NationStates Jolt Archive

Another matter of interpretation. Nearly all Biblical scholars agree that "Eden" is metaphorical anyways.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. It may have both sides represented, but there are whole schools of literalist scholars. I went to one.

Yeah... Exactly. I am christian, but I admit that I am not completely devoted to my faith. I feel that whatever God told people to put into the bible, was completely twisted and jumbled over thousands of years, through different languages. (Hebrew, latin, english, and all other european languages and many more as well) Also if it is not blasphemous to say so, I think that the "transcribers" of the bible could have placed their own values into the bible. Either way this opinion probably doesn't effect the arguement that the bible says "a man and a woman = marriage." Yes you are devoted to your faith. If you don't follow the bits that don't come from the faith, you are still fully faithful. Just thought that I would clear that up. I certainly will not beat my wife, or take slaves (well… it's a thought…), or check the bleeding or… whatever.

No I don't think people that ignore half the evidence are smart. I think that those who are ignorant of evolutionary claims and have no alternate explations for the evidence that evolutionary theologians/theorists spout as "proof" of said theory do themselves a disservice.

I think people who call those who propose a scientific theory "theologians" are ignorant of science.

Creationists clearly ignore over half of the evidence - namely, anything they can't explain away.

And there are many who are ignorant of the theory of evolution who support it, just like there are many - like you - who oppose it without actually researching the *actual* theory.

If you believe Charles Darwin, there is evidence of a Creator, see Michael Behe's book entitled "Darwins Black Box" for further explanation of irreducibly complex systems (things that couldn't evolve).

Intelligent design is not science, nor would "irreducibly complex systems" be proof of a creator.

As I said, belief in the existance or non-existance of God is an axiomatic statement - and is completely outside the realm of science. This is why actual science never claims to have proof either way.

how hav i missed the whole point of christianity? i was talng about chirtianity on the whole in my last section - sheesh. i am a bible believing christian and belive all of the bible word for word why shouldnt everyone else the hebrew for do not lie with a men the same as a woman cant be that different can it optherwise they wouldn't have said it

You are correct. Just goes to show that, however much you support abortion or gay marriage ;-) you can still be more Christian than someone who follows the rules.

Anyone notice how Bush is damn keen on gay marriage being banned - but not at all keen on helping the poor? I would say that a degree of socialism is a very Christian thing.

WHY are they called Fundamentalists when they MISS the fundamentals? Odd lingo.

Your first statement is correct, but the second is questionable. Actually, the Bible calls for us as individuals and the church as a whole to care for the poor and needy, not for a secular government to do so.

Actually, it does affect that argument. There is no statement of "A man plus a woman are the only form of marriage," anywhere in the Bible. It is all a matter of interpretation.

You have chosen to hold onto one idea that many other people feel could have been one of the "transcribers" own values and something that could have gotten twisted and jumbled.

What idea am I holding on to? I am saying that I don't find people's arguements about the bible legitimate, but that to others it might be very important. I am saying that I don't believe in the saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Please read the whole post instead of just "key phrase" lines that catch your attention.

Please see Exodus 34:6 and 7.

And you read the times where God completely flew off his handle with the Jews, and was ready to exterminate them and start over with Moses, immediately after he freed them. Exodus 32 & Numbers 14, if you are so inclined to look.

God has always been merciful even when dealing out justice. He looks for every possible reason to avoid destruction, but sin ultimately destroys itself. The is never "forced conversion" that is an oxymoron. Conversion is a change of the mind/heart, not a subversion of differences.

If he looks for a peaceful way out of things, then WHY did he constantly harden Pharoahs heart, and keep making him not let the Jews go free when he repetedly wanted to let them go free? And why did he harden his heart again after he let them go free, and then killed them? Doesn't seem very merciful to me.

And what's so merciful of causing David's soldiers to become infected with plague, and have their skin and innards rot and fall off for three agonizing days for a worthless census? Why did God punish them, and not Davidf? Why did he cause such suffering, and why did he make David play the sick game "Pick a Punishment"? Why did David let God decide which punishment to dole out, and why did God opt for the mass killing one?

The lesson of the book of Job is that it is that there is an extra-terrestrial trial of God and His government going on and that we don't always understand the how's and why's, that it is okay to question, but that we may not always get the answer or even understand it if it is given.

Yea right. The thing of Job seems more like a "You have me do whatever the hell You want done to him, and he'll still believe me" incident here.

The reality is that God is both complete just and completely loving and merciful.

Yea, tell that to the girls of Shiloh, the women and children of the Benjamites, and the soldiers he fucked over because of avid's sin of taking a census. Also, tell that tpo his baby, his daughter, and his soldiers that died because of the SAME David sinning.

We, as finite humans, myself included don't always understand where those to realities intersect and this is where faith comes in... I can see evidence of God acting justly and I can see evidence of Him acting mercifully and lovingly and sometimes I just have to accept by faith that every one of God's actions is actually an outpouring of both even when I don't understand how it all fits together.

Unfortunantly, what you see is a lie, as God in the Bible has repeatedly killed without mercy, killed without justice, or killed for the hell of it,.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. It may have both sides represented, but there are whole schools of literalist scholars. I went to one.

Whether you went to one or not is besides the point. The truth is that the vast majority of Biblical scholars are well aware that there are *two* separate creation stories in Genesis written by *two* different authors with different styles and *two* very different points of view. The two were eventually melded, but some contradictions and the stylistic differences still remain. If you wish to be a "literalist," you have to pick one of the two creation stories and discount the other.

Another matter of interpretation. Nearly all Biblical scholars agree that "Eden" is metaphorical anyways.

You cant just say "this part of the Bible supports my arguement" and then go on to say "the bible itself is innacurate" as that then invalidates your entire point. You claim Eden is metaphorical yet you are prepared to strech an intepretation of the actions of David and Noah to include homosexual sex. Tell me do you agree with the Bible or not.

how hav i missed the whole point of christianity?

You said that if you accept the idea that homosexuality might be wrong, that would make your whole religion a lie. This is an example of *INCREDIBLY* weak faith.

i was talng about chirtianity on the whole in my last section - sheesh. i am a bible believing christian and belive all of the bible word for word why shouldnt everyone else

Maybe because it contradicts itself? Maybe because believing the whole Bible word for word would mean that God condones evil acts and is fallible?

the hebrew for do not lie with a men the same as a woman cant be that different can it optherwise they wouldn't have said it

And here is someone who knows nothing whatsoever about (a) Hebrew or (b) translation.

For all those thinking that the idea of a loving God does not fit in with the genocide of the old testement, read this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

And dont just dismiss the source. Actually read it and then decide.

What idea am I holding on to? I am saying that I don't find people's arguements about the bible legitimate, but that to others it might be very important. I am saying that I don't believe in the saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Please read the whole post instead of just "key phrase" lines that catch your attention.

Maybe English is not your first language, but your post very clearly says "The Bible is flawed, but that has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman."

I think people who call those who propose a scientific theory "theologians" are ignorant of science.

Creationists clearly ignore over half of the evidence - namely, anything they can't explain away.

And there are many who are ignorant of the theory of evolution who support it, just like there are many - like you - who oppose it without actually researching the *actual* theory.



Intelligent design is not science, nor would "irreducibly complex systems" be proof of a creator.

As I said, belief in the existance or non-existance of God is an axiomatic statement - and is completely outside the realm of science. This is why actual science never claims to have proof either way.

And in my opinion, evolutionary theorists frequently violate the tenents of "science" thus making them theologians, when they propigate theories as truth and evidence supporting a theory as proof, they take the place of theologians rather than scientist. And, although irreducible complexivity is not proof of a Creators existance it is evidence that it is likely. "Actual theory" is no more than a statement of hypothesis (a belief/supposition to be tested) and from a scientific perspective can be considered only more or less valid than a competing theory and can never be considered a fact.

Your first statement is correct, but the second is questionable. Actually, the Bible calls for us as individuals and the church as a whole to care for the poor and needy, not for a secular government to do so. Bush is apparantly a Christian individual. The Bible encourages it.

You cant just say "this part of the Bible supports my arguement" and then go on to say "the bible itself is innacurate" as that then invalidates your entire point. You claim Eden is metaphorical yet you are prepared to strech an intepretation of the actions of David and Noah to include homosexual sex. Tell me do you agree with the Bible or not.

I am not the one arguing that my interpretation is the end-all-be-all. I am simply pointing out that Grave's interpretation of the David, Noah, and Ruth verses is just as valid as your interpretation of the Leviticus and Romans verses.

I agree with the *basics* of the Bible. However, the Bible was written by human beings, who injected their own points of view and got some things wrong. So, on many topics, I rely on the *point as a whole* of the Bible and on the guidance of the Holy Spirit above and beyond.

For all those thinking that the idea of a loving God does not fit in with the genocide of the old testement, read this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

And dont just dismiss the source. Actually read it and then decide.

Do know however that this particular website conveniently ignores and twists Scripture to try and make its point.

Do know however that this particular website conveniently ignores and twists Scripture to try and make its point.

In order to prove this dont just say it. Actually quote from it and prove yourself. Then and only then can you consider yourself anyway right about this. Slaging off the source is no good here without proof. Prove that it is twisting scripture and then make said claim. So far you have not done this.

And in my opinion, evolutionary theorists frequently violate the tenents of "science" thus making them theologians, when they propigate theories as truth and evidence supporting a theory as proof, they take the place of theologians rather than scientist.

*If* evolutionary theorists did this, you would be right. However, they do not. The only people talking about "proof" and "fact" are people with little understanding of the system - and these people are not scientists anyways.

And, although irreducible complexivity is not proof of a Creators existance it is evidence that it is likely.

Only if you (a) Ignore the fact that biology is not fragile as they would have you believe and (b) are coming from the axiomatic viewpoint that there is a creator.

"Actual theory" is no more than a statement of hypothesis (a belief/supposition to be tested) and from a scientific perspective can be considered only more or less valid than a competing theory and can never be considered a fact.

Wrong. One theory can definitely be more valid than the others - that is how you get accepted theories. I may propose a theory that things fall down because an invisible hand grabs them, but the scientific theory of gravity would be more valid.

You obviously have little understanding of science. *If* both theories have *equal* amounts of evidence, one can not yet be considered more valid than the other. However, there are not currently two theories with equal amounts of evidence in this case.

And *no* scientist has ever claimed that the entire theory of evolution is "fact."

In order to prove this dont just say it. Actually quote from it and prove yourself. Then and only then can you consider yourself anyway right about this. Slaging off the source is no good here without proof. Prove that it is twisting scripture and then make said claim. So far you have not done this.

I already did so *twice*. I don't feel like doing it again. It isn't my fault that you completely ignored it.

And you read the times where God completely flew off his handle with the Jews, and was ready to exterminate them and start over with Moses, immediately after he freed them. Exodus 32 & Numbers 14, if you are so inclined to look.



If he looks for a peaceful way out of things, then WHY did he constantly harden Pharoahs heart, and keep making him not let the Jews go free when he repetedly wanted to let them go free? And why did he harden his heart again after he let them go free, and then killed them? Doesn't seem very merciful to me.

And what's so merciful of causing David's soldiers to become infected with plague, and have their skin and innards rot and fall off for three agonizing days for a worthless census? Why did God punish them, and not Davidf? Why did he cause such suffering, and why did he make David play the sick game "Pick a Punishment"? Why did David let God decide which punishment to dole out, and why did God opt for the mass killing one?



Yea right. The thing of Job seems more like a "You have me do whatever the hell You want done to him, and he'll still believe me" incident here.



Yea, tell that to the girls of Shiloh, the women and children of the Benjamites, and the soldiers he fucked over because of avid's sin of taking a census. Also, tell that tpo his baby, his daughter, and his soldiers that died because of the SAME David sinning.



Unfortunantly, what you see is a lie, as God in the Bible has repeatedly killed without mercy, killed without justice, or killed for the hell of it,.

Perhaps it is you who have chosen to believe the lie though I won't be able to prove that any more than you will prior to Christ's second coming. I'd rather not argue with you about this further, not because I can't, but because there is a point where we will have to agree to disagree or simply continue repeating point and counter point ad neausium. Frankly, I don't think either of us benefits from that or at best it turns into a "he who yells the loudest and longest wins" sort of afare and you know I don't see that as either of us winning. I hope we can meet under more cordial circumstances else where.

I am not the one arguing that my interpretation is the end-all-be-all. I am simply pointing out that Grave's interpretation of the David, Noah, and Ruth verses is just as valid as your interpretation of the Leviticus and Romans verses.


Graves intepretation of the Noah and David verses only proves that homosexuality existed at the time, not that the Bible supports it. If you assume that the Bible supports what Noah and David did, you also asume they support drunkeness and adultery. As for Ruth, the word used is "clave" which in English means "To be faithful", and thus shows she is faithful to Naomi as Adam was faithful to Eve. There is no evidence there for lesbianism there.

Perhaps it is you who have chosen to believe the lie though I won't be able to prove that any more than you will prior to Christ's second coming. I'd rather not argue with you about this further, not because I can't, but because there is a point where we will have to agree to disagree or simply continue repeating point and counter point ad neausium. Frankly, I don't think either of us benefits from that or at best it turns into a "he who yells the loudest and longest wins" sort of afare and you know I don't see that as either of us winning. I hope we can meet under more cordial circumstances else where.

What second coming? You mean the second coming that happened after Jesus' death? The bible effectively states that Jesus has come already, and the end has come already. Mark has several verses that proves that he has come already, and isn't coming for a third time.

why should you have to keep making, for want of a better term, loop hole for yourself? if God knows evry thing he wold know this would be a big issue so Hhe would have talked about it in the bible and said wether it was right or wrong very clearly which i believ He did by saying it's wrong. now a it is clearly not in the bible anywhere saying homosexuality was ok then it nust be wrong. think bout it if you're a christian could Jesus have done it? or can you seriously ask the Lord to bless it? think about htis with an open mind and dont interpret it your own way

I already did so *twice*. I don't feel like doing it again. It isn't my fault that you completely ignored it.

I do not recall any quoting from this page. If you have ever studied history you will know that there is bias in everything of some kind or other. But just saying "this is biased and untrue" because of a sources providence is stupid. You have to look at the source itself and see what it says. Quote from the site and prove it to be biased in THIS CASE. The site produces hundruds of answers to hundruds of questions. You cant cast them all of as biased without reading them. You have to asses them for their individual merits.

Graves intepretation of the Noah and David verses only proves that homosexuality existed at the time, not that the Bible supports it. If you assume that the Bible supports what Noah and David did, you also asume they support drunkeness and adultery.

No, because these are *clearly* said to be wrong, whereas the possibly homosexuality is not.

As for Ruth, the word used is "clave" which in English means "To be faithful", and thus shows she is faithful to Naomi as Adam was faithful to Eve. There is no evidence there for lesbianism there.

Of course, you use the verse in which "clave" (not any other word for marriage) is used to define marriage.

See the problem? It is all a matter of interpretation.

What second coming? You mean the second coming that happened after Jesus' death? The bible effectively states that Jesus has come already, and the end has come already. Mark has several verses that proves that he has come already, and isn't coming for a third time.

Care to support this? I must say the sun looks like its still in the sky. There still seems to be stars in the sky although living near London, all the lights block them out most of the time.

I do not recall any quoting from this page. If you have ever studied history you will know that there is bias in everything of some kind or other. But just saying "this is biased and untrue" because of a sources providence is stupid. You have to look at the source itself and see what it says. Quote from the site and prove it to be biased in THIS CASE. The site produces hundruds of answers to hundruds of questions. You cant cast them all of as biased without reading them. You have to asses them for their individual merits.

I don't have to.

I know that Al-Jazera is biased and leaves facts out and twists facts to make it's biased point. Therefore, I can discount all news from Al-J as less valid than news from other sources.

Likewise, I have shown that this site is biased and leaves out verses - twisting others to the point that they don't even make sense. Therefore, I can discount anything on this site that contradicts less biased and twisted interpretation.

No, because these are *clearly* said to be wrong, whereas the possibly homosexuality is not.


Thats debateable. How exactly does the Bible make it anymore clear that Noahs drunkness is wrong than the suposed act of homosexuality his son had with him. Noah curses him for it anyway if it did happen, or if it was just him uncovering his nakedness.


Of course, you use the verse in which "clave" (not any other word for marriage) is used to define marriage.


Jesus quotes the same verse later in a passage on divorce and marriage. He says that a man shall be united to his wife. Not woman, WIFE. There is clearly a diffence in wording there.

why should you have to keep making, for want of a better term, loop hole for yourself?

I'm not making a loophole. I am making a decision on an issue in light of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

if God knows evry thing he wold know this would be a big issue so Hhe would have talked about it in the bible and said wether it was right or wrong very clearly which i believ He did by saying it's wrong.

God didn't write the Bible.

now a it is clearly not in the bible anywhere saying homosexuality was ok then it nust be wrong.

It is not anywhere in the Bible saying that small stitches are ok, therefore it must be wrong.

It is not anywhere in the Bible saying that breathing in through your nose and out through your mouth while running is ok, therefore it must be wrong.

It is not anywhere in the Bible saying that cutting your toenails is ok, therefore it must be wrong.

think bout it if you're a christian could Jesus have done it?

Jesus most likely did not get into *any* sexual relationships. However, it would have been very possible for Jesus to be homosexual.

or can you seriously ask the Lord to bless it?

Yes. I can seriously ask the lord to bless any loving, committed relationship.

think about htis with an open mind and dont interpret it your own way

Those two statements are completlely incompatible.

I am not gay, i am a strait girl who has several friends and relitives that are gay. and you know what they make some of the best couples. I think that gay marrage should be legial, you cannot get in the way of love. what should it matter if you love someone that is all that makes a difference. "Love as thou whilt" It doesnt matter what they look like, weather they are male or female as long as there is love, it is not a sin.

You cannot say that love is a sin, becides some people forget that the bible was written 1000 years ago by a bunch of chauvinist, homophopbic pigs. If all christens followed the bible to a t thay there wouldnt be a single soul left in the world that wasnt going to hell for one reason or another. Get over the bible, get over the concept that every act you do is a sin. Its not that way.

Care to support this? I must say the sun looks like its still in the sky. There still seems to be stars in the sky although living near London, all the lights block them out most of the time.


And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the cloudsof heaven with power and great glory.

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass*, till all these things be fulfilled.
Matthew 24:30-34
Do you see anyone from that generation? Do you see anyone who lived from that era living? If not, then this event has alreadfy happened, and Jesus has already come back.


And the letter from Paul to the Thessalonians

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain* shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1 Thessalonians 4:15-18

They're all dead, so Jesus must have come back already, and thus, his second coming has already happened.

Likewise, I have shown that this site is biased and leaves out verses - twisting others to the point that they don't even make sense. Therefore, I can discount anything on this site that contradicts less biased and twisted interpretation.

NO YOU CANT. This is ARROGENCE. You are basicly saying "I am better than them because they do X". You havent proven this from this specific case. If you have been to the site you will know that it produces hundruds of these answers to questions. Dont just go "I did it earlier", provide a link or quote from it and disprove it. You cannot discount everything the site produces on your beliefs that it is flawed. You have to read it first and then if you want to prove it flawed quote from it. If you want to prove Al-jazeria biased, you have to show examples not just claim it is because it is an Arab station. Quote and prove. Do that and I will listen. Childishly ignore and you are playing "la la la la I CANT HEAR YOU la la la". QUOTE AND PROVE. DO NOT GENRALISE.

*If* evolutionary theorists did this, you would be right. However, they do not. The only people talking about "proof" and "fact" are people with little understanding of the system - and these people are not scientists anyways.



Only if you (a) Ignore the fact that biology is not fragile as they would have you believe and (b) are coming from the axiomatic viewpoint that there is a creator.



Wrong. One theory can definitely be more valid than the others - that is how you get accepted theories. I may propose a theory that things fall down because an invisible hand grabs them, but the scientific theory of gravity would be more valid.

You obviously have little understanding of science. *If* both theories have *equal* amounts of evidence, one can not yet be considered more valid than the other. However, there are not currently two theories with equal amounts of evidence in this case.

And *no* scientist has ever claimed that the entire theory of evolution is "fact."

As I said to Dempulicents (if I didn't spell that right I apologize), we are going to have to accept, or at least I do, that we disagree on this subject. You are correct that One Theory is more valid than others, the methodology in arriving at which one to accept and which interpretation of "the evidence" we chose to accept, will have to remain a point of disagreement. On the basis of the evidence I have witnessed, I believe unequivocally in a Creator and that He has revealed Himself in the natural world though that revelation is now tainted and distorted by sin and that He has revealed Himself more clearly in scripture which, I believe and you do not, states both implicitly and explicitly that homosexuality is in fact a sin. I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject and as a result arguing with you on the subject will likely not allow me to "as far as it is possible with you (without violating the commandements of God), live at peace with all men." I hope to see you under more cordial circumstances elsewhere as well.

They're all dead, so Jesus must have come back already, and thus, his second coming has already happened.

Read revealation. I dont see any of the things described there having happened. We are still waiting.

Hey peeps ok ive got sumfin important to say
GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE so its wrong i mean wat stuped person thought ill shove my dick up that hole.... from will mckenize

NO YOU CANT. This is ARROGENCE. You are basicly saying "I am better than them because they do X". You havent proven this from this specific case. If you have been to the site you will know that it produces hundruds of these answers to questions. Dont just go "I did it earlier", provide a link or quote from it and disprove it. You cannot discount everything the site produces on your beliefs that it is flawed. You have to read it first and then if you want to prove it flawed quote from it. If you want to prove Al-jazeria biased, you have to show examples not just claim it is because it is an Arab station. Quote and prove. Do that and I will listen. Childishly ignore and you are playing "la la la la I CANT HEAR YOU la la la". QUOTE AND PROVE. DO NOT GENRALISE.

I don't have time to read pages and pages of BS, when I read several of your earlier links and demonstrated that they left out key verses that went against their assertions.

If you would like to go back to the earlier conversation and find it, feel free.

Maybe English is not your first language, but your post very clearly says "The Bible is flawed, but that has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman."

I apologize for being in highschool, but I was sure my post meant that I didn't believe in what the bible said about the issue, but that it didn't effect the viewpoints of others that the bible is correct. I guess I should be more clear about it next time.

I don't have time to read pages and pages of BS, when I read several of your earlier links and demonstrated that they left out key verses that went against their assertions.

If you would like to go back to the earlier conversation and find it, feel free.

You have a responsablity. You made the claim, you have to support it. Either that or retract it. You have to demonstrate it clearly with THIS link. You have no grounds to tar all their work with the same brush. Ever heard the phrase "all genralisations are dangerous, except this one"

If you're God, and you're posting on this board about homosexuality being a sin, I apologize now.

If you are without sin yourself, then I apologize now.

But, if you're not God, and you're not without sin, and especially if you're not a homosexual, you had best worry about your own salvation. There is more than enough sin to go around, and everyone has their own share.

As I said to Dempulicents (if I didn't spell that right I apologize), we are going to have to accept, or at least I do, that we disagree on this subject. You are correct that One Theory is more valid than others, the methodology in arriving at which one to accept and which interpretation of "the evidence" we chose to accept, will have to remain a point of disagreement. On the basis of the evidence I have witnessed, I believe unequivocally in a Creator and that He has revealed Himself in the natural world though that revelation is now tainted and distorted by sin and that He has revealed Himself more clearly in scripture which, I believe and you do not, states both implicitly and explicitly that homosexuality is in fact a sin. I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject and as a result arguing with you on the subject will likely not allow me to "as far as it is possible with you (without violating the commandements of God), live at peace with all men." I hope to see you under more cordial circumstances elsewhere as well.
Ok I am going to say this and it may draw flack

But you believe implicitly that the scripture says X

Well unless you can read Hebrew (and there are a few around here that can) you haven’t heard scripture you have heard a translation of a book that in itself was a “translation” of sorts (if you believe the premises that it was from god then it had to be “translated” into human terms)

Soo much room for error and social interpretation it is almost truly impossible to determine WHAT they meant. (And the quotes against homosexuality are some of the more vague out there) everything from the location to their word choice is under fire (read back a few pages …. Grave has some good look at actual word choice)

I know this has been covered before but so has your point so …

You have a responsablity. You made the claim, you have to support it.

Which I already have - and you already ignored. Why should I have to do it again? You have the responsibility to actually read the support I gave.

Either that or retract it. You have to demonstrate it clearly with THIS link.

No I don't. In order to state that a site tends to be biased, I don't have to demonstrate bias in every single page. I never stated that there could be no evidence, just that the site tends to be biased and leave out information - which I have previously shown to be true.

You have no grounds to tar all their work with the same brush.

What part of "tends to" don't you understand?

Ever heard the phrase "all genralisations are dangerous, except this one"

It is not a generalization to point out a fact - this site does have a tendency to leave out pertinent Scripture and be biased. That doesn't mean that it did so in this particular case, it means that there is a tendency there - which I have previously shown.

folkse, as i read through the post I realised that a simple question (Why is homosexuality a sin?) cannot fint it's simple answer.

First of all I am not a religious person. However, 'sin' is a religious term. So in terms of religion, homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so.

The fact that we all have sins (from a religous point of view) is irelevant. The guy did't ask whether we are without sin or not. He asked why homosexuality is a sin, and the answer is deade simple: 'cause the Bible says so.

All the other discussions about how the Bible is full of methaphors or put-of-date are irelevant. With regard to homosexuality, the Bible is very clear: it's a sin.

But then again, who really cares? Homosexuality is a reality of today and it cannot be denied or marginalised. There is no point in a religious approach towards homosexuality. It doesn't lead anywhere. Religion ceased a long time ago to be a useful approach for modern society.

Dinu

Which I already have - and you already ignored. Why should I have to do it again? You have the responsibility to actually read the support I gave.


1) You have yet to provid proof for this link. And also its not just me you have to prove it to. There are loads of newbs here who you are unfairly influencing by claiming and not supporting


No I don't. In order to state that a site tends to be biased, I don't have to demonstrate bias in every single page. I never stated that there could be no evidence, just that the site tends to be biased and leave out information - which I have previously shown to be true.
What part of "tends to" don't you understand?


2) In this case you do. Do you know how much work the team in this place does? There are hundruds of answers to hundruds of questions. "Tends to" is not enough. You have an obligation to do one of three things

1) Provide a link to your quotes
2) Re prove your point

It is not my job to support your arguement. That is your job


It is not a genesalization to point out a fact - this site does have a tendency to leave out pertinent Scripture and be biased. That doesn't mean that it did so in this particular case, it means that there is a tendency there - which I have previously shown.

It is not a fact. It is not a ceritanity. In this case you have to prove it or YOU ARE WRONG.

Well, I worked with one christian guy... who said he opposed gays (in general, but also specifically opposed gay marriage) because he didn't want them 'trying to bum him'.

(I did point out that, just becuase someone is gay, doesn't make them desperate).

I personally think that a lot of christians want to ban gay marriage because they don't like gay people, and would try to rob them of ANY rights... and marriage is one they think they can back scripturally.

Note: I know quite a few christians who are okay with gay marriage - I don't want it to sound like I think ALL christians are mindless homophobes.


Your third paragraph I can relate to. I'm not gay, but I'm pagan, and that has always gotten me in to arguements. There's a pagan association on the college campus I'm at, for example, and they've had a high quantity of discrimination from other students. The thing is, they don't sollicit their religion (where as Christians do), but Christian students keep saying they're "conforming the populas" into their "evil covenant". People ask me what I think and I tell them that they should shove it...course, then they get all mad and ask why I'm not on their side and I say because it's NOT RIGHT that people try to eliminate others who are different for only that reason--can we name someone who's done that in the past...*Oh, hello Adolf, how's your Nazi party taking off*. They took the hint, then egged my car *bunch of jerks*.

What drives me nuts is that people see certain things like the color purple or rainbows and they automatically assume that whoever has those things are gay. I've heard they are symbols and so forth, but they are also common colors and/or the refractive dispersion of sunlight. People forget that. And it always pi$$es me off. Especially my boyfriend whose favorite color is purple and always has been. Everyone made fun of him in highschool...it was no wonder he was voted most likely to kill everyone during the graduation cerimony :sniper:


Last I checked, marriage is regulated by states and not by the bible. The little marriage certificate you get doesn't really refer you to the bible either. Hmmm.

*finally, someone sensible!!*
I really wish everyone would realize that and get out of there fantasy worlds; they may think the Bible is the highest law, but they are forgetting the country's law and the court doesn't give a damn if you think your religion is right and everyone else is wrong (example: if you kill someone because God told you to, the court is going to rule you as guilty unless you have a REEAALLLLLLLY good lawyer who can make a jury believe you're insane; but you also have to speak with the DA's psychiatrist and s/he's the one who says if you are or not. Even then, you're going to get punished.).

Everyone is going to debate on this subject, that's a given. The purpose: to make everyone believe s/he is in the right. What people tend to forget is that EVERYONE is going to be stubborn about it.

For everyone who gets overly pi$$y about the subject :upyours:
Debate, don't condenm!
YOU ARE NOT GOD!!! Your interpretation of a scripture of any kind is only an INTERPRETATION!!! Remember that.

If you're God, and you're posting on this board about homosexuality being a sin, I apologize now.

If you are without sin yourself, then I apologize now.

But, if you're not God, and you're not without sin, and especially if you're not a homosexual, you had best worry about your own salvation. There is more than enough sin to go around, and everyone has their own share.

I will just now link back to a post I made before regarding Christian attitudes towards homosexuality. Reed it, it may enlighten you slightly


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.

Thou shall not shag a fish ;) ;) ;) , huh, doesn't it say that if a woman or a man has sexual intercourse with an animal, that the person shall be killed, and the animal shall be burnt?

1) You have yet to provid proof for this link. And also its not just me you have to prove it to. There are loads of newbs here who you are unfairly influencing by claiming and not supporting

I am not unfairly influencing anyone. Saying "this site has a tendency to leave out pertinent scripture and be biased" is a fact which I have already shown. It isn't unfair to point it out. However, anyone who wants to can go to the site and maybe agree with what they say. *I* have already looked at it and *I* have already found it to be lacking in pertinent information. You providing it as if it is true despite the fact that I have shown the site to be biased, and then yelling and screaming nonsense for two pages may "unfairly" influence someone, but pointing out that a source may be flawed based on where it comes from is not.

2) In this case you do. Do you know how much work the team in this place does? There are hundruds of answers to hundruds of questions. "Tends to" is not enough. You have an obligation to do one of three things

If my statement is "tends to" then "tends to" is certainly enough.

1) Provide a link to your quotes

I am running an RNA isolation. I don't have the time to go back through 300 pages of stuff. Again, it isn't my fault that you ignore any posts you don't like.

2) Re prove your point

Has already been done.

It is not my job to support your arguement. That is your job

Which I have already done.

It is not a fact. It is not a ceritanity. In this case you have to prove it or YOU ARE WRONG.

They left out pertinent scripture in their answer to "are women denigrated in the Bible." I pointed out that they quoted and attempted to rationalize that women are equal by pointing out a quote in which a woman gets treated the same *after* her period of uncleanliness regardless of which gender she has. They ignored, however, the verse *DIRECTLY* before it which states that a woman is unclean *TWICE AS LONG* with a female child than with a male one. They also completley failed to address the fact that a woman is required to demonstrate her virginity by bleeding on her wedding night, even though most virgins don't bleed. Both of these were pertinent to the question, both were left out. The latter I could excuse, since there is a lot of Scripture and they just might have missed it. The former is absolutely inexcusable and *obvious* intent to twist Scripture.

Theres only a short list of animals that you can't shag...

Oh and a point about the bible:

You can get away with any sex act... as long as you don't 'lie with them' so standing up and sitting down looks like its ok ;)

Read revealation. I dont see any of the things described there having happened. We are still waiting.

I thought you said Revelatuons was just a metaphor, but now you state it isn't metaphor, but is all literal. Which is it: all metaphor, half-literal and half-metaphor, or all literal?

Besides, Revelation was made by a WORTHLESS HUMAN, while JESUS SAID that the generation he left after dying would remain until he arrived again. Since they have all died and passed, we can safely assume one of ONLY two options: Jesus came back as said, or he lied and never came back.

I am not unfairly influencing anyone. Saying "this site has a tendency to leave out pertinent scripture and be biased" is a fact which I have already shown. It isn't unfair to point it out. However, anyone who wants to can go to the site and maybe agree with what they say. *I* have already looked at it and *I* have already found it to be lacking in pertinent information. You providing it as if it is true despite the fact that I have shown the site to be biased, and then yelling and screaming nonsense for two pages may "unfairly" influence someone, but pointing out that a source may be flawed based on where it comes from is not.


Tendency implies more than one. You have one proof and that is it.



If my statement is "tends to" then "tends to" is certainly enough.


Not enough. You cannot tar over seven years of work with the same brush on account of one idea. Genralisation


I am running an RNA isolation. I don't have the time to go back through 300 pages of stuff. Again, it isn't my fault that you ignore any posts you don't like.


Not an excuse. You have made the statement you have to support it. It is not my job to go rooting around to find quotes that support your arguement.


They left out pertinent scripture in their answer to "are women denigrated in the Bible." I pointed out that they quoted and attempted to rationalize that women are equal by pointing out a quote in which a woman gets treated the same *after* her period of uncleanliness regardless of which gender she has. They ignored, however, the verse *DIRECTLY* before it which states that a woman is unclean *TWICE AS LONG* with a female child than with a male one. They also completley failed to address the fact that a woman is required to demonstrate her virginity by bleeding on her wedding night, even though most virgins don't bleed. Both of these were pertinent to the question, both were left out. The latter I could excuse, since there is a lot of Scripture and they just might have missed it. The former is absolutely inexcusable and *obvious* intent to twist Scripture.

While this may or may not be the case, it is only one example. Please do not tar everything with the same brush. That is unfair. Say "On one occation the site appered to twist scripture" as that is all you have. Do not say "They tend to twist scripture" as you have only one example.

I thought you said Revelatuons was just a metaphor, but now you state it isn't metaphor, but is all literal. Which is it: all metaphor, half-literal and half-metaphor, or all literal?

Besides, Revelation was made by a WORTHLESS HUMAN, while JESUS SAID that the generation he left after dying would remain until he arrived again. Since they have all died and passed, we can safely assume one of ONLY two options: Jesus came back as said, or he lied and never came back.

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

A website explaining the points. Revelation is part metaphor, part real. Only hard study and patience will find what parts are real and which are not. However it is clear that at the end there will be no sun, and that Gods glory will replace the sun. I personally believe that this is a metaphor for a supernova that will oblitarate what little life there is on the surface of Earth after the tribulation.

JESUS REBUKED THE FIG AS AN EVIL ABOMINATION.
"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he was hungry.
"And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
"And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon has the fig tree withered away!"
--Matthew 21:18-20

JESUS COMMANDED US NOT TO EAT OF THE CURSED FIG.
"The next day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
"And Jesus answered and said to it, No man eat fruit of you hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it.
--Mark 11:12-14

GOD PROMISES TERRIBLE VENGEANCE FOR FIG-EATERS.
"Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten."
--Jeremiah 29:17

In summary, figs are the source of all the world's evils. They are a plague upon humanity and an abomination in the sight of the Lord. They're worse than Hari Krishnas.

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

that's obviously taken out of context.

that's obviously taken out of context.


oh goody...another fundamentalist selectivist.

The "context" for the whole Bible is at least 1900 yrs ago...

I'm inclined to help you out Neo Cannen but after trying to talk to people about things like this in multiple forums, I've concluded that most people just turn off their brains and don't bother listening or simply cast it all aside as something that doesn't affect them. Everyone looks for ways to make the bible and God seem contradictory so they can believe it's not true. They'll all come to realise in the end how true it really is.

If you do want any help, just let me know the point of discussion. I didn't bother reading through the 6000 posts.

This sounds like a long argument, but none of the above can be proved with the exception of the latter statement, which is partially true, although I would say that Paedophilia or incest are condoned either. The only sense in which that latter statement is correct, however, is that homosexuality is as forgiveable as David's murder and that in Noah's example that God is always looking for a way to save His creation that has willfully cut itself off from Him.

You may provide evidence that suggests that the Genesis account is not factual, but there is evidence that it is as well. The primary issue here is not what one of us can prove as much as it is what we choose to believe, and quite frankly in my opinion it takes a lot more faith not to believe in creation than to believe in it. If you'd like we can site all the scientific research on the subject and the opinions and interpretations of Creation scientists verses like Michael Behe and Ben Carson and the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientists until we are blue in the face and I don't think any of us is likely to change our mind.

I have to confess that, even though I admit I kind of butted into a conversation here, I am less than impressed with the lack of magnanimity and openmindedness in this crowd. If you would all prefer, I can leave. I'd rather not be the source of a fight.

Feel free to stay and contribute.

We may not agree, but you should feel welcome to speak.

Of course, If I disagree, I will argue against you, but that is the nature of this particular beast...

You were doing fine, until you indicated that there was 'scientific' evidence for 'creation' (as described in the bible). I can let the rest of it slide, as you have as much right to believe your creation story as I have to believe mine... but, there is still no evidence to support 'creation' - except for one slightly dusty book.

Flaws in your argument

1) None of these were praised by God
2) Aside from you passing refernce to philli there is no evidence Jesus was gay. If it is phillo or whatever affectionate love is, then what is that agape doing there at all?
3) The kissing thing is cultural, and was a sign of honour and respect at the time.
4) There is no evidence to support the idea that Noah cursed him for the fact that he told his brothers it just says "When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him he said (and then goes on to curse), nor is there that he had sex with his son. It says "uncovered his nakedness"
5) Only the most raunchy translation comes up with the errection idea. None other. The word is "Gradel" (or something v simmilar, I have bad spelling) which is also used for how much greater Soloman was than his other kings. Is it therefore not "possible" that what it actually meant was that he wept more greatly than Johnathan. And furthermore Davids 'record' of suposed inablity to control has not happened yet. Bahsheba is later as is his aquistion of wives
6) Even if Noah and David had homosexual sex, guess what THEY WERE SINNERS. Like every other human except Jesus they did things that were detestable to God. Your speculation that Jesus was gay is just that, speculation. Beyond your one plilli refence you seem to have no evidence. All you have proved is that men had faults, which is true and I have not disputed that.
7) "Conclusive" is rather a strong word for speculation. The pro homosexuality side here has nothing certian.

1) First - I didn't say they were praised by god, just that they were celebrated figures of the 'purity' of man. Also - I suggest you re-read your Genesis account, since Noah WAS praised, directly, by god. Or did you think he was saved from the flood because he was knocking up a boat on his weekends-off?

2) And the Judas Kiss. And the loving of your neighbours... in a book that clearly states that your 'neighbour' is a man. Oh, and Jesus said "Agape", Simon Peter said "Phileo". Jesus asked him if he loved him (like a master or friend, perhaps) and Simon Peter said he wanted to boink him. Pretty much.

3) Speculation.

4) Re-read Genesis.

5) David is famous for a 'passionate' disposition. It is revealed later in greater detail... but also alluded to earlier... for example, when David decides to take on the big guy, with nothing but a handful of stones.

6) Men have faults... even Jesus, I'm afraid. Only your blinkered reading of the text allows you to ignore it.

7) Conclusive is pretty much the word I want. You have made no argument that cannot be (easily) refuted, and have yet to make a single defensible point against any of 'this sides' assertions. That's pretty much what conclusive adds up to.

1) First - I didn't say they were praised by god, just that they were celebrated figures of the 'purity' of man. Also - I suggest you re-read your Genesis account, since Noah WAS praised, directly, by god. Or did you think he was saved from the flood because he was knocking up a boat on his weekends-off?


1) I meant their suposed homosexual actions were not praised by God.


2) And the Judas Kiss. And the loving of your neighbours... in a book that clearly states that your 'neighbour' is a man. Oh, and Jesus said "Agape", Simon Peter said "Phileo". Jesus asked him if he loved him (like a master or friend, perhaps) and Simon Peter said he wanted to boink him. Pretty much.


So Simon Peter may have been Gay. Not Jesus. The Judus kiss is clearly cultural, for the simple reason that Judus needed to look inconspicous when he was pointing him out. If kissing was not commonplace between men then it would have been fairly stupid


3) Speculation.


Rather like your argument.


4) Re-read Genesis.


When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,

"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

Genesis 9: 21 - 25

There is nothing there to suggest the curse was placed because he was a gossip. No differnce is made between telling his brothers and seing him naked.


5) David is famous for a 'passionate' disposition. It is revealed later in greater detail... but also alluded to earlier... for example, when David decides to take on the big guy, with nothing but a handful of stones.


The only evidence you have for Davids homosexuality is the possibility that he got an erection while with Jonothan on one occation. That too is speculation, you do not have certianity. The word used for said erection is "Gradel" (or something v simmilar, I have bad spelling) which is also used for how much greater Soloman was than his other kings. Is it therefore not "possible" that what it actually meant was that he wept more greatly than Johnathan. My point being that you cannot be certian he was talking about an erection.


6) Men have faults... even Jesus, I'm afraid. Only your blinkered reading of the text allows you to ignore it.


Actually by the fact that Jesus uses Agape, you have just proven that Jesus was not Gay. If you translate the "Love thy neighbourgh" quote as meaning "be gay" then you are very sad and I pity you. You are just trying to desprately pick holes in what is a great message


7) Conclusive is pretty much the word I want. You have made no argument that cannot be (easily) refuted, and have yet to make a single defensible point against any of 'this sides' assertions. That's pretty much what conclusive adds up to.

Definition of conclusive: Serving to put an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty.

You have not done this. Conclusive means beyond reasonable doubt, but there is still plenty of reasonable doubt that your points are true. And even if the David and Noah examples are correct all you have done is prove that homosexuality existed. God did not endorce either of these suposed homosexual tendencies and one of them (Noah if it was a homosexual act) was specificly condemned. You still have yet to find a positively endorced homosexual relationship in the Bible.

Homosexuality is a mental condition, it is an error, a mistake, an anomaly of the system. It is in no way natural.

But it isn't something you should abolish or fear, the natural order of selection and evolution will root it out over the course of time....

Homosexuality is a mental condition, it is an error, a mistake, an anomaly of the system. It is in no way natural.

But it isn't something you should abolish or fear, the natural order of selection and evolution will root it out over the course of time....

You have no proof that it isn't natural. Recent studies have found that it may be a function of influence on certain brain mechanisms that are highly susceptible during the formative years (until about five or six), allowing for the possibility that traumatic experiences (such as molestation) can account for later homosexuality (Time magazine, 2003). Further, the idea that one would choose to be gay in a society that is clearly slanted against such notions is preposterous. Does one choose his/her race or ethnicity? Do you think that the Greeks got up one day and said, "hey, I've got it, let's all be bisexual for a while"? I don't deny, however, that certain gay people, like other minorities, feel that simply because they are a minority, they must "recruit" other people to their cause, which doesn't necessarily "make" other people gay, but can confuse people who are still sexually maturing or may not be confident in their sexuality.


In response to the Noah debate, just as there's no evidence that Noah cursed his son for gossiping, there's no evidence (that I know of, I'm basing this on your quote) that he cursed him for seeing him naked. Besides, words and phrases in Scripture--such as 'lie with' as a euphemism for having sex--meant very different things then than they do today, so 'uncovering his nakedness' probably does not simply mean 'seeing him naked.' I won't speculate on what it does mean because I have no evidence or basis to support any claims I might make in that regard.

You have no proof that it isn't natural. Recent studies have found that it may be a function of influence on certain brain mechanisms that are highly susceptible during the formative years (until about five or six), allowing for the possibility that traumatic experiences (such as molestation) can account for later homosexuality. Further, the idea that one would choose to be gay in a society that is clearly slanted against such notions is preposterous. Does one choose their race or ethnicity?


The "born with" debate is over. We are fairly certian now that you are not just "born" a homosexual. And even if you are, the sin is homosexual sex, not being Gay.

I'm inclined to help you out Neo Cannen but after trying to talk to people about things like this in multiple forums, I've concluded that most people just turn off their brains and don't bother listening or simply cast it all aside as something that doesn't affect them. Everyone looks for ways to make the bible and God seem contradictory so they can believe it's not true. They'll all come to realise in the end how true it really is.

If you do want any help, just let me know the point of discussion. I didn't bother reading through the 6000 posts.

Thank you very much. I seem very much outnumbered these days and all help is apricated. Always outnumbered but never outgunded.

The "born with" debate is over. We are fairly certian now that you are not just "born" a homosexual. And even if you are, the sin is homosexual sex, not being Gay.

Neo, you started out quite open to other peoples idea's but have become ever more insular as this thread goes on.
The debate as to whether homosexuality is a trait you are born with or a learned behaviour (a choice) is far from over!
Most right minded people believe that homosexuals are born that way, no one would deliberately choose to live the life of someone who will face prejudice and persecution on a daily basis unless they have massochistic tendancies.
Also, you say that even if you are "born" a homosexual then that doesn't matter but homosexual sex would still be considered a sin!
By your reasoning that would make any sex a sin.
Heterosexuals have sex with partners of the opposite sex because they were born heterosexual and thats the way heterosexuals make love.
Equally then, homosexuals have sex with partners of the same sex because that is the way they were born and that is the way of homosexual sex.

How on earth can it be sinful to be, and do, what comes naturally for you?

Also, you say that even if you are "born" a homosexual then that doesn't matter but homosexual sex would still be considered a sin!
By your reasoning that would make any sex a sin.
Heterosexuals have sex with partners of the opposite sex because they were born heterosexual and thats the way heterosexuals make love.
Equally then, homosexuals have sex with partners of the same sex because that is the way they were born and that is the way of homosexual sex.

How on earth can it be sinful to be, and do, what comes naturally for you?

The "natural" idea is flawed too. We have already gone over this but I will repeat myself for you benefit

1) There is no way to know for ceritan if you are born gay or not. Certianly there is evidence both for it and against it.
A) Pro evidence - There are biological dissimalirties between homosexuals and hetrosexuals in the brain
B) Anti evidence - If you were born that way (Either it was genetic or by some hormone imballance in the womb) then you would expect 100% of twins where one twin is gay for them both to be gay. However this is not the case.

(and in the case of the Pro evidence I feel I should point out that no one has confirmed wether or not the brian disimilarites are the chicken or the eg, IE do they cause homosexual behavior or do homosexual behaviour cause them)

2) The idea that it is nautral does not square with biological ideas of nautral selection. While some have made the claim that homosexuality is a form of population control, there is no way for genes (if it is indeed genes that cause homosexuality) to know how large Earth's population is.

3) The idea that it being found in nature (IE animal homoseuxality) makes it unsinful is flawed. There are many animal behaviours which if transfered to a human situation would obviously be sins.

4) Even if homosexuals are born homosexual it is not "Being" a homosexual that is a sin. It is homosexual sex, which it is possible to abstain from. Just because you are born with a predisposition of it does not make it any more or less a sin to commit the act. There is evidence of the posibility that particularly vilonet individuals have genetic disorders which cause their vilonet behaviour, but that does not discount murder or serious injury as sins.

5) I am not saying just because they are born with it makes it a sin. I am saying that homosexual sex is a sin (according to the Bible) and that the fact that you are born with a tendency to be attraceted towards members of the same sex is not detracting from that fact.

Something that keeps changes what is "Certian" is not to be trusted. A few thousand years ago everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe (science not religion there, there were SCIENTIFC diagrams and they had observation to back them up). God never changes and the accounts never change. Scinece has not completely disproved religion. There is a possiblity the scientists failed to consider, what if God chose to work outside the laws of physics, which he could have done.

The accounts do change, Neo - you are just too blind to see it.

Would you like to debate the ramifications of Samayaza's actions in Enoch with me?

Right there THAT is arrogence. Assuming you have won. You havent. The debate is contnuing. All you have done is provided possible alternitve meanings to the passages that condem homosexuality but there is no way for you to prove for certian that your way is the way to interpret it, in the same way I have no way to be certian. Just admit that you have faults, I admit the same. I agree it is possible that all the refrences refer to male prostitutes and not homosexuals but it is equally possible that it refers to homosexuals. You dont know for certian, I dont know for certian. Admit please. Assuming you have won is arrogence.

No, Neo... not "possible alternative meanings".

Most of my work here has been direct translation from Hebrew or Greek - and isn't therefore providing an 'alternative', but showing the lie that underlies modern church christianity.

The book you read is not the same text that was written, it is a translation; a biased translation; and often, a bad translation.

You have no way to be certain because you haven't read the scripture in it's native tongue. Hell, you haven't even read the whole scripture in YOUR native tongue.

The error you are making, is assuming that I know no better than you do. You assume that your church tells you what is true, rather than what serves them best... and you refuse to learn the NATIVE scripture for yourself.

That is your choice. If it makes you more comfortable in your faith, feel free to be blinkered.

Just don't argue with others who really DO know their material.

I'm not being arrogant, Neo. Your side lost the debate.

But, look on the bright side, America just selected that kind of fuzzy thinking and deliberate blinkering as the nation's choice for another four years.

The "natural" idea is flawed too. We have already gone over this but I will repeat myself for you benefit

B) Anti evidence - If you were born that way (Either it was genetic or by some hormone imballance in the womb) then you would expect 100% of twins where one twin is gay for them both to be gay. However this is not the case.

How many times? HOW...MANY...TIMES???

The number of identical twins whose twin is also gay is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than one would expect, given the average incedence of homosexuality in the population, indicating a SIGNIFICANT GENETIC COMPONENT.

No, Neo... not "possible alternative meanings".

Most of my work here has been direct translation from Hebrew or Greek - and isn't therefore providing an 'alternative', but showing the lie that underlies modern church christianity.

The book you read is not the same text that was written, it is a translation; a biased translation; and often, a bad translation.

You have no way to be certain because you haven't read the scripture in it's native tongue. Hell, you haven't even read the whole scripture in YOUR native tongue.

The error you are making, is assuming that I know no better than you do. You assume that your church tells you what is true, rather than what serves them best... and you refuse to learn the NATIVE scripture for yourself.

That is your choice. If it makes you more comfortable in your faith, feel free to be blinkered.

Just don't argue with others who really DO know their material.

I'm not being arrogant, Neo. Your side lost the debate.

But, look on the bright side, America just selected that kind of fuzzy thinking and deliberate blinkering as the nation's choice for another four years.

ARROGENCE. You have not won. You are abusing your position of suposed "Supiror" knowledge to proclaim things from the rooftops and site it as truth. You have not won. There are possible alternatives. Do you rearly think you know better than the hundruds of people who translate the Bible for audiances. They do know native scripture and have translated it for us. Untill you accept that you may be flawed you are being arrogent.

The accounts do change, Neo - you are just too blind to see it.


Accounts may change the message does not.

I agree with you for the most part, except the part about verses which condone homosexuality. I still have yet to see any. Also I resent the idea that my translation is flawed.

Resent it all you want, my friend.

Your translation IS flawed.

And THAT has been PROVED repeatedly.

You haven't seen any verses condoning homosexuality? Do you type looking away from your screen?

How many times? HOW...MANY...TIMES???

The number of identical twins whose twin is also gay is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than one would expect, given the average incedence of homosexuality in the population, indicating a SIGNIFICANT GENETIC COMPONENT.

But not certian. If the cause of homosexuality was 100% genetic (the idea that there was some kind of gay gene) and thus you were born with it, then you would expect 100%. As it is, you dont find that.

Resent it all you want, my friend.

Your translation IS flawed.

And THAT has been PROVED repeatedly.

You haven't seen any verses condoning homosexuality? Do you type looking away from your screen?

1) Claim it all you like, doenst make it true. The NIV is cannon, that you cannot change without a large scale investigation into the team who did the translation. And if you did perform such investigation, do you know what you would find? An open homosexual on the translation team

2) There are no verses specificly praising homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. You have only provided examples that proved that homsexuality existed. Nothing in the Bible specificly praises homosexuality

ARROGENCE. You have not won. You are abusing your position of suposed "Supiror" knowledge to proclaim things from the rooftops and site it as truth. You have not won. There are possible alternatives. Do you rearly think you know better than the hundruds of people who translate the Bible for audiances. They do know native scripture and have translated it for us. Untill you accept that you may be flawed you are being arrogent.

And now we get to the heart of the matter.

Yes, Neo. I really do think I know better than hundreds of people who translate the bible for audiences.

Happy now? It's true... I really do think I know better.

And, you know what? I'm not alone! Go google-search some of the stuff we've been debating - you'll find that there are a wealth of educated scholars who ALSO believe that the bible is a bastardised corruption of the original scripture.

My translation attempts began because I wanted to see what was in the native scripture. I had no agenda, I had no bias. I came to an astounding revelation - which was that the 'church' endorses a translation of scripture that is horribly distorted.

The KJV on the other hand, was created in response to a king, who wanted to found his own state religion, who commisioned a set of scholars for that purpose, and who did not tolerate any straying from his view of the text.

Like it or not, almost every translation since that point follows the 'accepted' version that James commisioned - and so, all are flawed.


I accept that I may be flawed, I am just one man, and I have put years into my 'work'... but only 'years'... not a lifetime (yet).

However, I can see that my poor perspective has managed to cut through two millenia of distortion and lies... and I'm not the only one doing this 'good work'.

YOU, on the other hand, without ever even READING the scripture - see fit to tell me that I am wrong.

Now, THAT is arrogance.

Now, THAT is arrogance.

You know what I am not alone either. There are plenty of biblical scholars that agree with me too. Ever heard of the NSRV? Its translated from the oldest availble material and still suports me. And a fairly basic definition of arrogence is when you believe you are right and everyone else not only is not right but CANNOT be right. I would say you qualify for that. I have steped off a pedistal and admited that there is a posiblity that my interpretations may be incorect but you are unwilling to.

1) Claim it all you like, doenst make it true. The NIV is cannon, that you cannot change without a large scale investigation into the team who did the translation. And if you did perform such investigation, do you know what you would find? An open homosexual on the translation team

2) There are no verses specificly praising homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. You have only provided examples that proved that homsexuality existed. Nothing in the Bible specificly praises homosexuality

Rubbish, Neo.

SOME churches accept the NIV as canonical - but MANY do not.

Bob Jones University ONLY teaches from the King James Version, for example.

I don't want to investigate the roots of the NIV, since I consider it of absolutely NO IMPORTANCE. To me, it is the Reader's Digest of Bibles.

Nothing in the bible specifically condemns homosexuality.

Thus, your case lies dead in the water.

Feel free to leave it there, rather than trying to breathe life back into it one more desperate time.

You know what I am not alone either. There are plenty of biblical scholars that agree with me too. Ever heard of the NSRV? Its translated from the oldest availble material and still suports me.

I KNOW you are not alone, Neo.

I realise that the corruption has spread throughout pretty much the entirety of the church.

And, don't patronise me, Neo. I am the one of the two of us that has finished reading the bible... and I haven't limited myself to reading just one translation, or just one language.

But, you raised the point that, basically, I must be wrong, because I am a minority of one, opposing the whole modern christian church.

Well, there are others. It's not just me.

So - your argument that I, alone, oppose the translations you show, is baseless.

And, the thing here is... the church NEEDS it's accepted translations... it CANNOT allow different translations, because that would be admitting they were wrong.

Us 'independants', on the other hand, have no such criterion. I am free to try to get as close to the Hebrew/Greek as possible - since I have no 'canon' to conform to.

Start this over in a new thread. This one's just getting ridiculously HUGE.