to mention the legal issues)

religion isnt meant to be very difficult.
the bible, the quran, and the torah have laid it out pretty simply, and there's no complicating it.

Sodomy is a sin.

The people of Prophet Lot were destroyed completely (after being warned) when they refused to desist from sodomous behaviour.

there are a lot of people today (and throughout time) who have tried this way and that to justify homosexual behaviour. It's a black-and-white issue though: IT IS WRONG. God doesn't want us doing it.

if u believe in God, sin, heaven and hell, then there's no escapin it so quit trying.

I personally know people that are homosexual. They know I believe it's wrong, and why i think it's wrong. we're still friends. i absolutely by no means support gay bashing and anti-gay/lesbian laws and legislation (bush is gay himself, bastard) - that's between whoever and God. so when you asked if it's okay to go to gay clubs and stuff w/o actually having gay sex, my (completely uninformed) advice is if you know/believe it's wrong, don't go out and actively support it.

p.s.: could ppl try to keep in mind that Christians and Americans do NOT rule the whole damn world????!?!? And americans sure as hell do not have a clean saintly slate.

i agree w neo, but not completely.
for so many people, religion is an inherent part of there lives - it is also a part of their politics. In countries where there a wide diverse range of peoples (like, say, U.S or Canada) however, it's important to consider the rights and liberties set out in the Charter and have space in the LAW to try and encompass everyone. i'm not terribly familiar w yankee civil liberties, but in canada the Charter guarantees everyone freedom of religion and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, which i take to include everyone that doesnt wanna believe in god and everyone that wants to associate in a homosexual manner with whoever they want to.

gay marriages were made legal up here in the great white north. even tho religiously i oppose it, i think the Charter is the most fantastic, awesomest document a country could ever have and because of that i support the Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriages.

Next stop: legalising marijuana *woooooooooot!!!!!!!!!!*
(while we're here, i'd like to mention that the drug list thingy in america still classifies marijuana as a typle 1 drug, which by definition dont have any known medicinal uses. folks down there majorly need to UPDATE! marijuana has many many many medicinal uses, most commonly for Multiple Sculerosis (sp?), painreliever for chemo patients, and for sickle-cell anemia patients. Marijuana itself does not have any addictive physical properties, and there have been 0 (ZERO) known cases of death by marijuana overdose, EVER. it's effects are much less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, both legal substances. i really cant understand that when those two lethal substances are legal, why mary jane has been left out. GO POT! AND DAMN THE DAMN NHL LOCKOUT!!!)

You miss the point. Wether or not it is the "Founding" ideology is irrelevent. What you are saying is that relgion cannot affect laws but your ideologies can. Why are you allowed to and I not. Is that or is that not discrimination.

No, I really don't. They are not my ideologies - they are the very basis of the government.

And, for the billionth time, I never said that religion could not *affect* laws. I said that, due to the fact that making a law based on a single religion makes that religion the "preferred" religion in that case, you cannot make a law based *entirely* in a single religion. The only way you could make a law based only on religion is if every single religion that every single citizen held agreed with it. Otherwise, you are removing the right to free practice of religion from the person who disagrees, while *not* making the law does not in any way remove said right from the person who wants to make it.

Case in point:

Some Christians want to require Christian prayer in schools.

Aheists don't want to pray at all, and other religions don't want to pray Christian prayers.

Therefore, if we make such a law, everyone *but* Christians have had their right to freedom of religion stripped away. However, if we *don't* make the law, the Christians who want to pray still can - so nobody's rights are removed.

And before you say "but marriage is not a right," do remember that this is a equal protection issue and equal protection most certainly is a right embodied in the 14th Amendment.

You have not disproved me. You have attempted to do so. And you have yet to provide positive refrence to why homosexuality is not a sin. Please admit that you cannot do that and move on.

People have provided their reasons for the interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin, including myself.

You know what you did? You ignored it because you couldn't reply.

Stop asking for information that has already been given to you at least ten times.

And? These do not support homosexuality. I find it sad that you people always assume that becuase the word "love" was used between David and Jonothan that it means sexual love. They were very close friends, made close by what they had both gone through.

Which would be why David got a hard-on. I mean, the male erection has *nothing* to do with sex. And I also know that I get all turned on every time I hug one of my close friends.....oh wait, I don't.

Which would be why David got a hard-on. I mean, the male erection has *nothing* to do with sex. And I also know that I get all turned on every time I hug one of my close friends.....oh wait, I don't.

It doesnt say that David had an erection, please explain your justification.

People have provided their reasons for the interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin, including myself.


Actually you are wrong. So far people have attemted to disprove my points. No one has offered poisitve reason why homosexuality is not a sin. And you havent sucessfuly disproved my points yet.

It doesnt say that David had an erection, please explain your justification.

Says the person who hasn't read the passage.

Actually you are wrong. So far people have attemted to disprove my points. No one has offered poisitve reason why homosexuality is not a sin. And you havent sucessfuly disproved my points yet.

Wrong. And again, instead of looking for the post I have already posted at least three times in this very thread, you choose to ignore it.

WHy? Are you afraid?

religion isnt meant to be very difficult.
the bible, the quran, and the torah have laid it out pretty simply, and there's no complicating it.



It's not meant to be difficult, but it bloody well is.
How do you know that your mighty god is right? If you ask me, the whole Jesus thing is bull. Why doen't he come down in theis time and era and be killed? There are far more people commiting "sins" now than there ever were. If he was ever needed, it was now. When we have camras, so it can be proved he exists.

When we say "sin", are we talking about the seven deadley sins? 12 Commandments? How would you define a sin?

Wrong. And again, instead of looking for the post I have already posted at least three times in this very thread, you choose to ignore it.

WHy? Are you afraid?

NO ONE has yet provided ANY evidence that God supported homosexuality at all. That is proof that it is not a sin. You have atemted to disprove that it is a sin, but that does not equate with it not being a sin. By attempting to undermine my points (which as of yet you have unsucessfully done) all you have done is then confirmed that the Bible says nothing. Since the Bible works on both positive and neagaive freedoms, there is no grounds to say that it is not a sin by quoting its absence. As it is there are plenty of condeming passages and no condoning ones.

People have provided their reasons for the interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin, including myself.

You know what you did? You ignored it because you couldn't reply.

Stop asking for information that has already been given to you at least ten times.

Will all of you on the "Homosexuality is not a sin" side please admit that you HAVE NOT found anything in the Bible that equates to God supporting homosexuality or homosexual unions, because that is the case.

this is a mighty long thread...

Marriage is defined as:

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

or

"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. "

The reason why catholics and some other christians dislike homosexual marriage is the fact that it defies the first definition above.

Will all of you on the "Homosexuality is not a sin" side please admit that you HAVE NOT found anything in the Bible that equates to God supporting homosexuality or homosexual unions, because that is the case.
What if I dont believe in the bible ... to me it is not a sin

To you it is

what if I dont believe there is a god ... so there is no possible way can tell me it is a sin

see there is my point of view ... it is simple ... I think the bible is BS

Now expain why your point of view holds true for everyone ... the burden of proof is on your side (specialy with as ambigous) and with the david hugging thing he was just taking a direct translation as you have been doing this whole time

Just gave you a taste of your own medicine ... pain in the ass is it not ... you think he is mis interpreting that quote ... and we think you are doing the same to yours.

What if I dont believe in the bible ... to me it is not a sin

To you it is

what if I dont believe there is a god ... so there is no possible way can tell me it is a sin

see there is my point of view ... it is simple ... I think the bible is BS

Now expain why your point of view holds true for everyone ... the burden of proof is on your side (specialy with as ambigous) and with the david hugging thing he was just taking a direct translation as you have been doing this whole time

Just gave you a taste of your own medicine ... pain in the ass is it not ... you think he is mis interpreting that quote ... and we think you are doing the same to yours.

We are discussing wether or not it is a sin. Therefore the Bible is relevent. You cannot use extra-biblical sources to prove if it is or is not a sin.

No you havent Genesis 2:24 is defining marriage and why it is the way it is. No where anywhere else in the Bible is marriage shown as for two men or two women. No where when talking about marriage is there any refrence to the members of the party being the same sex.

Don't be ridiculous, Neo. I have stripped it back to the Hebrew for you, and shown you the root - and still you are too blind to see.

Even in English, it doesn't say "here is a sacred arrangement, and here is the only way it cn be performed".

You think Solomon just had lots of friends? Marriage is shown as being, within biblical confines, pretty much whatever some people felt like doing.

And, if Paul says ALL lustful affections are wrong, and that marriage is better than lust - that seems a pretty good support for gay marriage.

The word "Porneia" was at the time

A) Condemned by Jesus
B) Used in refernce to any number of sexual sins including (though not limited to) homosexuality

See, the 'accepted' translation of "porneia" might include homosexuality - and I guess you picked this up off one of those sites that you frequent, that stops you from ever having to read the actual text.

However, it has a primary meaning closer to adultery, and a second meaning of 'idol worship'.

Twice you posted the same word, huh? Is that the only native word your websites could find that might support your case?

It is not considered a sin to not follow every passage in the bible because inthe new testament Jesus tells us what passages ae to be followed and what passages are now considered sinful to follow. For example, people often say the bible is contradictory in that it states eye for an eye yet later on says turn the other cheek. You are supposed to turn the other cheek and not seek vengeance because Jesus tells you to do so. His word overules the passages previous and thus if you follow the passages that jesus commands you to, the tennents of Christianity, then Christianity rarely if ever contradicts itself. Thus homosexuality is a sin because Christ says that it is but not giving animal offerings to God is not a sin because Christ says that the smell of Burnt offerings is now unpleasant to God.

We are discussing wether or not it is a sin. Therefore the Bible is relevent. You cannot use extra-biblical sources to prove if it is or is not a sin.

Why not? YOU keep doing it, so why can't we?

How could any man put his weiner in another mans's bum? YUK

That being said, why is it anybody biz what people do in der homes?

Don't be ridiculous, Neo. I have stripped it back to the Hebrew for you, and shown you the root - and still you are too blind to see.

Even in English, it doesn't say "here is a sacred arrangement, and here is the only way it cn be performed".


What it does say in English is "For this reason" explaining why marriage is the way it is now. The reason is that is how it was in Eden, and so it is how we should attemt to do now. Later marriage laws renforce this


You think Solomon just had lots of friends? Marriage is shown as being, within biblical confines, pretty much whatever some people felt like doing.


Soloman broke the rules. Kings were not supposed to have loads of wives. And if you look into the new testement, you will see it does not support pologomoy

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


And, if Paul says ALL lustful affections are wrong, and that marriage is better than lust - that seems a pretty good support for gay marriage.

But the Bible never says anything BUT man and women. It may in the OT confuse about numbers but never man - man or women - women.

See, the 'accepted' translation of "porneia" might include homosexuality - and I guess you picked this up off one of those sites that you frequent, that stops you from ever having to read the actual text.

However, it has a primary meaning closer to adultery, and a second meaning of 'idol worship'.


Actually the accepted translation is "Sexual imorallity" which in that time included any number of sins including homosexuality. See here

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

Oh you sad sad people. You cannot accept that David and Jonothan were close friends. That was it. Friends. The kissing thing was Isralie culture at the time. The love of woman quote shows that he places his friendship at higher value of that of women. I could say the same of everyone. How long are people friends, long periods of time, several years usealy. How long are people boyfriend/girlfriend? Can be years, more commonly is months. I think its clear that even now friends are very highly valued. Who do you turn to when a romantic partner fails you? Your friends.

Prove it, Neo Cannen.

It's in scripture... it must be true... and nowhere does it say they were just good friends.

If I said I loved men more than women - you would draw a certain conclusion from that, wouldn't you? And not unreasonably...

Oh, why don't you cite the source for your claim that Hebrew men kissed each other because they were 'just good friends'?

Why not? YOU keep doing it, so why can't we?

What are you refering to? If you mean the web pages then these explain bible verses.

What are you refering to? If you mean the web pages then these explain bible verses.

But the "explanations" aren't directly word-for-word from the bible, now are they? So you shouldn;t use them, as they add stuff that isn't in the bible to it.

You know what? Homosexuality is a sin in some belief structures.


Just like in some belief structures, Christianity is a sin.


Also, in some belief structures, it is a sin for women to show their faces in public.

(Oh, I'm sorry, Christianity is any more real than other religions because, ... ?)


Or read.


Or have male subbordinates.


In some religions, wanking is a sin (And man, how they tried desperately to invent medical evidence to back their beleif, just like what certain Christians are doing with homosexuality today, you know who you are).


In some religions, it is a sin to ingest the meat of a pig (Bacon, ham, pork, unless it's French, I have no idea what they use, but I'm certain they don't use what their packages say they use)


In some religions, it is a sin to fail to sacrifice one of your kids to the sun god.


So, sure, it's a sin, but who gives a flying fuck? you can't blink without sinning against someone's religion.


And the twat who said that the quake was caused by god: the S&G story seems to me to be a "House on sand" story, how would the population being straight have prevented the earthquake? several trillion (or more) newton metres of potential energy built up by two huge continental plates over a couple of centuries would have been somehow, magically stopped by the reduced presence of gay people? The point I was trying to make with that is that blaming perceived deviance for disasters is so incredibly peurile, that I can hardly beleive major public figures keep doing it.

Pat Robertson blamed America being too gay for 9/11, rather than the bad decisions about Israel America is addicted to, and everything from comic books to music to computer games has been blamed for serial killers, school shootings, something bad happens, don't investigate: Find a scapegoat instead! Much easier, much less work than actually solving the underlying problems.

Sure, the bodies will keep on piling up, but who gives a fuck, when you can simply point at a random group of people and shout "IT'S THEIR FAULT, PEOPLE, LET'S KILL THE BASTARDS!"

Prove it, Neo Cannen.

It's in scripture... it must be true... and nowhere does it say they were just good friends.

If I said I loved men more than women - you would draw a certain conclusion from that, wouldn't you? And not unreasonably...

Oh, why don't you cite the source for your claim that Hebrew men kissed each other because they were 'just good friends'?

Nowhere does it say they were lovers either. There is no sugestion beyond this one verse that they were Gay. Do you or do you not value the love you have between your friends more than that of a girlfirend/boyfriend. I quote from "Friends" at this point

Phobe "I can't just be some way for you to kill time untill you meet someone better. Boyfriends and Girlfriends come and go but this (points to hereself and Joey) is for life"

Joey "Wow sorry Phobes I had no idea that it meant so much to you..want me to make it up to you? How bout dinner tommorw night....I'll pay for myself"

Phobe "Yeah you wore me down" (they hug)

My point being that it is possible for you to value the relationship you have with friends above that which you have with members of the opposite sex. The word "love" does not mean just sexual love. There are a whole slew of forms of love. Here he was using two, IE the love he felt for Jonothan (Friendship, strengthend by the dangerous circumstances they were in) and the love he felt for the women he had been with (sexual), valuing the one above the other.

And as for the kissing, Judus kissed Jesus and he didnt think it was strange as a greeting. He knew it was a mark of the one who they should arrest, but it was not seen as uncommon. If it was, why would Judas use it to mark him out. If it was uncommon then he would be making it obvious that he was marking someone (despite the fact Jesus knew already)

Actually the accepted translation is "Sexual imorallity" which in that time included any number of sins including homosexuality. See here

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

No - 'sexual immorality' is the way this Rob Gagnon fellow explains it - he never states that it is a a definition.

Strong'c Concordance gives "Illicit sexual intercourse" and "metaphorical. The worship of idols".

I argue against you assumption of what it meant THEN.

I also think that you Rob Gagnon makes a unsupportable case, clearly fudges scripture to suit his own needs... and, let's face it, he's far from a biased source.

But the "explanations" aren't directly word-for-word from the bible, now are they? So you shouldn;t use them, as they add stuff that isn't in the bible to it.

If anything you are more guilty of that than me. I turn around and give verse after verse which without interpretation says that homosexual sex is a sin and you reinterpret it. How about this

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God


1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

The word used here in the original language (which everyone is so insistant I get a better grip on, but I see translation as pointless if not to explain the meaning in another tounge) is "arsenokoitai" which means "Men who lie with males". The same word appers in the passage in Romans which also condems homosexual sex.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Romans 1:24-27

See here for further infomation

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

I also think that you Rob Gagnon makes a unsupportable case, clearly fudges scripture to suit his own needs... and, let's face it, he's far from a biased source.

Could I not argue the same of any website that you find that claims that the Bible supports homosexuality. Stop assuming all the links I provide are wrong and read them for what they say not who wrote them. Please also claify how he "Fudges the scripture". Exactly what is wrong with his interpreation. If you say "Because its from a biased source" you then have to show inacuracies. Bias by its very nature creates inacuracies. You have yet to quote from the site and prove it wrong.

What it does say in English is "For this reason" explaining why marriage is the way it is now. The reason is that is how it was in Eden, and so it is how we should attemt to do now. Later marriage laws renforce this

Soloman broke the rules. Kings were not supposed to have loads of wives. And if you look into the new testement, you will see it does not support pologomoy

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

But the Bible never says anything BUT man and women. It may in the OT confuse about numbers but never man - man or women - women.

You are making it up, Neo.

Scripture doesn't say "For this reason" is equivalent to "this is the law of all future nations". It refers to the fact that a partner was formed from Adam's flesh, who he was 'meet' to be with... try quoting the verse in context - it clearly shows that "for this reason" relates to the reason being that Adam has a partner.... nothing to do with you 'it was in Eden so it must be true' line.

Actually - the New Testament expressly condones polygamy... I'll give you a clue.... Jesus is the groom.... get back to me on it?

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

Will all of you on the "Homosexuality is not a sin" side please admit that you HAVE NOT found anything in the Bible that equates to God supporting homosexuality or homosexual unions, because that is the case.

Why should I "admit" something that isn't true? I have provided my interpretations on the matter *again and again and again*. The fact that you do not agree does not mean that I don't have anything - it simply means that you do not agree.

It is this type of "I'm right, you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo!" BS that people *don't* like from fundamentalists.

You are making it up, Neo.

Scripture doesn't say "For this reason" is equivalent to "this is the law of all future nations". It refers to the fact that a partner was formed from Adam's flesh, who he was 'meet' to be with... try quoting the verse in context - it clearly shows that "for this reason" relates to the reason being that Adam has a partner.... nothing to do with you 'it was in Eden so it must be true' line.


"For this reason" is another way of saying "This is why". Genesis was of course written after said events had happened and the author was saying that marriage is man and woman because of these events in Eden. If it was just talking about Adam then why would it say "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh". Its not just talking about Adam. It is talking about all men who would come.


Actually - the New Testament expressly condones polygamy... I'll give you a clue.... Jesus is the groom.... get back to me on it?

The New Testement does not support Pologmy.

Extract from site: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9)

The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.

End extract.

Go read the site.

Why should I "admit" something that isn't true? I have provided my interpretations on the matter *again and again and again*. The fact that you do not agree does not mean that I don't have anything - it simply means that you do not agree.

It is this type of "I'm right, you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo!" BS that people *don't* like from fundamentalists.

What you have done so far is reinterpret the passages that I have said regarding homosexuality to mean other things. You have not found any verses where the bible actively supports homosexual relationships of any kind. Admit that please as it is the case. You dont have any verses or anything that acitvely support homosexuality. You reinterpret the verses condeming homosexuality to mean other things but you havent found anything that has been where God supports homosexuality or blesses it in any way.

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

Could you please qualify the precise meaning of the word "Clave". It could mean perminance of marriage, and Ruth stayed with Namoi perminatly, go wherever you would go etc. It could mean the trust or any number of aspects of marriage her. You need to qualify this further.

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.


I have heard the term used before in another bible "David wept greatly" (Cant remember where now). But aside from this verse, there is no refrence anywhere else in this account that David and Jonothan were gay lovers. You say that the word was used to describe Soloman as greater than other kings so is it not possible here that it meant that David wept greater than Jonothan (as it basicly says in the NIV).

What you have done so far is reinterpret the passages that I have said regarding homosexuality to mean other things. You have not found any verses where the bible actively supports homosexual relationships of any kind. Admit that please as it is the case. You dont have any verses or anything that acitvely support homosexuality. You reinterpret the verses condeming homosexuality to mean other things but you havent found anything that has been where God supports homosexuality or blesses it in any way.

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, computers, television, internet games.....

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, computers, television, internet games.....

Homosexual sex existed then and it was condemend. The idea of marriage for homosexuals is thus a pedistal on which to glorify said sin. To many Christians its comparable to saying to a murderer "Here is a town of people, the number of which you have the right to kill". Homosexual sex is the actual sin. This is condemned throught the Bible. And as I was saying the people on the "Homosexuality is not a sin" side have yet to find a verse where God aproved of homosexuality or supported it in anyway.

What you have done so far is reinterpret the passages that I have said regarding homosexuality to mean other things. You have not found any verses where the bible actively supports homosexual relationships of any kind. Admit that please as it is the case. You dont have any verses or anything that acitvely support homosexuality. You reinterpret the verses condeming homosexuality to mean other things but you havent found anything that has been where God supports homosexuality or blesses it in any way.

I never claimed to have a specific passage that says "homosexuality is good," any more than I have a passage that says "soup kitchens are good" or "DUI is bad" or "boycotts and sit-ins are better than moltav cocktails."

You won't find any of these ideas specifically supported or blessed by God in the Bible, but there are plenty of passages and condoned mindsets that back them up. Likewise, you won't fine "God likes homosexuals" in the Bible, but there are plenty of passages and mindests that back it up.

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, computers, television, internet games.....

For the record, the dates on when the books were written have nothing to do with conservative or liberal Christians - those are questions for historians. This is especially true when you realize that Neo himself (never mind that he is horribly wrong) has said that the apostles *themselves* wrote the Gospels, suggesting that none of them could have possibly been written further out than about 60 CE.

One of the biggest problems with Christianity is that "conservative Christian" often equates to "person who is so weak in their faith that they will hold onto ideas that are completely unnecessary regardless of evidence."

Neo-C,

I would appreciate answers to my post a couple of pages back. I really would rather not just be ignored, as that seems so...unfriendly.

Thankyou :)

Neo-C,

I would appreciate answers to my post a couple of pages back. I really would rather not just be ignored, as that seems so...unfriendly.

Thankyou :)

He ignores anything he doesn't like or has no way to yell and scream about. Don't feel bad, he does it to all of us eventually.

Nowhere does it say they were lovers either. There is no sugestion beyond this one verse that they were Gay. Do you or do you not value the love you have between your friends more than that of a girlfirend/boyfriend. I quote from "Friends" at this point

Phobe "I can't just be some way for you to kill time untill you meet someone better. Boyfriends and Girlfriends come and go but this (points to hereself and Joey) is for life"

Joey "Wow sorry Phobes I had no idea that it meant so much to you..want me to make it up to you? How bout dinner tommorw night....I'll pay for myself"

Phobe "Yeah you wore me down" (they hug)

My point being that it is possible for you to value the relationship you have with friends above that which you have with members of the opposite sex. The word "love" does not mean just sexual love. There are a whole slew of forms of love. Here he was using two, IE the love he felt for Jonothan (Friendship, strengthend by the dangerous circumstances they were in) and the love he felt for the women he had been with (sexual), valuing the one above the other.

And as for the kissing, Judus kissed Jesus and he didnt think it was strange as a greeting. He knew it was a mark of the one who they should arrest, but it was not seen as uncommon. If it was, why would Judas use it to mark him out. If it was uncommon then he would be making it obvious that he was marking someone (despite the fact Jesus knew already)

Well, just for the record.. there is evidence that they were homosexual lovers... let's look at 1 Samuel 2:41 "and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded".

Shall we look at what 'exceeded' means? It comes from the Hebrew "Gadal", and means "To Grow" or "Become Great"... so, Johnathan kissed David until he swelled.... sounds pretty consclusive to me.

Regarding Jesus and Judas - I don't recall scripture actually describing anyone reacting to the kiss - except that the guards arrested Jesus... so it doesn't describe ANY reactions - not even a shocked look at Jesus being arrested...

What gays are fighting for really has nothing to do with God. Its not that they want to be accepted in Gods eyes or they want to demolish marriage or whatever you think. Its just basic rights for the person you love. Health benefits, tax breaks, the ability to see the person you love most in the world if they were in the hospital. These are important Human rights. Nothing to do with religion at all.

Isaiah (a straight man)

Could you please qualify the precise meaning of the word "Clave". It could mean perminance of marriage, and Ruth stayed with Namoi perminatly, go wherever you would go etc. It could mean the trust or any number of aspects of marriage her. You need to qualify this further.

Clave (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clave) is the past tense of the word Cleave, the exact same word form Genesis 2: whatever the hell it is you keep stating.

Ergo, when Ruth Clave unto Naomi, it was the exact same thing as Adam Cleaving unto Eve. Ergo, Ruth married Naomi the same way Adam married Eve.

Also, Why haven't you answered my question about which set of commandments are the correct ones?

Is it that you know absolutely shit about the Bible, and must rely on what others state about it to be true?

Or is it that you lack any real knoqwledge of the Bible, and are scared that people might actually lear that truth?

Could I not argue the same of any website that you find that claims that the Bible supports homosexuality. Stop assuming all the links I provide are wrong and read them for what they say not who wrote them. Please also claify how he "Fudges the scripture". Exactly what is wrong with his interpreation. If you say "Because its from a biased source" you then have to show inacuracies. Bias by its very nature creates inacuracies. You have yet to quote from the site and prove it wrong.

Which sites did I show?

I got my data from the scripture that you claim inspires you, and from a closer translation of the text.

He fudges the scripture in so many ways, it would be hard to know where to start - and you, poor thing, are too naive to see it.

How about the fact that he implies that Ham was punished because of a gay-sex crime with Noah?

Let's start with that one.... discuss:

Neo-C,

I would appreciate answers to my post a couple of pages back. I really would rather not just be ignored, as that seems so...unfriendly.

Thankyou :)

I apologise for missing them, could you give me them again so that I dont have to go searching back for them.

How about the fact that he implies that Ham was punished because of a gay-sex crime with Noah?

Let's start with that one.... discuss:

I dont agree with him on that count. As far as my understanding goes he just saw Noah naked, drunk, lying down in the tent.

Clave (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clave) is the past tense of the word Cleave, the exact same word form Genesis 2: whatever the hell it is you keep stating.

Ergo, when Ruth Clave unto Naomi, it was the exact same thing as Adam Cleaving unto Eve. Ergo, Ruth married Naomi the same way Adam married Eve.


Actually acording to your URL it means "To be faithful to" or "To stick to" which is true of both Naomi and Ruth and Adam and Eve. Besides the Bible uses the word "married to" in other contexts, not this one.

Extract from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave

cleave2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klv)
intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.

Extract ends

"For this reason" is another way of saying "This is why". Genesis was of course written after said events had happened and the author was saying that marriage is man and woman because of these events in Eden. If it was just talking about Adam then why would it say "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh". Its not just talking about Adam. It is talking about all men who would come.

The New Testement does not support Pologmy.

Extract from site: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9)

The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.

End extract.

Go read the site.

I'm not getting back into the genesis2 argument with you, Neo.

You are wrong, you lack the translational ability to back your case from actual scripture, and you are far too proud to admit your failings.

You know pride is a sin, right?

Oh, and guess what, there is direct reference to polygamy in Revelation:

Revelation 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband".

Jesus is going to 'marry' the entire 'holy city'... that's men and women, boys and girls... a little adultery, a smattering of paedophilia, and a topping of homosexuality... but I guess he is just following the traditions of the scriptural patriarchs, no?

Revelation 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband".

Jesus is going to 'marry' the entire 'holy city'... that's men and women, boys and girls... a little adultery, a smattering of paedophilia, and a topping of homosexuality... but I guess he is just following the traditions of the scriptural patriarchs, no?

Revelation also refers to beasts with several heads and horns and crowns on their horns. Revealtion is for large parts metaphorical, some realitsic. The key is working out which is which.

Actually acording to your URL it means "To be faithful to" or "To stick to" which is true of both Naomi and Ruth and Adam and Eve. Besides the Bible uses the word "married to" in other contexts, not this one.

Extract from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave

cleave2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klv)
intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.

Extract ends

This is fine. Of course, if you are going to interpret it this way, you have to stop using the Genesis line you always use as proof of marriage, since the word "marriage" is not in there, but "clave" is.

Actually acording to your URL it means "To be faithful to" or "To stick to" which is true of both Naomi and Ruth and Adam and Eve. Besides the Bible uses the word "married to" in other contexts, not this one.

Extract from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave

cleave2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klv)
intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.

Extract ends

Ergo, if you use the Genesis bullshit, that definition is still applicable, which has not a damn thing to do with marriage.

Revelation also refers to beasts with several heads and horns and crowns on their horns. Revealtion is for large parts metaphorical, some realitsic. The key is working out which is which.

Kind of like Genesis...

Clave (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clave) is the past tense of the word Cleave, the exact same word form Genesis 2: whatever the hell it is you keep stating.

Ergo, when Ruth Clave unto Naomi, it was the exact same thing as Adam Cleaving unto Eve. Ergo, Ruth married Naomi the same way Adam married Eve.

Also, Why haven't you answered my question about which set of commandments are the correct ones?

Is it that you know absolutely shit about the Bible, and must rely on what others state about it to be true?

Or is it that you lack any real knoqwledge of the Bible, and are scared that people might actually lear that truth?

Neo has previously admitted, in this thread, that he hasn't actually finished reading the bible yet.

Maybe that will give you a clue...

I'm not getting back into the genesis2 argument with you, Neo.

You are wrong, you lack the translational ability to back your case from actual scripture, and you are far too proud to admit your failings.

You know pride is a sin, right?


You have said it is wrong so perhaps you can tell me what Genesis 2: 24 is saying.

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

Genesis 2: 24

I say it is the writer explaining why it is that marriage was like the way it was, as that is how it was in Eden and thus how it should be. Jesus goes on to quote the passage later, in describing what marriage is, showing he agrees with it.

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' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 19: 4-6

And never in the rest of the Bible does God go on to support any other kind of union, espically not between a man and a man. Perhaps you would like to tell me what you believe these two pasages say?

This is fine. Of course, if you are going to interpret it this way, you have to stop using the Genesis line you always use as proof of marriage, since the word "marriage" is not in there, but "clave" is.

Could you provide the translation to prove this. It does say man shall leave his wife. Therefore the word "Wife" being aplicable and meaning the female partener in a marriage. Clave may be in a list of words describing marriage.

Revelation also refers to beasts with several heads and horns and crowns on their horns. Revealtion is for large parts metaphorical, some realitsic. The key is working out which is which.

Sorry, I missed the part of scripture that said that Jesus marrying Israel was a metaphor... which verse was that in?

Are you not still arguing that Satan was the Serpent?

Are you arguing that Hell might NOT be a plain of fire?

Are you areguing that god doesn't live above the clouds?

Are you arguing that Adam wasn't made of the dust?

Are you, perhaps, arguing that Jesus WASN'T crucified?

You have said it is wrong so perhaps you can tell me what Genesis 2: 24 is saying.

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

Genesis 2: 24

I say it is the writer explaining why it is that marriage was like the way it was, as that is how it was in Eden and thus how it should be. Jesus goes on to quote the passage later, in describing what marriage is, showing he agrees with it.

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' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 19: 4-6

And never in the rest of the Bible does God go on to support any other kind of union, espically not between a man and a man. Perhaps you would like to tell me what you believe these two pasages say?

Obviously it's sayiong "don't divorce". Youtr idiocy juist prevents you from understanding.

Course, my response of "your idiocy" is well founded, as you haven't yet told me what the real ten commandments are yer.

And yes, order of them is imprtant, as if two versiopns differ, neither can be correct, as there's obviously a contradiction.

Kind of like Genesis...

There is nothing to sugest that Genesis is metaphorical as Gensis is not a vision. It is not "And I saw" or anything like that but something else.

There is nothing to sugest that Genesis is metaphorical as Gensis is not a vision. It is not "And I saw" or anything like that but something else.

The fact that there are clearly two Genesis creation accounts demonstrates very clearly that it was meant to be metaphorical.

Obviously it's sayiong "don't divorce". Youtr idiocy juist prevents you from understanding.

Course, my response of "your idiocy" is well founded, as you haven't yet told me what the real ten commandments are yer.

And yes, order of them is imprtant, as if two versiopns differ, neither can be correct, as there's obviously a contradiction.

I believe the version of the 10 Commandments found in my Bible, the NIV. The reason for this is that I trust it to be God's word.

I believe the version of the 10 Commandments found in my Bible, the NIV. The reason for this is that I trust it to be God's word.

In other words "I like *my* known-to-be flawed translation, so it is God's word. All of the original texts are just wrong."

You have said it is wrong so perhaps you can tell me what Genesis 2: 24 is saying.

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

Genesis 2: 24

I say it is the writer explaining why it is that marriage was like the way it was, as that is how it was in Eden and thus how it should be. Jesus goes on to quote the passage later, in describing what marriage is, showing he agrees with it.

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' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 19: 4-6

And never in the rest of the Bible does God go on to support any other kind of union, espically not between a man and a man. Perhaps you would like to tell me what you believe these two pasages say?

I am not going to argue Genesis 2 with you. I have done it already, conclusively... and you still bait and rant like it never happened. You have your 'moral' victory - I refuse to indulge your ignorance any further.

By the way, Jesus quotes scripture... that doesn't mean he agrees with it... I have had to quote some of your 'claims' in my posts - that doesn't mean i agree with them. It's called CONTEXT.

I argue that Paul expresses the heart of christian theology at that time, and that his view is relevent... lust is bad, and marriage is the lesser evil (although he 'opposed' marriage too, didn't he...). So, by Pauline reasoning, Gay Marriage is the 'lesser of two evils'.

Oh - and revelation clearly describes polygamy, and homsexuality - as I detailed already.

I believe the version of the 10 Commandments found in my Bible, the NIV. The reason for this is that I trust it to be God's word.

Then state them. I want to see these commandments.

I don';t want the scripture placings, as I'll trust you(which I really shouldn't) to copy them down word for word here, and list them in the order that it states them to.

The fact that there are clearly two Genesis creation accounts demonstrates very clearly that it was meant to be metaphorical.

They may not agree on order but the order is of little relevence. Genesis agrees that God created the world yes and that he created man in it. And the entire book of revelation is a vision not just one section. There is nothing to sugest the begining is metaphor and the rest is fact.

I believe the version of the 10 Commandments found in my Bible, the NIV. The reason for this is that I trust it to be God's word.

I don't believe you even know what the 10 commandments are, Neo.

Why don't you tell us all?

Then I can prove you conclusively wrong, yet again.

:)

By the way, Jesus quotes scripture... that doesn't mean he agrees with it... I have had to quote some of your 'claims' in my posts - that doesn't mean i agree with them. It's called CONTEXT.


I have read that section. There is nothing to sugest he disagrees as he does with other passages he quotes (eg an eye for a eye


Oh - and revelation clearly describes polygamy, and homsexuality - as I detailed already.

Revelation is mostly metaphorical eg 7 headed beasts etc.

I don't believe you even know what the 10 commandments are, Neo.

Why don't you tell us all?

Then I can prove you conclusively wrong, yet again.

:)

The 10 Commandments (Exodos 20: 1 - 17 NIV)

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Thats the NIV translation. And what I believe.

I have read that section. There is nothing to sugest he disagrees as he does with other passages he quotes (eg an eye for a eye



Revelation is mostly metaphorical eg 7 headed beasts etc.


So, revelation is metaphorical, then?

I know quite a few christians around here, that would take issue.

Of course, they are Southern Baptist... so they are just gagging for water to start turning to blood, and dragons, etc. to be loosed on the unrighteous...

The 10 Commandments (Exodos 20: 1 - 17 NIV)

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Thats the NIV translation. And what I believe.

Thank you, Neo.

I want everyone to notice that Neo has comprehensively proved that he has no scriptural knowledge - even on the supposedly 'big things'.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Neo - but THOSE aren't the Ten Commandments.

So, revelation is metaphorical, then?

I know quite a few christians around here, that would take issue.

Of course, they are Southern Baptist... so they are just gagging for water to start turning to blood, and dragons, etc. to be loosed on the unrighteous...

I believe that what was seen in revaltion will happen but not in the way described, there will be no literal beast with seven heads (or however many it is) but something that that can be said to represent.

Thank you, Neo.

I want everyone to notice that Neo has comprehensively proved that he has no scriptural knowledge - even on the supposedly 'big things'.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Neo - but THOSE aren't the Ten Commandments.

Care to explain why? The translation seems to make it quite clear. There are 10 and they are commands. You may believe in another version and that is your perogitive (other religons say other things). And if they are not the 10 commandments then what are they?

I believe that what was seen in revaltion will happen but not in the way described, there will be no literal beast with seven heads (or however many it is) but something that that can be said to represent.

Yes - I have seen very compelling evidence that Revelation was a reference to the decay of the Roman Empire... just in 'representative' form.

So - it already came to pass... it already was 'seen'.

Or are you arguing that it must be less representational, and less mateaphorical?

You can't have it both ways, Neo - either it's a history or a metaphor... pick one?

The 10 Commandments (Exodos 20: 1 - 17 NIV)

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Thats the NIV translation. And what I believe.

Wrong. The commandments are, as follows:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

And yes, these are the commandments, as the Sercond set were copies of the first set.

And yes, if you actually read the Bible, you'de see them in Exodus 34.

Even though we have no idea what the fuck Jealous(Exodus 34:14) was smoking when he made those, but we better accept them and live with them.

Wrong. The commandments are, as follows:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

And yes, these are the commandments, as the Sercond set were copies of the first set.

And yes, if you actually read the Bible, you'de see them in Exodus 34.

Even though we have no idea what the fuck Jealous(Exodus 34:14) was smoking when he made those, but we better accept them and live with them.

There is lots of Exodos and Leviticus and Deutronomy which is made defunct by the new testement. This seems to me to be an example of that. Heres a question, if this is the "First" set then why it it later in exedos than the suposed "Second" set?

The issue of Sodom and Gemorrah (as I'm sure you're referring to) is not so cut-and-dried. There are many biblical scholars out there who believe that the downfall of these cities was due more to their peoples' hostility and inhospitality toward outsiders than any sexual activity.

You are correct. It has to do with the people's hostility toward several of God's angels who were masquerading as mortals. Those were the same angels who actually destroyed the cities.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin as far as I have read. Its discouraged because of the way of life has always been. As it was said before, society was built upon men and if men start acting like women then those 'conservative' or 'traditional' people will think society will fall apart. It won't. Life goes on...

If you're so closed minded that you think all gays are going to Hell, think about this...

I always thought being homosexual was wrong. But that was until my brother, the person I am closest to in all the world, came out and told my family he was gay. How can I believe that all homosexuals will go to hell when my brother, a kind and sweet person who does much more good in the world than some of these so called 'rightous' people, is gay?

Care to explain why? The translation seems to make it quite clear. There are 10 and they are commands. You may believe in another version and that is your perogitive (other religons say other things). And if they are not the 10 commandments then what are they?

I don't NEED to explain why, Neo - if you had READ scripture, and understood it, you would know why those aren't THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Let me elucidate?

Exodus 34:12 "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee"

Exodus 34:13 "But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves"

Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"

Exodus 34:15 "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice"

Exodus 34:16 "And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods"

Exodus 34:17 "Thou shalt make thee no molten gods"

Exodus 34:18 "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt"

Exodus 34:19 "All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male"

Exodus 34:20 "But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty"

Exodus 34:21 "Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest"

Exodus 34:22 "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end"

Exodus 34:23 "Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel"

Exodus 34:24 "For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year"

Exodus 34:25 "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning"

Exodus 34:26 "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk"

Exodus 34:27 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel"

Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments"

This is the ONLY set of laws that are referred to in scripture as the Ten Commandments.

You quoted some Mosaic 'law' - but not the Ten Commandments.

You are correct. It has to do with the people's hostility toward several of God's angels who were masquerading as mortals. Those were the same angels who actually destroyed the cities.
But the angels were sent there on a mission to destroy the city unless they found 10 good men. That means the damage was already done. The actions against the angels wasn't the cause of the destruction.

Yes - I have seen very compelling evidence that Revelation was a reference to the decay of the Roman Empire... just in 'representative' form.

So - it already came to pass... it already was 'seen'.

Or are you arguing that it must be less representational, and less mateaphorical?

You can't have it both ways, Neo - either it's a history or a metaphor... pick one?

The Roman empire refrence (I asume you are talking about the reformed roman empire) is basicly saying that the countries of the roman empire will once again be under roman rule. Parts of revelation are clearly metaphorical (seven headed beasts) but parts can be more clearly understood (Reconstruction of the roman empire) The Bible in regards to preminiotons is rarely simple. On an aside, speeking about the reformed roman empire, the EU constitution was signed in Rome.

I don't NEED to explain why, Neo - if you had READ scripture, and understood it, you would know why those aren't THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Let me elucidate?

Exodus 34:12 "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee"

Exodus 34:13 "But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves"

Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"

Exodus 34:15 "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice"

Exodus 34:16 "And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods"

Exodus 34:17 "Thou shalt make thee no molten gods"

Exodus 34:18 "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt"

Exodus 34:19 "All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male"

Exodus 34:20 "But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty"

Exodus 34:21 "Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest"

Exodus 34:22 "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end"

Exodus 34:23 "Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel"

Exodus 34:24 "For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year"

Exodus 34:25 "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning"

Exodus 34:26 "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk"

Exodus 34:27 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel"

Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments"

This is the ONLY set of laws that are referred to in scripture as the Ten Commandments.

You quoted some Mosaic 'law' - but not the Ten Commandments.

Funny, then why does most of the Christian faith belive otherwise? Surely there must be a reason for that. And as far as I can see your debate is not what are the commandments (IE what do they say) but more which part of scripture is called "The 10 commandments" which doesnt matter very much. As long as there are 10 and are commands then you could call any part the 10. Its just that these 10 are the first ones and the seeming most important. And further more, in all your quotes there is no point where it says to you "These are my 10 commandments" or anything. Granted there is'nt for the first set, but they are the first laws and also the most basic and fundemental to the rest.

The Roman empire refrence (I asume you are talking about the reformed roman empire) is basicly saying that the countries of the roman empire will once again be under roman rule. Parts of revelation are clearly metaphorical (seven headed beasts) but parts can be more clearly understood (Reconstruction of the roman empire) The Bible in regards to preminiotons is rarely simple. On an aside, speeking about the reformed roman empire, the EU constitution was signed in Rome.

On the contrary - biblical prophecy is usually a very simple matter - since the majority of it seems to have been written after the 'facts' it was supposed to be 'prophecy' for.

How can you state that the seven-headed beast is obviously metaphorical?

See, to my reasoning, the Cruci-fiction is clearly metaphorical - and trust me, you DON'T want to explore the depths behind THAT symbolism.

Show me the scriptural verse that tells you which passages to take as metaphor?

man what a thread. All I can say is fuck Bryan Tamaki and his Destiny cult. Enough is Enough of his praying on the weak and vulnerable. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: Shoot him down peow peow peow!

Funny, then why does most of the Christian faith belive otherwise? Surely there must be a reason for that.
Two words: Charlton Heston... no wait, three words: Cecil B. DeMille.

On the contrary - biblical prophecy is usually a very simple matter - since the majority of it seems to have been written after the 'facts' it was supposed to be 'prophecy' for.

How can you state that the seven-headed beast is obviously metaphorical?

See, to my reasoning, the Cruci-fiction is clearly metaphorical - and trust me, you DON'T want to explore the depths behind THAT symbolism.

Show me the scriptural verse that tells you which passages to take as metaphor?

The roman empire hasnt been reconstructed yet, Jesus has not come down from Heven and made a new heven and new earth. Its a vision, and like all visions are complicated to understand. Obviously the events in revelation are dipicting the end but it is likely that this will take place over sevearl decades if not centuries. Thus God could not have given John a ringside seat for the whole thing so instead explained it in metaphors. Parts of it John could not comprehend, but parts he could. Revelation is difficult to understand because of this. The Crucifixtion was not a vision, Revelation was. Visions are not literal.

Funny, then why does most of the Christian faith belive otherwise? Surely there must be a reason for that. And as far as I can see your debate is not what are the commandments (IE what do they say) but more which part of scripture is called "The 10 commandments" which doesnt matter very much. As long as there are 10 and are commands then you could call any part the 10. Its just that these 10 are the first ones and the seeming most important. And further more, in all your quotes there is no point where it says to you "These are my 10 commandments" or anything. Granted there is'nt for the first set, but they are the first laws and also the most basic and fundemental to the rest.

So, which one lied? God or Moses?

Moses came down from the mountain with two carved slabs, and said "these are the ten commandments".

Either he lied, or god did.

Or, you are wrong.

And please - don't debate the context, Neo - if you want me to post the verses around it where god tells moses that he is giving him HIS commandments, I can do... I assumed (for some crazy reason) that you had read that part...

Hmm, well, I won't post them again for you to answer. I could do what you were doing earlier in the thread and say 'Go back and read it yourself' - but I'm not like that (and I am actually trying to read it all myself, 150 pages down...lots more to go :p ).

So instead, look at post 4750 on page 317. That will also refer you back to my previous questions which you also missed/did not answer.

Thankyou :)

P.S.
I still stand by the challenge, it was made in all seriousness! What challenge...? Go read the post and find out. :p

So, which one lied? God or Moses?

Moses came down from the mountain with two carved slabs, and said "these are the ten commandments".

Either he lied, or god did.

Or, you are wrong.

And please - don't debate the context, Neo - if you want me to post the verses around it where god tells moses that he is giving him HIS commandments, I can do... I assumed (for some crazy reason) that you had read that part...

Does it rearly matter which ones are called "The 10 Commandments" and which are not? The ones in Exodos 20 are the first and most basic laws that God gave them. The ones in Exodos 34 seem to be dealing with some rituals and some other millitary matters. But God never calls either of them "The 10 Commandments" that's Moses's doing. Does it rearly matter which set gets what name? The New testement makes it clear the laws it agrees with out of the Mosaic ones later.

Actually I would sincerely be interested in a good, solid reason from the religious side as to why it is homosexuality is singled out from many other things in the Bible that are also considered grave sins...things like looking at a woman who's having her menstration cycle - that's punishable by death, according to God's Prophets.

So, since there is no current legislation being pushed by the masses to institute this and many other bible Sins into our system of governing - what gives you the "moral right" to pick and choose from among the large list of Biblical Sins? What decrees that you have the wisdom to know what parts of the bible God was serious about, and what parts he was just joking about?

That's always been curious to me. Never say homosexuality is a punishable, worthy of discrimination sin if you're not willing to back your convictions by following all equal statements in the Bible.

Actually I would sincerely be interested in a good, solid reason from the religious side as to why it is homosexuality is singled out from many other things in the Bible that are also considered grave sins...things like looking at a woman who's having her menstration cycle - that's punishable by death, according to God's Prophets.

So, since there is no current legislation being pushed by the masses to institute this and many other bible Sins into our system of governing - what gives you the "moral right" to pick and choose from among the large list of Biblical Sins? What decrees that you have the wisdom to know what parts of the bible God was serious about, and what parts he was just joking about?

That's always been curious to me. Never say homosexuality is a punishable, worthy of discrimination sin if you're not willing to back your convictions by following all equal statements in the Bible.

We have been over this many times before. The Old Testement law is I agree largely made defunct by the New testement but not completly. The key is to see where Old and New agree to find out which parts of the OT are irrelevent and which are not.

The roman empire hasnt been reconstructed yet, Jesus has not come down from Heven and made a new heven and new earth. Its a vision, and like all visions are complicated to understand. Obviously the events in revelation are dipicting the end but it is likely that this will take place over sevearl decades if not centuries. Thus God could not have given John a ringside seat for the whole thing so instead explained it in metaphors. Parts of it John could not comprehend, but parts he could. Revelation is difficult to understand because of this. The Crucifixtion was not a vision, Revelation was. Visions are not literal.

If visions are not literal, even in scripture - then, by your own admission, John is the author of one extended metaphor.

The new heaven and earth HAS been created, after the fall of Rome - it's just a metaphor.

Obviously the events in revelation are depicting the end??? Why is that obvious? I disagree. I think that Revelation was added, at the last minute, to prevent the spread of Mithraism as a contender for Roman conversion.

Did you know that Rome ALMOST chose Mithraism instead of Christianity, when they 'converted'?

See - the whole Mithraic revelations of the end of the world were very popular in some quarters... and the New Testament scripture lacked a revelation... then, all of a sudden, christianity comes up with a (suspiciously similar) book of end-times prophecy, and nudges ahead in the popularity polls...

Does it rearly matter which ones are called "The 10 Commandments" and which are not? The ones in Exodos 20 are the first and most basic laws that God gave them. The ones in Exodos 34 seem to be dealing with some rituals and some other millitary matters. But God never calls either of them "The 10 Commandments" that's Moses's doing. Does it rearly matter which set gets what name? The New testement makes it clear the laws it agrees with out of the Mosaic ones later.

Do you have a bible, Neo?

Go read it.

Moses came down and preached to the people... but that preaching was JUST preaching... it wasn't the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

A while later, God gets Moses to carve a new set of cammandments, for, as he says:

Exodus 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

So - not only does God give this as the OFFICIAL commandment list to Moses... he also states that this is what was written on the FIRST SET OF TABLETS.... regardless of what Moses 'preached'.

Argue against me all you like - but, here, you are arguing against god.

If visions are not literal, even in scripture - then, by your own admission, John is the author of one extended metaphor.

The new heaven and earth HAS been created, after the fall of Rome - it's just a metaphor.

Obviously the events in revelation are depicting the end??? Why is that obvious? I disagree. I think that Revelation was added, at the last minute, to prevent the spread of Mithraism as a contender for Roman conversion.

Did you know that Rome ALMOST chose Mithraism instead of Christianity, when they 'converted'?

See - the whole Mithraic revelations of the end of the world were very popular in some quarters... and the New Testament scripture lacked a revelation... then, all of a sudden, christianity comes up with a (suspiciously similar) book of end-times prophecy, and nudges ahead in the popularity polls...

Anchient Rome fell in 378 AD. John was not alive then. Ergo he is predicting. Where exactly are you getting the talk of the destruction of the Roman Empire. And you talk as if John was aware of the conversion of Rome to Christanity. John was in prison on Patmos. He would have been unaware of what was going on regarding roman religious politics. Why was he in prison after all?

Do you have a bible, Neo?

Go read it.

Moses came down and preached to the people... but that preaching was JUST preaching... it wasn't the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

A while later, God gets Moses to carve a new set of cammandments, for, as he says:

Exodus 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

So - not only does God give this as the OFFICIAL commandment list to Moses... he also states that this is what was written on the FIRST SET OF TABLETS.... regardless of what Moses 'preached'.

Argue against me all you like - but, here, you are arguing against god.

Does it rearly matter what we call "The 10 Commandments". As long as there are 10 and they are commands from God then it doesnt.

Anchient Rome fell in 378 AD. John was not alive then. Ergo he is predicting. Where exactly are you getting the talk of the destruction of the Roman Empire. And you talk as if John was aware of the conversion of Rome to Christanity. John was in prison on Patmos. He would have been unaware of what was going on regarding roman religious politics. Why was he in prison after all?

You are perhaps talking of the Sacking of Rome?

You are describing one military action in the continued disintegration of an Empire? You are aware that the Roman empire actually continued, in various attentuated forms for another thousand years AFTER the time you give as the 'fall of Rome'?

Rome 'fell' in 378... but had already 'fallen' several times before that date...

So I still get ignored, even after I tell you exactly where to look on the page previous to this :(


No fair :headbang:

So I still get ignored, even after I tell you exactly where to look on the page previous to this :(


No fair :headbang:

Am v busy with G&I and other things. Sorry

You are perhaps talking of the Sacking of Rome?

You are describing one military action in the continued disintegration of an Empire? You are aware that the Roman empire actually continued, in various attentuated forms for another thousand years AFTER the time you give as the 'fall of Rome'?

Rome 'fell' in 378... but had already 'fallen' several times before that date...

You conviently ignore the rest of my post.

1) John was in prison for the specific reason of preaching the Gospel.
2) John would not have known about the Roman reliogus policics of the time

Could you please show me the verse you are refering to when you talk of the description of the fall of rome. As far as I am aware it it the recosntiuted rome.

Does it rearly matter what we call "The 10 Commandments". As long as there are 10 and they are commands from God then it doesnt.

Yes, Neo. It matters. What you call the Ten Commandments are not THE Ten Commandments, as ordained by God, and as relayed by Moses.

The fact that you are ignorant of that fact, and now wish to gloss over it, speaks a volume about your knowledge of your professed faith.

How am I to respect your opinion on Hebrew laws, if you don't even know which Hebrew laws are THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?


I walk into a butcher's shop. There on the pork counter are livers, kidneys, heart, some choice cuts, etc. I walk up to the Butcher, and ask him what 'those' are - pointing to the kidney. He looks at them for a moment, and then says "Those are hamster's uteri". I blink twice... then ask him if he maybe meant something else... maybe they were part of a pig... since they are in the pork section??? "What the hell", he says... "It's all animal parts..."

I turn around and leave that Butcher's store, never to return.

You, neo - are unfortunately working behind the butcher's counter... and you are trying to sell sirloin as spinach.

Am v busy with G&I and other things. Sorry

Or, in other words... I have no way to answer your question that doesn't make me look poorly informed.... or maybe I just don't understand the question....

While we are at it, Neo - you still didn't carry out that little translational exercise for me... even after I provided the Hebrew translation guide for you....

Yes, Neo. It matters. What you call the Ten Commandments are not THE Ten Commandments, as ordained by God, and as relayed by Moses.


You miss the point. What religous significnce does it have which parts we call the 10 comandments and which we dont. The Bible makes it clear they are all from God and the New Testement makes it clear which parts of the old testement are relevent and not. So why do we need to worry about one specifc set of laws. If I was to say one set you would imidately dismiss me and if I said the other you would imidaetly dismiss me so either way you will opose. It rearly does not matter which part is called "10 commandments" and which isnt. God never says to moses "These are my 10 commandments" that is just a name they got on acount of there being 10 and commandments.

Very busy......with other things.....fair enough....

But not so busy as to make 5 posts in the last half hour! :mad:

If you are afraid to take up my challenge, why not just say so?
If you can't answer my questions, why not just say so?

Theres nothing wrong with admitting fear or defeat you know. It'll make a man of you eventually.

Or, in other words... I have no way to answer your question that doesn't make me look poorly informed.... or maybe I just don't understand the question....

While we are at it, Neo - you still didn't carry out that little translational exercise for me... even after I provided the Hebrew translation guide for you....

Perhaps you are ignoring the practiallitys of the therad. It is now over 300 pages long and I am having to deal with question from everyone else and I have other things to do.

Very busy......with other things.....fair enough....

But not so busy as to make 5 posts in the last half hour! :mad:

If you are afraid to take up my challenge, why not just say so?
If you can't answer my questions, why not just say so?

Theres nothing wrong with admitting fear or defeat you know. It'll make a man of you eventually.

Can you TG me the question? It would save me a great deal of time.

Perhaps you are ignoring the practiallitys of the therad. It is now over 300 pages long and I am having to deal with question from everyone else and I have other things to do.
What other things? You seem to be responding rather quickly for someone who claims to be multitasking.

Not really, as there are multiple questions - in a couple of places.

I have given you exact post references and page numbers to find them. Which is more than you seem ever to have done for people previously with your 'Go back and read the thread, I can't be bothered' attitude.

Isn't there something about 'do as you would be done by' written somewhere?
Oh yes - one of the characters in 'The Water Babies' by Charles Kingsley..

Not really, as there are multiple questions - in a couple of places.

I have given you exact post references and page numbers to find them. Which is more than you seem ever to have done for people previously with your 'Go back and read the thread, I can't be bothered' attitude.

Isn't there something about 'do as you would be done by' written somewhere?
Oh yes - one of the characters in 'The Water Babies' by Charles Kingsley..

The main problem I had in the past was that people were constantly bringing up the Old testement/New testement stuff that had been done to death seveal times before over many pages. If they genuinely wanted an ansewer I gave it to them in some cases, but many were just trying to catch Chrsitians out saying "Ha ha your wrong!".

And once again I am forced to remind you, NC, that you DO NOT represent all of Chrisianity. We aren't trying to prove Christianity wrong, because some of us are Christians. We're trying to prove you wrong.

Well, I can assure you that I genuinely want answers, to each question I have given.

So far I haven't come across them being answered previously....

I also, most certainly, want an answer to my challenge to you......

Well, I just spent the last 3 hours reading everything since my last visit.
So in all fairness, I believe I deserve answers to the few things I have collected so far.

Eligage:
You did not answer my question. Is not your religious belief that my religious views of marriage descrimination?
If so, are you not breaking the freedom of religion stuff in the US?
*Note: I am merely trying to point out descrepencies that you may have not wanted to make, or that you are being descriminatory, this is in no ways an attack. Alo this refers to your last post.. many pages back. Sorry (Page 317).

Neo Cannen:
Your reasons come from your ideology, and thus by your own logic, you can't use them. Unless YOU care to provide a practical source?
Why are you allowed to and I not. Is that or is that not discrimination.
And where are your ideologies allowed to law and mine not? I call descrimination back upon you.
NO ONE has yet provided ANY evidence that God supported homosexuality at all.
Now define which god, and this statement will be ok. I have already explained where a goddess I worship is actually bisexual. Now, if you decide to refute that as a point, arn't you descriminating my religion?
that the Bible says nothing.
So, the Bible is the only religious text ever to be considered for law?
We are discussing wether or not it is a sin. Therefore the Bible is relevent. You cannot use extra-biblical sources to prove if it is or is not a sin.
So, a "sin" is ONLY a Christian thing? That's funny, I have sins.. yet, I'm not Christian.


Red Spider Nebula:
My religion doesn't say sodomy is a sin, it doesn't define marriage as between only a man and only a woman. Now explain why your religion is better then mine.

If visions are not literal, even in scripture - then, by your own admission, John is the author of one extended metaphor.

The new heaven and earth HAS been created, after the fall of Rome - it's just a metaphor.

Obviously the events in revelation are depicting the end??? Why is that obvious? I disagree. I think that Revelation was added, at the last minute, to prevent the spread of Mithraism as a contender for Roman conversion.

Did you know that Rome ALMOST chose Mithraism instead of Christianity, when they 'converted'?

See - the whole Mithraic revelations of the end of the world were very popular in some quarters... and the New Testament scripture lacked a revelation... then, all of a sudden, christianity comes up with a (suspiciously similar) book of end-times prophecy, and nudges ahead in the popularity polls...

If you say revalation was added then what about the book of daniel?
The book of Daniel tells about the end times, and the storys of both fit together, and are similar in the general story of the beasts etc.

Okay, I haven't read all of the replies to this, so I apologize in advance if what I say has already been said, but I have to go soon, so I can't read any more of them, and I wanted to throw in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with other peoples' beliefs. I may not agree, but I will not tell them they are stupid for believing what they believe, so don't say that I'm discriminating against Christians here. You see, what bothers me is when people try to force their beliefs on others.

If you think that homosexuality is sinful, fine. Don't do it. Then you'll be good, right? Just don't try to dictate what others can do. That's not right. Would you like it if somebody came and told you that according to their religion, being heterosexual is a sin? Or that it's wrong because it's further crowding an overcrowded world or some such? I don't think you would. So treat others how you'd like to be treated, okay?

Also, I think it's terribly sad that people want to outlaw gay marriage. I was brought up to think that we live in a better world than we used to because now women and blacks and such get all the same rights as white men, but I've come to be disillusioned lately. This whole movement to define marriage as between a man and a woman echoes earlier ones to prevent interracial marriage. It makes me wonder how people can still be so cruel. I love my husband and am very glad that I'm married to him, so it makes me want to cry when I realize that some of my friends may never be able to have what I have.

I know that life isn't fair, but in this case I just can't comprehend why people work so hard to keep it that way... :(

A thought of mine:

How I understand it, if looked closely and translated correctly, the 10 commandments are written in a notion that suggests not commandmets or rules per se, but more of a guide or hint of how to live your life.

That being true or not and I dont know if it has already been said, even the "universal, unchangable, unmistakable" commandements are open to interpretation. How can Gods word be open to interpretation?

Do not lie.
But we can lie, if being silent would do greater wrong, maybe even save lives.
Do not steal.
If it is a matter of life and death, God would surelly allow you to steal.
Do not kill.
Lethal force used in self-defence is surely al right?

How can we simple humans so openly defy the word of God?
If He says Don't kill then don't kill. If someone means to kill you, show him, that you would rather die than hurt another human being. Well, why just human? Why doesn't that include animals too ?
If He says don't steal or lie, then don't.

It's perfectly clear.

Or is it?

The point being that the commandments and every other religious document has to be looked at from a broader perspective, regarding the whole inner meaning of the religion, which is like every other mayor religion the notion of Goodness: Respect, Love, Equality, Freedom,...

Those are the true Commandments, which are Universal, unchangable, unmistakable.

And now I ask you:
The whole question of Is homosexuality a sin?
Does that bring out God's true meaning of Love, Equality, Respect, Freedom,...

Or does it bring hate, segregation, loathing and destruction?
Because that is what you preech, knowingly or not.

If you say revalation was added then what about the book of daniel?
The book of Daniel tells about the end times, and the storys of both fit together, and are similar in the general story of the beasts etc.

Anyone with any creativity can read a book and add to it you know.
Which negates the "Written over so many years with authors who had no contact" crap.
Again, anyone can read a book and add to it. And because of all these wonderful translations of some books, you'd never know because writing style dissapears when it's moved to a language other then it's origonal.

Well, I just spent the last 3 hours reading everything since my last visit.
So in all fairness, I believe I deserve answers to the few things I have collected so far.

Eligage:
You did not answer my question. Is not your religious belief that my religious views of marriage descrimination?
If so, are you not breaking the freedom of religion stuff in the US?
*Note: I am merely trying to point out descrepencies that you may have not wanted to make, or that you are being descriminatory, this is in no ways an attack. Alo this refers to your last post.. many pages back. Sorry (Page 317).

Neo Cannen:
Your reasons come from your ideology, and thus by your own logic, you can't use them. Unless YOU care to provide a practical source?

And where are your ideologies allowed to law and mine not? I call descrimination back upon you.

Now define which god, and this statement will be ok. I have already explained where a goddess I worship is actually bisexual. Now, if you decide to refute that as a point, arn't you descriminating my religion?

So, the Bible is the only religious text ever to be considered for law?

So, a "sin" is ONLY a Christian thing? That's funny, I have sins.. yet, I'm not Christian.


Red Spider Nebula:
My religion doesn't say sodomy is a sin, it doesn't define marriage as between only a man and only a woman. Now explain why your religion is better then mine.

What is your religion called?

It is a matter of opinion which religion is the right one from a human perspective. However only 1 religion can be right.

What is your religion called?

It is a matter of opinion which religion is the right one from a human perspective. However only 1 religion can be right.
Oh, my. Now here I'll really have to disagree. Whichever one is right for you is the right one for you. There is no one religion that is right for everyone.

What is your religion called?

It is a matter of opinion which religion is the right one from a human perspective. However only 1 religion can be right.

If I could name it anything, I'd name it Keingir.

Although, it never got an official name.

Now as for your last comment, I simply ask, why?

I find it amazing that Neo Cannan bothers to convince people to dislike an entire group of people based on something that is not anyone's business but those involved--besides, wouldn't the payment for marriage licenses merely boost the state's capital?

I also find it sad that awesome people like yourselves here on NS probably have no will to become politicians someday--we could use intelligent people on Capitol Hill.

In New Zealand they are trying to bring in the "civil union bill". Which basically means that gay people can get married.

Some people have some odd veiws that "it is someones nature to be gay, they cant help it" which is a load of rubbish to be honest.

If it is someones nature and they cant help it, then why do people chose to be gay, and then chose not to be?

E.G A newstalk ZB radio annoncer in NZ said that he has freinds who were gay, and then they chose to stop being gay.

You are responsible for your own actions.

The point of Gay couples getting married is that it is not the best way to bring up children (should they adopt them). The best way is a solid marridge with a mother and a father.

Dont you think it would be odd being brought up two males?

the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. I am a Christian and I believe what the Bible says. The bible also says that murder, stealing, lying, adultery, gossip, sex before marriage etc... are also sins. God treats all sin the same; because in His eyes, they are all wrong. Therefore, it is wrong for Christians (like myself) to judge homosexuals because, here's some news for you

E V E R Y B O D Y S I N S !!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that sometimes Christians forget what they believe in! At the end of the day, we believe that Jesus Christ died because we have sinned and he was taking the punishement for us. Christianity is not supposed to be about telling people what they can and cannot do. And Christians cannot expect non-Christians to conform to our beliefs! At the end of the day, it is a personal thing between you and God.

Jesus loves homosexual people! He might not like what they do, but He accepts them for who they are. God created us all, and He loves us all.

I am willing to discuss this further, but I am unlikely to revisit this page, so TG me if you want to.

By the way, I consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist; I like to think that I can be like Jesus. Who do you think He was?

Dont you think it would be odd being brought up two males?

It wouldn't be odd at all, that is until "regular" people would make it odd by isolating and ridiculing that child or worse.

btw: I'm against gay people having children at thistime. Not because of the gay people, but because the child would suffer from the misunderstanding and xenophobia most of the society would bring out.

If I could name it anything, I'd name it Keingir.

Although, it never got an official name.

Now as for your last comment, I simply ask, why?

Well, one belief system has to be right, it cant be more than one cause they would have conflicting ideas. Most religions claim superiority over the other. The christians think their religion is the truth, the muslims think theirs is the truth. So which one is the truth?

And to someones comment that "the end of times story in revelation is just made up" I suggest you read a book called "hurtling toward oblivion, by Richard A. Swenson M.D." It is a logical argument for the end of times. Even secular sceintists beleive that we cant last much longer.

There is lots of Exodos and Leviticus and Deutronomy which is made defunct by the new testement. This seems to me to be an example of that. Heres a question, if this is the "First" set then why it it later in exedos than the suposed "Second" set?

Simple you idiot. If you actually knew the story of the Ten Commandments, then you would know that the FIRST set was destroyed by Moses, and that these are the Second set created right aftetr the whole Golden Cow incident.

And besides, the Ten Commandmnets are not made defunct, because GOD never says that, so these are still in effect.

Who said homosexuality is a sin? I don't believe it is, so it is not.

Theoretically, it is not a restriction of freedom to make gay marriage illegal, because everyone is equal in the respect that everyone is able to marry the opposite sex.

mar·riage n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

(Copy and pasted from www.dictionary.com)


However I would like to say that I am for gay marriage, I am gay, and not only do I believe that being gay is not a sin, I know it is not a sin.

If you wish to respond to me; TG me, because I probably won't check back here.

I really didn't read everything so I have no real say, but I don't care.


I disagree with you, No political corectnes.

It is true in the belief "only 1 religion can be right," because all religions are different, (And any given 2 are different, otherwise they would be the same religion) However, it is wrong in saying that the only truth is that "only 1 religion can be correct."
The other possibility is that all religions can be incorrect.

(And in all honesty, that is a fairer decision at which to arrive. Maybe not for the parts, but it is for the whole.)

You are all robots that are standing too close to the forest.

Sorry, just found these and I think they are funny :p

No its not. A right is something you have to have. A privilage is something you dont have to have but are given because of certian circumstances. Gays do not fit the critera that the privilage of married rights requires. That would be like saying to someone with no driving liscence that they can legally drive.#2716

I think you're saying that I have a 'Right' to call you an idiot for making such a stupid statement.

I believe that I have a right to marry, and that I should be awarded all rights and privelidges accorded to a married person. At exactly what point do I give them up because I want to marry another man?

Your example of driving licences sort of fails miserably, because it IS possible to legally drive with no licence, never having had a lesson or test and under the age of 17. If said person is driving a car on a private road then there is no law whatsoever to stop them, and in fact in some areas there are specific places designed for people to get experience of driving without having a licence (there's one in my home city of Sheffield). Please don't try and argue this point, I work for the DETR (Dept of Environment, Transport and Regions).

Although, if you want to be really silly...I suppose you know that you break the law every week don't you. Every single week of the year! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and tingly inside ;)

Law of emprical science 1 = Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesaured.
Law of emprical science 2 = Only by repetive analysis can a cause and effect link be proved#2205

Right, fair enough......if that's how it works then given the above statements you made.....

1 Prove Sin exists
2 Prove God exists

I believe in facts and logic. If YOU can prove the above, I'll believe you - and when I say prove, I mean PROVE, not just blather on about some half baked ideas or theories.

I'm also STILL waiting for you to reply to my previous questions *sigh* I'm also quite looking forward to you accepting the challenge I've made you.

Homosexual sex existed then and it was condemend. The idea of marriage for homosexuals is thus a pedistal on which to glorify said sin. To many Christians its comparable to saying to a murderer "Here is a town of people, the number of which you have the right to kill".

No, it's like saying to a murderer "Yes, we know you murdered, and that's a sin, but you're still allowed to marry.".
Hey, guess what?

For those who are interested in understanding the range of Christian belief on this issue - the link below links to a great table of comparisons. (too much to post here)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom6beli3.htm

Dont you think it would be odd being brought up two males?

well, if the males were like Neo Cannen, it would be truly frightening.

But if the males were like Grave n Idle or Dempublicent, or Harktopia, or Sacred Flames...that would be pretty cool. Could guarantee that their kids are likely to learn how to think for themselves and be loved for whoever they are....

well, as Neo Cannen has asked the Moderators to close this thread - I thought I'd take the opportunity to thank everyone who posted such intelligent responses and participated with such grace. While I will not claim to have read all 300+ pages, those I did provided much food for thought.

In New Zealand they are trying to bring in the "civil union bill". Which basically means that gay people can get married.

Some people have some odd veiws that "it is someones nature to be gay, they cant help it" which is a load of rubbish to be honest.

If it is someones nature and they cant help it, then why do people chose to be gay, and then chose not to be?

E.G A newstalk ZB radio annoncer in NZ said that he has freinds who were gay, and then they chose to stop being gay.

You are responsible for your own actions.

The point of Gay couples getting married is that it is not the best way to bring up children (should they adopt them). The best way is a solid marridge with a mother and a father.

Dont you think it would be odd being brought up two males? That is complete and utter bullshit. Homosexuals are naturally gay just like someone is naturally straight. You can't wake up one day and say "Hey I'm going to be attracted to the same sex!" It doesn't work that way.

I agree with Neo Cannen: this thread is no longer going anywhere new. It should be closed.

The alternative is that everyone reads all the hundreds of pages previously and does not repeat arguments.

The thread has become too augmented.

Close it.

Now.

I agree with Neo Cannen: this thread is no longer going anywhere new.

And why do you think that is?

I don't know why, but maybe its because people ask irrelevant questions like "And why do you think that is?"

I don't know why, but maybe its because people ask irrelevant questions like "And why do you think that is?"
Oh and I thought it was cause of useless posts like “I agree …” followed sometimes by a “close it”

Take away religion.
Take away societal "norms".
Take away civilization.

We'd all be rutting with anything that moves. Humans are OMNI-sexual, as long as their brain doesn't get involved.

They may not agree on order but the order is of little relevence. Genesis agrees that God created the world yes and that he created man in it. And the entire book of revelation is a vision not just one section. There is nothing to sugest the begining is metaphor and the rest is fact.

The lack of logic here amazes me.

If the order is different, then *at least* one of them *has* to be wrong. If one of them is wrong, you either have to admit that God let wrong information be put into the Bible, or the account was not meant to be literal, but was simply meant to teach a lesson (ie. God created the world and everything in it *somehow*).

No, it's like saying to a murderer "Yes, we know you murdered, and that's a sin, but you're still allowed to marry.".
Hey, guess what?

No its not. The link i am making is between the sin and marriage. The idea of homosexual marriage is intrinsicly linked to homosexual sex in the same way that murder is linked to an area where you are allowed to kill. If you cant see my logic then I pity you.

Right, fair enough......if that's how it works then given the above statements you made.....

1 Prove Sin exists
2 Prove God exists

I believe in facts and logic. If YOU can prove the above, I'll believe you - and when I say prove, I mean PROVE, not just blather on about some half baked ideas or theories.


Emperical science, not metaphysics. If anyone could "Prove" a religon then all the others would be wrong. As it is we cant and that is why there is an element of faith. Religion is not an empircal science.

The lack of logic here amazes me.

If the order is different, then *at least* one of them *has* to be wrong. If one of them is wrong, you either have to admit that God let wrong information be put into the Bible, or the account was not meant to be literal, but was simply meant to teach a lesson (ie. God created the world and everything in it *somehow*).

Ok there is conflict in the Genesis account. Fine. It doesnt rearly matter though which one is right. The facts remain that God created the world. The conflict arguemnt then continuing in the vain that "If thats wrong couldnt the parts about homosexuality be wrong" fall down because in the Bible there is no conflict regarding homosexuality. It is always condemned and never supported.

We have been over this many times before. The Old Testement law is I agree largely made defunct by the New testement but not completly. The key is to see where Old and New agree to find out which parts of the OT are irrelevent and which are not.

Demonstrate where anything in the NT says that a woman is perfectly clean and you're allowed to sit in a chair after her while she is menstruating.

well, as Neo Cannen has asked the Moderators to close this thread - I thought I'd take the opportunity to thank everyone who posted such intelligent responses and participated with such grace. While I will not claim to have read all 300+ pages, those I did provided much food for thought.

I concer. I have enjoyed this debate a great deal and I would like to say thankyou to the following people who have participated

Grave and Idle
Dempublicents
UpwardThrust
Hakartopia

and the many others who it has been a pleasure to intelectually spar with. The principal reason I asked to close the thread is that we apper to be going in circles.

Ok there is conflict in the Genesis account. Fine. It doesnt rearly matter though which one is right. The facts remain that God created the world. The conflict arguemnt then continuing in the vain that "If thats wrong couldnt the parts about homosexuality be wrong" fall down because in the Bible there is no conflict regarding homosexuality. It is always condemned and never supported.

If I said every single day "I have sixteen toes, I have sixteen toes, I have sixteen toes." And then, on two separate days "I have blue eyes," and then "I have brown eyes." What would you think?

And actually, it *is* supported, just like soup kitchens and sit-ins are supported. The exact word doesn't have to be used.

Okay so Gays and stuff like that, may be a little foriegn to us. We're not used to seeeing two people of the same sex madly in love with eachother. But does that make it wrong? Don't get me wrong either, I don't think gay marraige should be allowed, I for one don't see the point in any marraige. Sure people see it as a way to "bring" them selves together and make your love known. If you really love eachother, then you don't have to show anyone else that, it's only between you and your lover. that's just me of course. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. No matter what you do though, if someone wants something badly enough, nothing (not even their life) is going to stand in their way. Gays will marry if they want and just the same, you will be divorced. I mean for godsakes even divortion way back in the fourteenth century was considered a sin. So get over your differences. And if you don't like something then just keep it to yourself. Even if it's that you're a Gay and don't like the other beliefs... just keep to yourselves. You find a way to get around those stubborn people and those dumb politics. If you want it you should be aloud to have it. If you want to express your feelings against gays then do it in a peaceful way that allows them to still have their beliefs.

well, if the males were like Neo Cannen, it would be truly frightening.

But if the males were like Grave n Idle or Dempublicent, or Harktopia, or Sacred Flames...that would be pretty cool. Could guarantee that their kids are likely to learn how to think for themselves and be loved for whoever they are....

Hey! I'm a girl! =)

But thanks for the compliment anyways. I'm currently holding back my biological urge to have a child until I finish (or at least get close to finishing) my education. But I'll definitely have one at some point. And here's the part that'll really get the goat of any fundie, the man I'll eventually be having the chid with is *gasp* an atheist!.

The biggest problem is that if we were all gay, we would die out as a civilization. No procreation, no babies, end of story.

2. Sin is a faith thing, not the law. Who are you to question their beliefs? It is the damn church. If you have any faith in the church, you would know that according to catholicism, everthing the church says is right. If you don't have faith in the church, you shouldn't care.

3. It is true marriage is pretty much ruined with divorce rates so high, but just because something is bad it doesnt mean you make it worse.

4. Funny thing about democracy is that the majority wins. If the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable with gay marriage, hey, thats how it goes. Have a problem? Overthrow democracy.

Demonstrate where anything in the NT says that a woman is perfectly clean and you're allowed to sit in a chair after her while she is menstruating.

I dont need to provide specific examples of where it is defunct. However I can tell you it is not part of the list which is included. There was a very useful website that explained this better than I did and I cannot find it at present. Will get it for you later. But to add a point the word "Abomination" does not apper in the menstaratal verse.

And actually, it *is* supported, just like soup kitchens and sit-ins are supported. The exact word doesn't have to be used.

No its not. Homosexuality is specicficly condemned throught the Bible. NOWHERE is it specificly supported. Dont come the "It didnt exist then" because it did. It is not a modern phonominan.

I concer. I have enjoyed this debate a great deal and I would like to say thankyou to the following people who have participated

Grave and Idle
Dempublicents
UpwardThrust
Hakartopia

and the many others who it has been a pleasure to intelectually spar with. The principal reason I asked to close the thread is that we apper to be going in circles.
Wow I made the list :)

Lol i usualy come in for a logic jab :) but good fighting with ya too :)

I can pretty much see the reason why Neo Cannen wants this closed: since we keep pointing out obvious errors in the Bible, and shooting holes in his internet sources, and he even refuses to answer several questions that were asked to huim, I can see that he's just scared that he'll be seen as not really understanding the Bible.

No its not. Homosexuality is specicficly condemned throught the Bible. NOWHERE is it specificly supported. Dont come the "It didnt exist then" because it did. It is not a modern phonominan.

Homosexuality is condemned nowhere in the Bible.

Casual homosexual sex - yes, just like casual heterosexual sex. Homosexual sex with prostitutes - yes. Homosexual sex with young boys - yes. Anal sex in general - sure, maybe in Leviticus, next to all the other laws you say are gone.

And since you apparently forgot English again, since when does *not specific* mean specific?

Again, do you think that the Bible condones soup kitchens? Do you think that the Bible condones the idea that boycotts and sit-ins are better than maltov cocktails? Do you think that the Bible condemns acts like DUI?

If the answer is yes, demonstrate the exact and specific place in the Bible where any of these things are mentioned.

The biggest problem is that if we were all gay, we would die out as a civilization. No procreation, no babies, end of story.

This is a silly statement, as "gay" is not a disease that you can catch.

If we were all girls, we would die out as a civilization. No procreation, no babies, end of story. I guess it must be a sin to be a girl.

3. It is true marriage is pretty much ruined with divorce rates so high, but just because something is bad it doesnt mean you make it worse.

Yes, because allowing people who truly see the value in marriage to get married "makes it worse."

4. Funny thing about democracy is that the majority wins. If the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable with gay marriage, hey, thats how it goes. Have a problem? Overthrow democracy.

Funny thing about America is that it isn't a democracy. It is a representative republic with *specific* protections put in place against pure democracy.

All right, no one get mad. I'm just trying to make a point.

1. Sex was originally for procreation and procreation only. Our media has warped it into a pleasure fest with few inhibitions. You can thank media idols (not naming any names) for this. In the time frame of the Bible, people had little time for pleasure. It was work, pray to have children, and dodge mercenaries and then more work.

2. Anal sex, back then, was kind of dangerous. Hell, sex was dangerous anyways. They had STD's then, too, and face it, how old were the girls who were being married off? Ten, twelve? It didn't matter whose hole was getting done.

3. Marriage is a way of legitimizing a child. I hate to say it, but sometimes I feel marriage is just a way for one parent to say, "Hey! I'm taking care of the kid, cough up the money!". Go figure, right... :rolleyes:

4. There are a lot of people in this world, most of them set in their beliefs and in their ways. Old southerners, WWII veterans, social extremists, etc. Not everyone will agree whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Personally, I don't have a problem with gays. Unfortunately, the world isn't ready to accept gay marriage and adoption. It's like science: some ideas are ahead of their times. Take Mendel and Gallileo for example. Give it some time. ;)

Lets take a look at scripture... you guys who are taking such a ferverantly anti-gay stand I would invite you to read the Book of Laviticus - I very much doubt you follow what it says... heres a taster:

It lists all the animals you must sacrifice on the high alter to get forgiveness from God.

It states how high the fine should be for arbotion (its really not that high).

It lists what animals you should not have sex with... by implication it tells you what beasts you CAN have sex with.

Eating shellfish is a sin.

Women on their period shall NOT enter the holy tent.

-

Homosexuals are perfecly normal and deserve the respect and rights accorded to everyone else, if a religon tries to trod on this, its for the state to come crashing down on the dogmatic hate filled institution like a tonne of bricks.

-

I'm an anouvte atheist, there is no God. However, I am as passionate about human and civil rights, people have the right to believe in whatever faith they choose, BUT this is not lisence to oppress other people! Your rights end when they step on someone else.

-

A historical sociological point of veiw of homosexuality in the bible would point out these factors:

Lesbians get next to no air time in the Bible or Kor'an (lesbians get one mention in the Kor'an and it describes the punishment for being a lesbian - its house arrest, for a gay its death.)

Christians, Jews and Muslims had a problem in the beginning of their civilizations... they were small... and how to you get strong in the ancient world? Get big, a big population means a wealth of men to take up arms and expand your territory. Gays waste sperm (thats what the anti-masterbation message in the bible is about - nothing else - don't you think if God was that bothered he'd have made it more difficult?) that could have been used to get someone pregnant and get the population up.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in Greek culture (something that they have tried to blott out in history thanks largely to the Orthodox Chruch) it was also part of some Roman religions - Bare in mind that by today's standards Rome was fiercely xenophobic... but at the time it did possess quite a few different cultures...

Not all modern faiths consider Homosexuality a sin, Hinduism for example recognises it as just a different path. I haven't been able to find any referance to it in Buddism yet, but I'll continue to look.

-

Finally... why does a secular atheist who opposes organised religon give a damn about what the holy texts say? Simply put I hate ignorance and discrimination - The holy texts are the greatest works of FICTION in history thats why they deserve to be read... they are not how to live your life - Chruch impossed dogma saw to that.

-

I can't find the passage I was looking for, it was about God and God alone being judge... so this one will have to do:

John 12:47 - And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

-

PS: The world is ready to accept gay marriage and addoption, look to Europe, we're doing it... its the backward states of the US that won't :)

All right, no one get mad. I'm just trying to make a point.

1. Sex was originally for procreation and procreation only. Our media has warped it into a pleasure fest with few inhibitions. You can thank media idols (not naming any names) for this. In the time frame of the Bible, people had little time for pleasure. It was work, pray to have children, and dodge mercenaries and then more work.

2. Anal sex, back then, was kind of dangerous. Hell, sex was dangerous anyways. They had STD's then, too, and face it, how old were the girls who were being married off? Ten, twelve? It didn't matter whose hole was getting done.

3. Marriage is a way of legitimizing a child. I hate to say it, but sometimes I feel marriage is just a way for one parent to say, "Hey! I'm taking care of the kid, cough up the money!". Go figure, right... :rolleyes:

4. There are a lot of people in this world, most of them set in their beliefs and in their ways. Old southerners, WWII veterans, social extremists, etc. Not everyone will agree whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Personally, I don't have a problem with gays. Unfortunately, the world isn't ready to accept gay marriage and adoption. It's like science: some ideas are ahead of their times. Take Mendel and Gallileo for example. Give it some time. ;)

Lol um it was a pleasure fest way before current media (take a look at both the greek and the roman culture) its been a pleasure fest for as long as its been pleasurable

Lets take a look at scripture... you guys who are taking such a ferverantly anti-gay stand I would invite you to read the Book of Laviticus - I very much doubt you follow what it says... heres a taster:

It lists all the animals you must sacrifice on the high alter to get forgiveness from God.

It states how high the fine should be for arbotion (its really not that high).

It lists what animals you should not have sex with... by implication it tells you what beasts you CAN have sex with.

Eating shellfish is a sin.

Women on their period shall NOT enter the holy tent.

-

Homosexuals are perfecly normal and deserve the respect and rights accorded to everyone else, if a religon tries to trod on this, its for the state to come crashing down on the dogmatic hate filled institution like a tonne of bricks.

-

I'm an anouvte atheist, there is no God. However, I am as passionate about human and civil rights, people have the right to believe in whatever faith they choose, BUT this is not lisence to oppress other people! Your rights end when they step on someone else.

-

A historical sociological point of veiw of homosexuality in the bible would point out these factors:

Lesbians get next to no air time in the Bible or Kor'an (lesbians get one mention in the Kor'an and it describes the punishment for being a lesbian - its house arrest, for a gay its death.)

Christians, Jews and Muslims had a problem in the beginning of their civilizations... they were small... and how to you get strong in the ancient world? Get big, a big population means a wealth of men to take up arms and expand your territory. Gays waste sperm (thats what the anti-masterbation message in the bible is about - nothing else - don't you think if God was that bothered he'd have made it more difficult?) that could have been used to get someone pregnant and get the population up.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in Greek culture (something that they have tried to blott out in history thanks largely to the Orthodox Chruch) it was also part of some Roman religions - Bare in mind that by today's standards Rome was fiercely xenophobic... but at the time it did possess quite a few different cultures...

Not all modern faiths consider Homosexuality a sin, Hinduism for example recognises it as just a different path. I haven't been able to find any referance to it in Buddism yet, but I'll continue to look.

-

Finally... why does a secular atheist who opposes organised religon give a damn about what the holy texts say? Simply put I hate ignorance and discrimination - The holy texts are the greatest works of FICTION in history thats why they deserve to be read... they are not how to live your life - Chruch impossed dogma saw to that.

-

I can't find the passage I was looking for, it was about God and God alone being judge... so this one will have to do:

John 12:47 - And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

-

PS: The world is ready to accept gay marriage and addoption, look to Europe, we're doing it... its the backward states of the US that won't :)

Even though I am on your side … this really has been argued about 1k posts back

Leading neo and some of the others to admit that lev is silly and shouldn’t be considered (also the fact that the new testament … sometimes debunks the old)
Weather u believe it or not … its been covered

Lol um it was a pleasure fest way before current media (take a look at both the greek and the roman culture) its been a pleasure fest for as long as its been pleasurable

Yup, and it is a pleasure fest for our closest genetic neighboors too. =) And for pretty much all intelligent mammals.

Yup, and it is a pleasure fest for our closest genetic neighboors too. =) And for pretty much all intelligent mammals.
Very good point :) (unless someone in this thread like the evolution thread is "offended" by being compared to primates) LOL

You miss the point. What religous significnce does it have which parts we call the 10 comandments and which we dont. The Bible makes it clear they are all from God and the New Testement makes it clear which parts of the old testement are relevent and not. So why do we need to worry about one specifc set of laws. If I was to say one set you would imidately dismiss me and if I said the other you would imidaetly dismiss me so either way you will opose. It rearly does not matter which part is called "10 commandments" and which isnt. God never says to moses "These are my 10 commandments" that is just a name they got on acount of there being 10 and commandments.

Just not paying attention, are you?

Exodus 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

God clearly states that the first set of commandments were not the ones he gave Moses. What Moses said, was not what God told him to say - and THAT is the list you posted.

Further - Exodus 34 then continues to give us the Commandments that God DID intend Moses to reveal - and you don't accept those ones!

Further - Exodus 34 then continues to give us the Commandments that God DID intend Moses to reveal - and you don't accept those ones!
All to prove that god is one silly fictional charicter :p

well, if the males were like Neo Cannen, it would be truly frightening.

But if the males were like Grave n Idle or Dempublicent, or Harktopia, or Sacred Flames...that would be pretty cool. Could guarantee that their kids are likely to learn how to think for themselves and be loved for whoever they are....

Why thank you. I think it is hard to imagine a greater compliment.

:)

All to prove that god is one silly fictional charicter :p

Hey - I didn't say I believed the story... but if Neo is going to tell it, he might as well at least get the story straight, no?

:)

Hey - I didn't say I believed the story... but if Neo is going to tell it, he might as well at least get the story straight, no?

:)
Yup it is an intresting story (reason I have read it a few times) :p full of fights and battles and sinners geting stoned

Dont forget the song of soloman (isent it song of songs in some bibles?) I forget

either way very erotic :)

Yup it is an intresting story (reason I have read it a few times) :p full of fights and battles and sinners geting stoned

Dont forget the song of soloman (isent it song of songs in some bibles?) I forget

either way very erotic :)

The Song of Solomon... yes, don't get me started... some fairly explicit text, for a religious work... (the man puts his hand on the womans hole (the KJV adds in italics IN THE DOOR... but that's not in the Hebrew)... and her 'bowels are moved for him'... so, she get's wet...

Song of Solomon 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him".

I like Psalms, also.

Have you ever read Psalm 109? It is David, mad at the poeple who oppose him... and he basically asks god to grant him a 'hex' on one poor guy... that basically adds up to "I hope you die, I hope you lose your job, I hope your children have nowhere to live, and have to find food in the streets, I hope someone takes all your money, I hope people break all your stuff, I hope your name is forgotten, I hope that the sins of your parents be held against you..."

Ah, David... what a great example to us all... just FULL of christian compassion, no?

The Song of Solomon... yes, don't get me started... some fairly explicit text, for a religious work... (the man puts his hand on the womans hole (the KJV adds in italics IN THE DOOR... but that's not in the Hebrew)... and her 'bowels are moved for him'... so, she get's wet...

Song of Solomon 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him".

I like Psalms, also.

Have you ever read Psalm 109? It is David, mad at the poeple who oppose him... and he basically asks god to grant him a 'hex' on one poor guy... that basically adds up to "I hope you die, I hope you lose your job, I hope your children have nowhere to live, and have to find food in the streets, I hope someone takes all your money, I hope people break all your stuff, I hope your name is forgotten, I hope that the sins of your parents be held against you..."

Ah, David... what a great example to us all... just FULL of christian compassion, no?
Wow I see where the basis of a lot of the roman church attitude comes from :p you piss us off we will ask god to smote you sinner lol

oh and I love from solomon "Her breasts were like towers" lol

Well, if it has been covered that leads nicely to my next point :)

What right do people how claim to be following scripture to the letter and oppressing people because they contravene it, to disapply scripture that they (the discriminators) don't wish to abide by?

-

And... Lev. wasn't the core of my arguement :) just a piece of it... I mean... in a 1 - 10 page thread you can say you should read it before you post... but in a 300+ page one... its not something that is practical if you feel you have something to contribute :)

-

Now... heres a point about christianity that I've been questioning ever since I read Paradise Lost:

Man has freewill - this means he can sin

and this is what you will see ferverant dogmatists (read certain types of religous people ie. the devout who want everyone else to think like they do) say... however...

This freewill is not so free... because if God is all knowing and powerful, then he is aware of how this freewill will direct people and thus he is complicite in all sins.

-

Now, the ultimate question of faith... God created EVERYTHING and God is all holy and beyond any act of evil... so...

How did the ultimate purity lead to the creation of evil? Its not Lucifer's fault... God destined him to be Satan... ergo... God is not love, God is a purely political animal.

Well, I'm still waiting on answers to questions and comments I posted back on like page 327. I'll even re-post them if you like.
Starting to look, to me at least, like Neo Cannen is specificly avoiding my arguments for gay marriage, in that they are religious, like those against it.

Well, I'm still waiting on answers to questions and comments I posted back on like page 327. I'll even re-post them if you like.
Starting to look, to me at least, like Neo Cannen is specificly avoiding my arguments for gay marriage, in that they are religious, like those against it.

Please Repost the questions or telegram them to me, either way I will answer

No its not. The link i am making is between the sin and marriage. The idea of homosexual marriage is intrinsicly linked to homosexual sex in the same way that murder is linked to an area where you are allowed to kill. If you cant see my logic then I pity you.

Wow, way to show your maturity.
For shame Neo, WWJD?

Well, I'm still waiting on answers to questions and comments I posted back on like page 327. I'll even re-post them if you like.
Starting to look, to me at least, like Neo Cannen is specificly avoiding my arguments for gay marriage, in that they are religious, like those against it.

It's a pattern. Neo ignores any comments that actually might make him challenge his weak faith. Then, in several pages when someone says "Hey, I posted that," he says "post it again, please." Then, when they post it again, he ignores it again...

Thats a spurious arguement... Remember... the most important words from God are the ten commandmants - marriage was a civil institution nothing else - God forbid killing (I notice a lot of right wing religous folks are VERY supportive of capital punishment...) but he didn't forbid gays.

Ok then Neo-C.

Look to page 317 of this discussion, post number 4750.

That will give you some questions, comments AND a specific challenge to you personally. It will also point you in the direction of two previous posts I have made, where you have ALSO left questions unanswered.

I really WOULD appreciate answers, as I have now two or three times asked you for them, and each time you say 'post them again'. When I then post and point you in their direction, you then ignore me again. Of course, perhaps you just don't read back through previous posts, but I really can't believe that as it is something that you often tell people to do yourself.

As I have said before to you.

If you are afraid to answer, can't answer or don't know the answer then say so. Just be grown up about it and admit it.

Meadsville -

That's the first time anybody has said that about me :) To be honest, I would dearly love to adopt a kid. It would really mean a lot to me to be able to look after somebody. I just couldn't do babies or toddlers with my disability. This is, I think, getting onto a different kettle of worms though :p

*hugs Meadsville* :fluffle:
Thankyou :D

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"?

Is this the question that you wanted? If so I will begin

Firstly we look at what you are saying: -

1. The world is characterized by vast amounts of intensive and extensive suffering and evil.
2. After enduring a life of hardship and pervasive suffering, many (if not most) humans will end up in hell, where they will be actively tortured forever and ever.
3. All of this was known ahead of time by God, before He had even created ANYTHING or ANYONE.
4. For some reason or motive, He "went ahead" with the plan anyway, but could have chosen to not implement it (or to start a different one altogether) or to interrupt it before it "went bad".

We know all of these facts to be true. What we dont know is the motive. What you are saying here is that "we cannot imagine a 'reason or motive' that would be 'big enough' for God to let this happen". You then go on to sugest that there is no reason or motive as we cannot imagine it. Yet you cant assume that while admiting that you cannot understand it. We cannot jump from "unknown motive" to "judgement of unknown motive" as that is flawed.

Your arguement is this is it not?

a. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, and therefore should have the will and the ability to eliminate evil and/or suffering.

b. Such a god would be obligated by His/Her/Its/Their ethics to eliminate evil and suffering (i.e. there is no adequate reason for it to be allowed to eventuate/continue);

c. Evil and suffering ostensibly occur.

There is a flaw. And that is point B. Since we cannot even conceive of all the possible "permissible reasons" that would render evil "justifiable", we cannot therefore show that there are no such reasons. We can perhaps show that all historical proposed "reasons" are inadequate so far, but this is a far cry from showing that any future conceivable one would likewise fail. And it is possible to see positive outcomes of evils now so there is nothing to stop me saying that all suffering in the extremely long term will benefit greatly. I hope this helps.

By what right do you, church, government or anybody else have to tell me that I can't be who and what I am? That is an infringement on basic human rights. What are you/they? Big Brother?

The Church has been responsible for more 'Sin' (war, killing, murder, witch trials, theft etc etc) down the ages - all in the name of 'God' - that pretty much any organisation. Do you HONESTLY believe that the church is in a position to judge anybody? Especially given your comment above about judging not - if you are not to judge then what gives you the right to say that I sin because of what I do?

The use of the word "Judge" in this context is key. The Bible says "Judge not or you will be judged". What this means is do not go around thinking or saying that you are better than someone else because you sin less or they sin more. The Bible is clear that sin is sin and no one person is better/worse than any other (except Jesus). What it also means is that you should not punish people for sin. You can punish them because they have broken the law of the land or if you are a parent and you punish your child but you cannot punish or persecute anyone for any SIN. That is Gods job alone. The Bible however says nothing about telling people what is and isnt a sin. Jesus points out many times what is and isn't a sin and he encourages that knowlegdge to be spread. However that knowledge must be walked with a thin line. You must make sure people are aware but not point it out knowingly when they are sinning. That is persecution. I dont go around saying to any homosexuals I see "Fagg! Fagg" (in the US)" or "Puff! Puff! (In the UK)". Thats judging and it is not my place. I have every right to explain what is and isnt a sin but I have no right to judge. That is God's job alone. If I have been seen to be judging on the forum then I apologise. I was simpley doing my best to explain my beliefs and why I hold them.

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


1) You dont deserve any mistreatment. Christianity agrees with the love the sinner hate the sin idea. It is how God treats us and so how we should treet each other.


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


2) God has the right to judge over humans because he IS GOD. He is the perfect, completely powerful, all loving, all merciful (lots of descripive language etc) being. He created us, he has rights to say how we live our lives as it is how he intended. He is the only one with the right to judge and not be hypocritical as he understands beyond us and has never sinned. Its not like he lived a sheltered life either. He has come to Earth. He knew some of the worst suffering by the most barbaric means known to man. There is nothing in how God is described in the Bible to sugest that he is not fit to judge. (Note this is what Christians believe, obviously if you are not a Christian you dont agree with this but anyhow)


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.


3) Every religion, every nation, every company, every person proberbly has a part of their past they would like to forget/do diffrently etc. It is unfair to judge anyone/thing for their past acts alone. People often say "Religons have caused so many terrible things" when actually its the religous followers that cause these things. Religions themselves are belief systems in the supernautral and a moral code of eithics and a lifestyle ideal and it is unfair to say "All religion is bad" by the fact that in the past people have thrown aside parts of the ideals to go do terrible things. And as I have said, it is not for religous followers to "Judge" sin. That is God's job. However Christians can explain what is and isnt a sin but they must do so to the point of not judging. That is a thin line to walk and many Christians do fall of it from time to time.


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 hope this helps.

3) Every religion, every nation, every company, every person proberbly has a part of their past they would like to forget/do diffrently etc. It is unfair to judge anyone/thing for their past acts alone. People often say "Religons have caused so many terrible things" when actually its the religous followers that cause these things. Religions themselves are belief systems in the supernautral and a moral code of eithics and a lifestyle ideal and it is unfair to say "All religion is bad" by the fact that in the past people have thrown aside parts of the ideals to go do terrible things. And as I have said, it is not for religous followers to "Judge" sin. That is God's job. However Christians can explain what is and isnt a sin but they must do so to the point of not judging. That is a thin line to walk and many Christians do fall of it from time to time.

But would you not agree that it is important to *not* forget things and to study history so that history is not repeated?

It is a fact that religion injecting itself into government policy has caused a huge amount of atrocity. The reason for this is that mixing church and state does nothing but corrupt both sides. The government begins to protect only those of a particular religion and the church gets too politically motivated and subjects religion to political motives.

But would you not agree that it is important to *not* forget things and to study history so that history is not repeated?

It is a fact that religion injecting itself into government policy has caused a huge amount of atrocity. The reason for this is that mixing church and state does nothing but corrupt both sides. The government begins to protect only those of a particular religion and the church gets too politically motivated and subjects religion to political motives.
Reminds me of the hot potato addage ... only takes a few burns to be wary of picking up that potato again ;)

But would you not agree that it is important to *not* forget things and to study history so that history is not repeated?


I agree it is important we dont forget these things but what I am saying is that I am fed up with people judging Christianity by the Crusades and other things. On an aside about the Crusades, it is rearly the Saracans more at fault than us. They were just attempts to get back lands that the Saracans invaded, Religon was part of it as it was a holy site but if we had done nothing it would be rather like if Spain annexed Cornwall (not that they would, but this is hypothetical) and Britan did nothing about it. Now I am not saying that the Crusades werent bad and evil, I am just saying that people often mistake them for Anchient Christian massacre of Muslims just because they were Muslims. When in fact it was just another territoral war. Saracans had invaded parts of what was then our land and we wanted it back.

The use of the word "Judge" in this context is key. The Bible says "Judge not or you will be judged". What this means is do not go around thinking or saying that you are better than someone else because you sin less or they sin more. *snip*

What it also means is that you should not punish people for sin. You can punish them because they have broken the law of the land or if you are a parent and you punish your child but you cannot punish or persecute anyone for any SIN. That is Gods job alone. *snip*

I dont go around saying to any homosexuals I see "Fagg! Fagg" (in the US)" or "Puff! Puff! (In the UK)". Thats judging and it is not my place. I have every right to explain what is and isnt a sin but I have no right to judge. That is God's job alone. If I have been seen to be judging on the forum then I apologise. I was simpley doing my best to explain my beliefs and why I hold them.

Very intelligently put, thankyou, I will respond to the above parts of your post - doesn't mean I'm ignoring the rest of it.

Right, so you are not allowed/supposed to judge people and if you are not allowed to punish or persecute them for any sin they may/may not have commited. I think, then, that it is fair to say that you should treat all people as equals - that follows logically to what you have said. Yes, fine you can explain I'm wrong for doing XXXX action, but you can't treat me ANY less (ie Judge) me for it.

If that is the case, then exactly WHY can the church get involved in the Gay Marriage issue? You can tell me I'm a sinner, yep ok, but you CAN'T treat me any differently for it (otherwise its persecution or punishment), which goes agains your doctrine. Doesn't it???

As a side note, I wish being called 'fag, puff, queer' etc etc were all I'd had to put up with from some people. Thankfully though, physical scars heal - unfortunately mental ones don't heal as fast :(

If that is the case, then exactly WHY can the church get involved in the Gay Marriage issue? You can tell me I'm a sinner, yep ok, but you CAN'T treat me any differently for it (otherwise its persecution or punishment), which goes agains your doctrine. Doesn't it???


The Church can lobby, that is their right. By telling the church they cannot lobby you are perscuting and if the Church raises enough democratic support then the government should listen to their concerms. But yes I see the points of many on the forum and I would like to now step back and agree with you. Banning Gay marriage would be a limitation of freedom and a persecution. The principal reason that the Church opposes Gay marriage is that by allowing it you are putting that sin on a pedistal and making it seem like it is right, which they believe it is not. To the church, the idea of gay marriage is rather like the idea of giving a murderer a specific town in which they may kill anyone they chose.

Ok, fair enough...lets not judge by the crusades then.

Spanish Inquisition anybody? Witch Trials? Holy Roman Empire? Northern Ireland?

While I agree that many atrocities have been commited by fanatics in 'the name of God', you have to think carefully about where they get their ideas from. From God directly...mmmm.....doubt it.

Hmm, maybe they got their ideas from some old book that has been written/re written/translated/re written/re translated/edited/modernised and so on and so forth over a couple of thousand years.

Lets face it, if you look hard enough you could justify whatever you wanted in the name of Religion (NB: Note I said religion and not Christianity), and many people have.

The Church can lobby, that is their right. By telling the church they cannot lobby you are perscuting and if the Church raises enough democratic support then the government should listen to their concerms. But yes I see the points of many on the forum and I would like to now step back and agree with you. Banning Gay marriage would be a limitation of freedom and a persecution. It is abhorrent to Christians but then many things the government does are. However I do not believe it should be called marriage or that Churches should be forced to partake the ceremonys in their buildings.
But that’s just it the government shouldn’t be ABLE to make laws that infringe on rights without specifically protecting others (I.E. Murder … Rape … so on and so forth)

Its not the church not wanting gay marriage it is the fact that actually passing the law should not be a possibility

The Church can lobby, that is their right. By telling the church they cannot lobby you are perscuting and if the Church raises enough democratic support then the government should listen to their concerms. But yes I see the points of many on the forum and I would like to now step back and agree with you. Banning Gay marriage would be a limitation of freedom and a persecution. It is abhorrent to Christians but then many things the government does are. However I do not believe it should be called marriage or that Churches should be forced to partake the ceremonys in their buildings.


YAY! :fluffle:

However...by refusing to allow such a thing as marriage (civil union/whatever) in their hallowed halls they ARE participating in Judging, persecuting and punishing. If 'All are equal before the eyes of God', then it isn't God that says 'no, you aren't getting married in my church' it's a HUMAN saying that. That HUMAN is therefore commiting a sin in the eyes of the church, by doing said judging/punishing/persecuting, and should be treated as appropriate.

Discuss :p

By the way - in case you have genuinely missed it - I will re issue my challenge to you.

IF you do not hate gay people, just the sex act itself, then prove it by coming out with me to a gay nightclub.

In return you can ask something equal of me.

Equal to be deemed fit by the good people of this board :)

But that’s just it the government shouldn’t be ABLE to make laws that infringe on rights without specifically protecting others (I.E. Murder … Rape … so on and so forth)


The Church argues that this law will protect the sactitiy of marriage.

IF you do not hate gay people, just the sex act itself, then prove it by coming out with me to a gay nightclub.


Thats rather like asking a Muslim to go and bathe in the Ganges with all the other Hindus when the planets aligned a few years ago now. A Gay nightclub is specificly for gay's. Why would a straight guy go there?

However...by refusing to allow such a thing as marriage (civil union/whatever) in their hallowed halls they ARE participating in Judging, persecuting and punishing. If 'All are equal before the eyes of God', then it isn't God that says 'no, you aren't getting married in my church' it's a HUMAN saying that. That HUMAN is therefore commiting a sin in the eyes of the church, by doing said judging/punishing/persecuting, and should be treated as appropriate.


Asking a Christian Church (that agrees with the interpretaition of homosexuality as a sin) to allow a gay marriage to be enacted there is like asking a Synogoue to be the base of operations for a Nazi rally. While Chrisitans may not have the right to determine what the whole nation does, they do have the right to decide what they do in their own church. I think you will agree thats fair.

The Church argues that this law will protect the sactitiy of marriage.
And again we argue that marriage sanctity is debunk as is

Along with being the LEGAL definition of marriage (almost every major religion is already recognized and being able to get married … by their rules …) Christianity doesn’t hold the corner on marriage

What I don’t understand is how you can hold a claim on everything that is marriage even beyond your religious bounds … you have full right to only allow marriage by your rules WITHIN your religion

But no one else currently has to follow just about any other rule EXCEPT the male female one (if people that have been divorced and not annulled can get married in a courthouse rather then a church and still be married … Catholics wont recognize it but that does not affect THEIR rights as far as the law is concerned)

The Church argues that this law will protect the sactitiy of marriage.

The Church does not hold civil marriage as holy, it holds religious marriage as holy. Why is it arguing for the sanctity of an institution that isn't even holy in its eyes?

Asking a Christian Church (that agrees with the interpretaition of homosexuality as a sin) to allow a gay marriage to be enacted there is like asking a Synogoue to be the base of operations for a Nazi rally. While Chrisitans may not have the right to determine what the whole nation does, they do have the right to decide what they do in their own church. I think you will agree thats fair.
YES you have that ABSOLUTE right to do what you want in ur church

Why cant you people recognize that we WANT THE SAME THING we dont want you butting into what we can or cant do. you are interfering with what we want to do in OUR CHURCH (so to speek)

How would you like if we came and imposed lets say muslem practices in your church because WE believed in them! (I am guessing not at all)

Asking a Christian Church (that agrees with the interpretaition of homosexuality as a sin) to allow a gay marriage to be enacted there is like asking a Synogoue to be the base of operations for a Nazi rally. While Chrisitans may not have the right to determine what the whole nation does, they do have the right to decide what they do in their own church. I think you will agree thats fair.

No one ever suggested that a church can't refuse to marry *anyone*. If a church taught that only people with blue hair could get married on Saturdays, that would be their right.

When we speak of gay marriage, we are *only* talking about *civil* marriage.

No one ever suggested that a church can't refuse to marry *anyone*. If a church taught that only people with blue hair could get married on Saturdays, that would be their right.

When we speak of gay marriage, we are *only* talking about *civil* marriage.
Lol we are thinking a lot a like today :)

Lol we are thinking a lot a like today :)

=)

thats the issue at the heart of it the CIVIL marriage, gays have pitiful rights and responcibilities in comparision with married couples... and thats not legally right to deny them what is avaliable to other people is discrimination (at least over here thats in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights) - really the chruch can go **** it self its when the chruch meddles in politics and makes moves to have enforced discrimination that attention needs to be paid to the chruch... and in the US I'd say they should get their tax excemption pulled for that kinda thing.

Thats rather like asking a Muslim to go and bathe in the Ganges with all the other Hindus when the planets aligned a few years ago now. A Gay nightclub is specificly for gay's. Why would a straight guy go there?

*sigh* You have much to learn. We don't do segragation anymore...

I actually know a very large amount of straight people who go to gay nightclubs. Why do they go...well....because it's a nightclub. They go to dance, have a drink (if they drink), chat and enjoy themselves. Why else would they go to a club?

*shocked look* Your not assuming that everybody in a gay nightclub...well....umm is going to try and pull you are you? Be realistic, please, you see there is this answer which goes 'I'm straight, sorry' which means people leave you alone...

Gay nightclubs are NOT in any way specifically for gay or bi people. Just the same as straight nightclubs don't only have straight people in them. You don't get checked on the door or anything (well, not in the UK at least). You may be asked if you are aware of what kind of club you are in, but that's all.

And again we argue that marriage sanctity is debunk as is

Along with being the LEGAL definition of marriage (almost every major religion is already recognized and being able to get married … by their rules …) Christianity doesn’t hold the corner on marriage


Out of the five main non Christian religions in the world (Islam, Judaisim, Hinduism, Buddaism and Shiekism (not all correctly spelt)) none of them support a homosexual union.

Extract begins

Hinduism

Pre-marital chastity ranks very high on the scale of values of most Hindus. There is strong religious and social pressure to control the senses, especially before marriage. In Hindu writings there is a marked emphasis on self-control with the sublimation of sexual urges before a person reaches the stage of the householder. There are punishments for transgressions.

The Hindu literary sources are remarkably silent on homosexuality but from traditional attitudes towards chastity and sex it follows that homosexuality at any stage of life is out of line with the standard norms and values of the varnashramadharma system. In particular, not to marry and produce children could be seen as a violation of dharma ("righteousness").
Very few Hindus remain unmarried. Homosexuality is not unknown but it is a taboo topic. The reaction to AIDS in India has been even stronger pressure to remain chaste.

Buddhism

Traditional Buddhism identifies only two types of sexuality: that of celibate monks and nuns and that of married householders engaged in normal (heterosexual) family life. For this reason homosexual relationships may be seen as unwise or unnatural. Homosexual activity would seem to most Buddhists to break the third precept of Buddhism - refraining from the misuse of the senses. They certainly see any uncontrolled desire as potentially destructive and unwholesome and Buddhism has always taught that self-control and chastity are a high and wholesome path. Sexual misconduct is a cause for expulsion from the monastic communities.

But Buddhists believe that there are no moral absolutes and that "right action" has to be worked out in whatever time, place and situation people find themselves.

The spiritual leader of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, has categorised homosexual acts as "sexual misconduct" which is "something that may be considered improper in terms of organs, time, and place; when sexual relations involve inappropriate parts of the body, or when they occur at an unsuitable time or place."

Sikhism
Maintenance of family honour is a dominant concern in Sikhism and sexual misconduct brings shame on a family. Sexual activity is restricted to its responsible use within marriage. This is consistent with the reference to lust in the Sikh scriptures (the Guru Granth Sahib) where it is cited as one of the five evil passions.

Sikhs have not written on the subject of homosexuality. Friendships in South Asian communities between members of the same sex are strong and in fact it is regarded as right and natural that only those of the same sex hold hands or embrace in public. But it would be totally incorrect for a Westerner to assume that physical contact between members of the same sex was indicative of any homosexual tendency.

Sikhs expect every man and woman to marry and have children. For a woman there is no respected or desirable alternative to the role of wife and mother. Sexual activity for both sexes must be confined to members of the opposite sex and within marriage.

According to Sikh belief, union with God is not possible while one is at the mercy of a wayward impulse. Any surrender to instincts incompatible with conjugal fidelity or with the proper role of men and women as marriage partners would be condemned.

Judaism

Marriage is considered by the rabbis to be the ideal state for any man and marriage is intended to imitate the relationship between Adam and Eve - one man and one woman - and for the fulfilment of the duty to have children. Under the Jewish system any sex outside of marriage is, strictly speaking, impossible to achieve since having sex is one of the three stages of marriage. By having sex with a partner one has already embarked on the marriage process.

There appears to be nothing in Jewish sources which recognises that people may be homosexual, only that they indulge in homosexual practices. The most influential text is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not lie with men as with women; it is an abomination", and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; and they shall certainly be put to death."
The Talmud, which was written over a period of a thousand years and completed in the sixth century, considers whether or not two men should be alone together but decides that it is acceptable because "Jews do not behave in such a way". Interestingly, by the sixteenth century and the writing of the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Joseph Caro advises that, owing to current standards of behaviour amongst some people, it would be wise for two men not to be alone together.

Jeffrey Satinover, himself a Jew, notes:
"On the basis of the Pentateuch, the Talmud treats all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, unequivocally as sins, though it makes careful distinctions concerning their varying severity. Lesbianism, for example is treated as a less severe sin than male homosexuality; the various Talmudic discussions concerning lesbianism view it as less of a threat to family formation and stability than the always potentially rogue male sexuality."

"Thus Rabbinic discussions of homosexuality begin with the fact of its sinfulness and moral unacceptability but quickly make two important points. First, as in all matters pertaining to human failings, a strict distinction must be maintained between the sin and the person...
Second, the Rabbinic discussions make a refined distinction as to the degree of culpability that individuals bear for their homosexual behaviour, depending on the situation."

Islam

Excess in sexual relations is one of the root vices identified by Islam. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate physical union between a man and a woman to express their love and commitment to each other. The result of sexual intercourse, procreation, is the contribution which human beings make towards the continuation of God's creation.

Islam prohibits sex outside marriage. Marriage - which can only be between a man and a woman - is the place within which both the emotional and creative power of sexual intercourse can be controlled. Islam holds that when there is excess or deficiency in the desire for sexual intercourse an imbalance can occur in the personality. Excess overpowers reason and leads to adultery, fornication and other mortal sins.

Islam forbids homosexual and lesbian relations. Islam views such relations as unnatural and a deviation from the norm. Specific mention is made of its practice in the Quran where Lot warns against the practice of homosexuality: "What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84).

Sodomy is considered to be an act against one's natural disposition ('asl-al-fitra) because it is considered to be sex merely to satisfy one's passion and performed with part of the body for which sexual intercourse was not created. It also includes anal sex with one's wife. All Muslim jurists agree that sodomy is a sexual offence though they differ as to its appropriate punishment.

Extract ends


What I don’t understand is how you can hold a claim on everything that is marriage even beyond your religious bounds … you have full right to only allow marriage by your rules WITHIN your religion


If Christianity is the majoritity (Which it is in the US) and the sanctitiy of its marrige is theatened by this bill (which it is) then they have every right to lobby and be listened to.

You said that if any law had to be passed that persecutes a minority it must defend a majority. I explained that Christianity is said majority which is being protected here. They desereve the legal right to not allow Gays to practice the ceremony in there church, and they have the right to lobby and be listened to.

Out of the five main non Christian religions in the world (Islam, Judaisim, Hinduism, Buddaism and Shiekism (not all correctly spelt)) none of them support a homosexual union.

Extract begins

Hinduism

Pre-marital chastity ranks very high on the scale of values of most Hindus. There is strong religious and social pressure to control the senses, especially before marriage. In Hindu writings there is a marked emphasis on self-control with the sublimation of sexual urges before a person reaches the stage of the householder. There are punishments for transgressions.

The Hindu literary sources are remarkably silent on homosexuality but from traditional attitudes towards chastity and sex it follows that homosexuality at any stage of life is out of line with the standard norms and values of the varnashramadharma system. In particular, not to marry and produce children could be seen as a violation of dharma ("righteousness").
Very few Hindus remain unmarried. Homosexuality is not unknown but it is a taboo topic. The reaction to AIDS in India has been even stronger pressure to remain chaste.

Buddhism

Traditional Buddhism identifies only two types of sexuality: that of celibate monks and nuns and that of married householders engaged in normal (heterosexual) family life. For this reason homosexual relationships may be seen as unwise or unnatural. Homosexual activity would seem to most Buddhists to break the third precept of Buddhism - refraining from the misuse of the senses. They certainly see any uncontrolled desire as potentially destructive and unwholesome and Buddhism has always taught that self-control and chastity are a high and wholesome path. Sexual misconduct is a cause for expulsion from the monastic communities.

But Buddhists believe that there are no moral absolutes and that "right action" has to be worked out in whatever time, place and situation people find themselves.

The spiritual leader of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, has categorised homosexual acts as "sexual misconduct" which is "something that may be considered improper in terms of organs, time, and place; when sexual relations involve inappropriate parts of the body, or when they occur at an unsuitable time or place."

Sikhism
Maintenance of family honour is a dominant concern in Sikhism and sexual misconduct brings shame on a family. Sexual activity is restricted to its responsible use within marriage. This is consistent with the reference to lust in the Sikh scriptures (the Guru Granth Sahib) where it is cited as one of the five evil passions.

Sikhs have not written on the subject of homosexuality. Friendships in South Asian communities between members of the same sex are strong and in fact it is regarded as right and natural that only those of the same sex hold hands or embrace in public. But it would be totally incorrect for a Westerner to assume that physical contact between members of the same sex was indicative of any homosexual tendency.

Sikhs expect every man and woman to marry and have children. For a woman there is no respected or desirable alternative to the role of wife and mother. Sexual activity for both sexes must be confined to members of the opposite sex and within marriage.

According to Sikh belief, union with God is not possible while one is at the mercy of a wayward impulse. Any surrender to instincts incompatible with conjugal fidelity or with the proper role of men and women as marriage partners would be condemned.

Judaism

Marriage is considered by the rabbis to be the ideal state for any man and marriage is intended to imitate the relationship between Adam and Eve - one man and one woman - and for the fulfilment of the duty to have children. Under the Jewish system any sex outside of marriage is, strictly speaking, impossible to achieve since having sex is one of the three stages of marriage. By having sex with a partner one has already embarked on the marriage process.

There appears to be nothing in Jewish sources which recognises that people may be homosexual, only that they indulge in homosexual practices. The most influential text is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not lie with men as with women; it is an abomination", and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; and they shall certainly be put to death."
The Talmud, which was written over a period of a thousand years and completed in the sixth century, considers whether or not two men should be alone together but decides that it is acceptable because "Jews do not behave in such a way". Interestingly, by the sixteenth century and the writing of the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Joseph Caro advises that, owing to current standards of behaviour amongst some people, it would be wise for two men not to be alone together.

Jeffrey Satinover, himself a Jew, notes:
"On the basis of the Pentateuch, the Talmud treats all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, unequivocally as sins, though it makes careful distinctions concerning their varying severity. Lesbianism, for example is treated as a less severe sin than male homosexuality; the various Talmudic discussions concerning lesbianism view it as less of a threat to family formation and stability than the always potentially rogue male sexuality."

"Thus Rabbinic discussions of homosexuality begin with the fact of its sinfulness and moral unacceptability but quickly make two important points. First, as in all matters pertaining to human failings, a strict distinction must be maintained between the sin and the person...
Second, the Rabbinic discussions make a refined distinction as to the degree of culpability that individuals bear for their homosexual behaviour, depending on the situation."

Islam

Excess in sexual relations is one of the root vices identified by Islam. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate physical union between a man and a woman to express their love and commitment to each other. The result of sexual intercourse, procreation, is the contribution which human beings make towards the continuation of God's creation.

Islam prohibits sex outside marriage. Marriage - which can only be between a man and a woman - is the place within which both the emotional and creative power of sexual intercourse can be controlled. Islam holds that when there is excess or deficiency in the desire for sexual intercourse an imbalance can occur in the personality. Excess overpowers reason and leads to adultery, fornication and other mortal sins.

Islam forbids homosexual and lesbian relations. Islam views such relations as unnatural and a deviation from the norm. Specific mention is made of its practice in the Quran where Lot warns against the practice of homosexuality: "What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84).

Sodomy is considered to be an act against one's natural disposition ('asl-al-fitra) because it is considered to be sex merely to satisfy one's passion and performed with part of the body for which sexual intercourse was not created. It also includes anal sex with one's wife. All Muslim jurists agree that sodomy is a sexual offence though they differ as to its appropriate punishment.

Extract ends



If Christianity is the majoritity (Which it is in the US) and the sanctitiy of its marrige is theatened by this bill (which it is) then they have every right to lobby and be listened to.

You said that if any law had to be passed that persecutes a minority it must defend a majority. I explained that Christianity is said majority which is being protected here.


If you are going to protect the sanctity why don’t you protect the whole thing?

Why do you allow people who are not annulled to get re married? Why are they allowed to get married out of church

Even if the major 5 don’t some might

You bring up this majority rule when by and large you don’t have control over the legal definition at all .

The state does

Keep your nose out of other peoples “churches” you wish the same respect

If Christianity is the majoritity (Which it is in the US) and the sanctitiy of its marrige is theatened by this bill (which it is) then they have every right to lobby and be listened to.

You said that if any law had to be passed that persecutes a minority it must defend a majority. I explained that Christianity is said majority which is being protected here.

This is idiotic.

I suppose we should ban homosexuals from receiving driver's licenses - because they are a threat to the sanctity of driver's licenses.

Let's see if I can get this through your thick skull:

Civil marriage != religious marriage

This is idiotic.

I suppose we should ban homosexuals from receiving driver's licenses - because they are a threat to the sanctity of driver's licenses.

Let's see if I can get this through your thick skull:

Civil marriage != religious marriage
He wont get it

I think the problem with the church in America is that they are weak, blind and misguided. They think that by outlawing homosexual marriage, that gay people will stop being gay. What they dont understand is that the civil union is just a way to protect people who are in a social contract with each other, a contract that exist whether or not it is recognized by the state. The civil union will not promote anything, just recognize the contract that already exist between two individuals as being binding upon them both. The real problem is that misguided conservatives believe they can legislate their own personal morality and enforce it upon the conscience of others. Of course, this always leads to persecution, but they are so spiritually weak, that they rely on the gov't to enforce what should be done through evangelism and the influence of a pure holy life, according to biblical theology.