NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope someday they would change

Not possible. They can't change. Ever. It's not a lifestyle, it's a genetic imbalance of hormones and testosterone.

unfortunately, your interpretation is not one shared by many Biblical scholars. i have read the passages in question, and my interpretation is one that is shared by many theologians and Christians. if you would like to provide specific evidence for your position that would be great, but simply telling people to read the Bible isn't going to accomplish anything.

One not shared by many Biblical scholars? Paul certainly agreed with it.

Galatians 5:2-6
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Indeed, this is one of the biggest themes addressed in Galatians. I know telling people to read it isn't going to accomplish much. But really, it's in there.

Romans 4:9-12
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Not possible. They can't change. Ever. It's not a lifestyle, it's a genetic imbalance of hormones and testosterone.

Actually they can. There have been actual practices where very attractive women *seduced* Gay men back to being straight

Not possible. They can't change. Ever. It's not a lifestyle, it's a genetic imbalance of hormones and testosterone.
At the moment I don't really agree with this, I have heard many proofs supporting and opposing it, and really have not sat to think it out, but the fact there are also "proofs" against it, would still leave me until I think about it at least, believing how I always have lol. I have even heard people say that really, reincarnation is true, and perhaps gays were a soul of the opposite sex, reincarnated/reborn in the wrong body. :)

Not possible. They can't change. Ever. It's not a lifestyle, it's a genetic imbalance of hormones and testosterone.
only partially true; the feelings of attraction to people of the same gender will never go away, but all current evidence suggests that most humans are actually bisexual...most "gay" or "straight" people are actually bisexuals who have, for whatever reason, confined themselves to sexual contact with only one gender. such people can very easily realize that they are actually attracted to whichever gender they originally excluded. their innate sexuality does not change, but the way in which they are aware of it or choose to express it may change dramatically.

I'm proof.

I would give anything to be straight, for various reasons.

I've tried to convince myself I'm not really bi, I've tried to change it.

But I can't. I was born this way.

Actually they can. There have been actual practices where very attractive women *seduced* Gay men back to being straight
please cite sources.

There are many, many points in the Bible where it is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin,No there aren't. There are quite a few parts that forbid male-male sex of some nature. And Paul clearly regards homosexuality as a punishment in one passage. But I know of no passage that states that homosexuality is a sin.

you do not have to agree with these, but if you say you are a Christian, you WOULD have to agree with the basic tenet of the Christian faith, the Bible, as the Word of God.(Yes, there are also many texts in the Bible that clearly state, no matter who was the actual author of each section, it is the word of God)I know some Christians who don't take the Bible as the Word of God. Presumably they don't believe those authors.

Cultural law regarding clothes and food are no longer nessecary either. God gave the isralites these laws to mark them out as people of God. But Jesus told us that all food is clean.I'm curious, where? And where did he mention clothes?

He ate fish and other things that the old testement said you shouldnt.

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

King James Bible Chapter 11

Fish are fine according to the Old Testement. At least according to the parts I've read. (I got bogged down somewhere around Chronicles.)

Then why did God condone polygamy?
Actually, God never condoned polygamy, he just never "outlawed"it. He condoned what he made, 1 man(Adam) 1 woman(Eve).

I'm proof.

I would give anything to be straight, for various reasons.

I've tried to convince myself I'm not really bi, I've tried to change it.

But I can't. I was born this way.
i don't want to force you to divulge more than you are comfortable with, but what you said surprises me. i have often heard gay people wish to be straight, or straight people wish to be gay, but i have never heard that sentiment from a bisexual...how can bisexuality be a problem for you?

I cant remember where exactly but there was an example of where paul, or another apostle was on a roof top and God appered to him and offered him some meat. Whoever it was replied saying it was unclean. God then explained that nothing God makes is unclean and told him to eat it. If anyone knows about where I'm talking about it would be helpful. And as for my earlier post, I had read it in a christian magazine. I cant remember the exact source but here is an example of where gay people have been made straight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1183596,00.html

To those who are taking all this stuff way to seriously, while religious texts may (or may not) be devinely inspired (depending on your beliefs), they were written be human men. That makes the books fallible. The men who wrote them could easily have worked in thier own beliefs. And then (at least in the case of the bible, the others I don't know) there aredifferent versions, which coulod easily be translated to whatever the translator wanted it to say.

So in conclusion, remeber devine insperation does not equal the exact word of God.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. people who say that Homosexuality is a sin or a choice are right-wing nutjobs who need to be strapped down and hit with large fish.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. people who say that Homosexuality is a sin or a choice are right-wing nutjobs who need to be strapped down and hit with large fish.

Can you provide proof?

A sin? Not really. I think it's rather unhealthy and pretty unethical to... well you know what I mean.

No there aren't. There are quite a few parts that forbid male-male sex of some nature. And Paul clearly regards homosexuality as a punishment in one passage. But I know of no passage that states that homosexuality is a sin.

I know some Christians who don't take the Bible as the Word of God. Presumably they don't believe those authors.


The whole basis of "sin" is something condemned by God, and many places in old and new testament it is condemned, well, the sexuality at least, then there are quotes in the New Testament where Jesus stated that even looking at a woman and lusting, was the same as having sex with her, so I would assume the same would go for a homosexual looking at a man and lusting, or being attracted sexually.
...Also, no real Christian would not take the Bible as Gods word, it is the ONLY basis for even being a Christian, they may be "nice" people, or "good" people, but they are not "Christian"people if they don't accept the basis of the Christian faith.

I am a Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin becuase God said so. Saying this, I have to admit to my best friends being gay (a guy and a girl, who I would give anything for). Somewhere back there, bottle asked Asuarati why being bi would make them wish they were straight. I live in a RURAL area, where any sexualy activity outside of marriage (1 man + 1 woman) is enough to be in affect kicked out of the community. In any place like that, even feeling a little attracted to the same sex is frowned apon, and there is always the danger of hate crimes. But that's just me....

To those who are taking all this stuff way to seriously, while religious texts may (or may not) be devinely inspired (depending on your beliefs), they were written be human men. That makes the books fallible. The men who wrote them could easily have worked in thier own beliefs. And then (at least in the case of the bible, the others I don't know) there aredifferent versions, which coulod easily be translated to whatever the translator wanted it to say.

So in conclusion, remeber devine insperation does not equal the exact word of God.

Right. It's not direct dictation. God didn't say, "Hey Moses, you can't end that sentence with a prepositional phrase." But it is certainly the word of God, not the personal views of the writer. If you don't believe that, cool, but as far as translations go, we have the original Hebrew, as well as the original Greek. Check them with the Dead Sea Scrolls- they've been copied dutifully for 2000 years- that's pretty good. As a general rule, you get in big big big trouble for screwing around with Scripture.

The one thing I liked was your argument was, "You may believe the Bible is Divinely Inspired, or you may not, but one thing we can all agree on: the Bible is not Divinely Inspired." Just funny to me. ;)

How can anyone seriously consider the bible an accurate piece of scripture from which to take their morals? The major problem with it is this: IT IS MADE UP!!! The bible even lies about when Jesus was supposedly born. The old testament was written by an elitist group of jewish minister types who felt that the world needed moral guidelines. however, these moral guidelines were based on fear of things unknown to the people of the time. It suggests the world was created seven thousand years ago. This is rubbish, as science has proved over and over with radioactive carbon dating and other physics and the like. The new testament was heavily edited by a PAGAN ROMAN EMPEROR!!! It did not allow any scripture from the time of christ which suggested Jesus was mortal. The dead sea scrolls show forty more testaments about jesus' life, some showing him to have had a physical relationship with Mary Magdelaine. As for the so-called "gays should be stoned" scripture, research has shown that this was a mistranslation from the original writings. Basically, using the Bible as your backdrop for anti-gay arguments is naïve, ignorant, homophobic, and misinformed.

my view on gay marrige in brief (yes its spelled wrong) i don't like gay marrige, i have no real wish to associate with gays, it is none of my buisiness who they sleep with. to those of u who think its your busines :mp5:

Radio carbon dating has also found old morris minor spark plugs which when dated, proved to be more that four thousand years old! And the major flaw with saying that the bible is made up is that it was written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus. When people who had seen Jesus do what he did (and not just the disciples, others as well) and then read the bible, they didnt say "Hold on this isnt right!".

Radio carbon dating has also found old morris minor spark plugs which when dated, proved to be more that four thousand years old! And the major flaw with saying that the bible is made up is that it was written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus. When people who had seen Jesus do what he did (and not just the disciples, others as well) and then read the bible, they didnt say "Hold on this isnt right!".

Uhh, there's a bit more than carbon dating as evidence the earth is not 10k years old... lol

heck one time in chemistry I disproved thermodynamics but it all came down to procedure ;)

Anyway, can we get back on topic, were talking about homsexuality here

Anyway, can we get back on topic, were talking about homsexuality here

Oh yes it's a sin though there is no solid empirical evidence to say so...whoops forgot about the bible *smirk*

I believe the title of the thread is "Why is homosexuality a sin". I've already answered this before but let me refresh everyones memory. Homosexuality is a sin for the following reason. It is not how God wanted us to be, if it was he would have created six people at the begining of the world, not two. And as for disproving thermodynamics, I can do that right now. The first law of themodynamics basicly states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, the second says that all systems if left to themselves, move in the direction of from order to chaos (entropy) and the third says the second no longer applies at absolute zero (-459º Fahrenheit is the tempreture at which entropy = 0). Now if all those are true, then how did the universe begin accoridng to the big bang. Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroied, so where did the energy for the big bang come from? The priemeval atom would have had to be at absolute zero before it exploded, so where did the energy come from for it to explode. And how out of an explosion (a chaotic event if ever there was one) form an ordered system like our universe now of orbits and such

i don't want to force you to divulge more than you are comfortable with, but what you said surprises me. i have often heard gay people wish to be straight, or straight people wish to be gay, but i have never heard that sentiment from a bisexual...how can bisexuality be a problem for you?

I have some doubts about my own ability to sustain a long-term relationship, I guess. Having the ability to become attracted to any human on this planet regardless of gender causes me to doubt myself even more.

*hides under a rock*

I have some doubts about my own ability to sustain a long-term relationship, I guess. Having the ability to become attracted to any human on this planet regardless of gender causes me to doubt myself even more.

*hides under a rock*
Off the subject, but a word of encouragement here...I am engaged and still have doubts of MY ability to hold a longstanding relationship, so it's normal, don't feel bad ;)

The whole basis of "sin" is something condemned by God, and many places in old and new testament it is condemned, well, the sexuality at least, then there are quotes in the New Testament where Jesus stated that even looking at a woman and lusting, was the same as having sex with her, so I would assume the same would go for a homosexual looking at a man and lusting, or being attracted sexually.So being sexually attracted to someone you're not married to is a sin? Okies... Why not drop the homo- prefix and just say sexuality is a sin?

Also, no real Christian would not take the Bible as Gods word, it is the ONLY basis for even being a Christian ...I thought it was a belief that the Christ was God, was killed and resurrected, and is our saviour, that is the basis for being a Christian? Only fundamentalist Christians are real Christians? Boy are a lot of people going to be surprised come judgement day. Guess that's ok with God though, seeing as how we are all horrible sinners not deserving to sully his heaven with our dirty souls.</sarcasm>

The dead sea scrolls show forty more testaments about jesus' life, some showing him to have had a physical relationship with Mary Magdelaine.Not the dead sea scrolls; more's the pity. A number of testaments have been lost entirely (being banned for many centuries), but some still exist.

So being sexually attracted to someone you're not married to is a sin? Okies... Why not drop the homo- prefix and just say sexuality is a sin?

I thought it was a belief that the Christ was God, was killed and resurrected, and is our saviour, that is the basis for being a Christian? Only fundamentalist Christians are real Christians? Boy are a lot of people going to be surprised come judgement day. Guess that's ok with God though, seeing as how we are all horrible sinners not deserving to sully his heaven with our dirty souls.</sarcasm>

Not the dead sea scrolls; more's the pity. A number of testaments have been lost entirely (being banned for many centuries), but some still exist.

It actually is accepting Christ as God, nowhere , however, is that even given any basis, unless you believe the Bible..without believing the Bible, there is no basis for even knowing Christ existed, what's more was God.
I am far from a fundamentalist Christian, but to accept Christ as God, requires acceptance of his word as commandments, basically.
Also, the dead sea scrolls were found in modern times where they were hidden in caves near the dead sea. When found, they were not banned . They have been translated, there are some parts missing that were broken off or unreadable, but the parts readable, are a close facsimile of the same bible I read. There are no parts containing anything about Christ and Mary Magdalene, etc. There is, however, no proof that he did NOT have relations either, but I would guess he was kind of too busy to do anything like that.
Also, finally, I did not say sexuality was a sin, nor does it say so in the Bible. I said, it DOES say homosexuality is a sin, it compares it to the evil of Soddom and Gomorrah even in the new testament, and states that when people begin being more like that, the "End shall soon come" etc... And I only mentioned tha part of lusting after a woman to show why I would say it is even a sin to think that way, probably, as in the example of the man lusting after a woman, Christ was saying, it was the same as if he actually had sex with her, so, you could go further, and say that the thought of lusting after a man, would also be construed as going ahead and finishing the act, which in the bible, would be a sin(for the second example).
The entire question here, asking why it is a sin, sin has religious connotation, if you do think nothing is wrong with it, that's up to you, but bringing in the word sin, with its religious meaning, would bring about religious answers to the question. If I start a thread on "Why the Cardinals will win the world series", that leaves alot of room for argument(though they still will win :) )
But if I say "Why do Bostonians think the Red Sox will win?" then, it would be up to the Bostonian to answer...the way this question was placed, left it up to the Christian to answer, and why Christians regard it as sin, is not really open to debate.

Here's what I don't understand:

God creates all of us individually, right? That's the argument against abortion; he makes us each in the womb.

So...if homosexuality isn't a choice (and that's been pretty much proven), then is it right to be punished for it?

Example:

Little Johnny was born with blue eyes. His parents find this horrible, so they buy him uncomfortable brown contact lenses to wear. They distort his vision and he finds life heard with them on, but if he DOESN'T wear them, his parents will punish him for having blue eyes.

...That sound fair and just?

It is not how God wanted us to be, if it was he would have created six people at the begining of the world, not two.


14: Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15: And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Who did Cain have to fear? Adam, and Eve were the only two humans beside Cain and Abel, so who did he fear would kill him? And don't say that they had more children before Abel and Cain, because that would be adding to your God stuff that's not even in it.

Who did Cain have to fear? Adam, and Eve were the only two humans beside Cain and Abel, so who did he fear would kill him? And don't say that they had more children before Abel and Cain, because that would be adding to your God stuff that's not even in it.
for that matter, where do the sons of Adam and Eve find their wives? they suddenly have wives at some point, with whom they start begatting, but there is no mention of where these wives come from. if Adam and Eve were the only 2 people God created, then the wives must have been their kids as well...so all humanity is the result of incest?

... bla bla ... AND RITUALISTC OLD TESTEMENT LAW (Including slavery) IS REMOVED BY CHRIST'S DEATHAhem. No it is not. There is nothing in the gospels that would suggest so. Why does Jesus meet with Moses? To demonstrate the continuity, especially in the law.

MY OPINION why homosexuality is supposed to be a "sin" in the Bible is the simple fact that homosexuals (for the greater part) do not reproduce. The negative attitude towards homosexuality was written into the Bible to make sure that the tiny people of Israelites/Jews does not die out. For such a small number of people whose future in the buffer zone between the superpowers of ancient times was never certain it was a necessity to always have many children. For the realms with large populations like Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Rome, etc the question of sexual orientation was never an issue. The Bible all the time redefines practical issues with theological requirements for the Israelites/Jews, so it can be assumed it is the same in its rejection of homosexuality.

Here's what I don't understand:

God creates all of us individually, right? That's the argument against abortion; he makes us each in the womb.

So...if homosexuality isn't a choice (and that's been pretty much proven), then is it right to be punished for it?

Example:

Little Johnny was born with blue eyes. His parents find this horrible, so they buy him uncomfortable brown contact lenses to wear. They distort his vision and he finds life heard with them on, but if he DOESN'T wear them, his parents will punish him for having blue eyes.

...That sound fair and just?

You're confusing who's image we are created in. Because Adam sinned, we are now born in Adam's image; that is, we are sinful, too. This is oftentimes referred to as Original Sin.

This means that the way I am naturally is evil, is sinful. It's sort of the opposite of humanism, which believes that humans are mostly good in spite of (LOTS of) evidence to the contrary. Just because someone is born homosexual or predisposed to homosexuality doesn't make it right. All people are born predisposed to sin. That obviously doesn't make it right.

A person can also be born predisposed to become an alcoholic. Would you argue that that person be given access to alcohol? Would you argue it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or others' lives? How dare you! That's how he's made! It's not his choice he's an alcoholic! Have you no compassion? Judge not lest ye yourself be judged! You are a bigoted, egomaniacal hustler!

Ahem. No it is not. There is nothing in the gospels that would suggest so. Why does Jesus meet with Moses? To demonstrate the continuity, especially in the law.

MY OPINION why homosexuality is supposed to be a "sin" in the Bible is the simple fact that homosexuals (for the greater part) do not reproduce. The negative attitude towards homosexuality was written into the Bible to make sure that the tiny people of Israelites/Jews does not die out. For such a small number of people whose future in the buffer zone between the superpowers of ancient times was never certain it was a necessity to always have many children. For the realms with large populations like Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Rome, etc the question of sexual orientation was never an issue. The Bible all the time redefines practical issues with theological requirements for the Israelites/Jews, so it can be assumed it is the same in its rejection of homosexuality.

The point of Jesus meeting with Moses was, as you pointed out, to demonstrate the continuity of the Law. As Jesus said, "I have come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it!"

We both argue that the moral law is continuous. But here's where we differ: I believe, after reading Paul's letters (especially to the Galatians), that the ceremonial law WAS thown out by Jesus- because he was perfect, I don't have to follow it.

I'm 15/16th German, the rest being mutt. A Gentile in any case. Why should I follow ancient ceremonial law meanst specifically for a people I am not a part of? Paul would answer, "Exactly!"

That said, if you want to follow the ceremonial laws, be my guest. If the speed limit says 65MPH and you go 50MPH, you're even safer, and I can't complain. Just be sure to remember that we are not saved by following ceremonial law, but rather by faith in Jesus Christ.

Because Adam sinned, we are now born in Adam's image; that is, we are sinful, too.

Why?

A person can also be born predisposed to become an alcoholic. Would you argue that that person be given access to alcohol? Would you argue it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or others' lives? How dare you! That's how he's made! It's not his choice he's an alcoholic! Have you no compassion? Judge not lest ye yourself be judged! You are a bigoted, egomaniacal hustler!

False analogy. Unless you can prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism.

You're confusing who's image we are created in. Because Adam sinned, we are now born in Adam's image; that is, we are sinful, too. This is oftentimes referred to as Original Sin.
I believe only the Catholic Church endorses Original Sin?

This means that the way I am naturally is evil, is sinful. It's sort of the opposite of humanism, which believes that humans are mostly good in spite of (LOTS of) evidence to the contrary. Just because someone is born homosexual or predisposed to homosexuality doesn't make it right. All people are born predisposed to sin. That obviously doesn't make it right.
You are lumping a lot of things together under "sin". Are people born predisposed to take the lord's name in vain? Are people born predisposed to steal? Sexuality is very different from most other instances you would consider "sinning". You really can't lump it all together (and of course, this is just supposing that homosexuality actually IS a sin...)

A person can also be born predisposed to become an alcoholic. Would you argue that that person be given access to alcohol? Would you argue it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or others' lives? How dare you! That's how he's made! It's not his choice he's an alcoholic! Have you no compassion? Judge not lest ye yourself be judged! You are a bigoted, egomaniacal hustler!
Nice try. Alcoholism hurts people. Homosexuality doesn't.

Why?



False analogy. Unless you can prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism.

The AIDS epidemic had its roots in homosexuality. I realize it is not politically correct to state that, but such is life, and for this reason, most of the loudest voices in the world crying for a cure, are in the gay communities.
I do NOT say anything like it is deserved, as some "christians" will say, but it certainly has caused a great deal of harm.

You are lumping a lot of things together under "sin". Are people born predisposed to take the lord's name in vain? Are people born predisposed to steal? Sexuality is very different from most other instances you would consider "sinning". You really can't lump it all together (and of course, this is just supposing that homosexuality actually IS a sin...)

Actually people are born predisposed to sin, it says it in the Bible in many areas. Sin as defined is going against the will of God. People are by nature, usually unwilling to ever admit they are going against him, as most posts on here show.

Because Adam sinned, we are now born in Adam's image; that is, we are sinful, too.Why? Why are we born in Adam's image? Or why are we sinful because of this? I'm not too clear what you mean, so I'll try to encompass a lot.

We are born in Adam's image because Adam is our natural father. In the same way that birds give birth to birds and cows give birth to cows, so too, sinful Adam and Eve give birth to sinful offspring.

We're sinful because, like I said, it's human nature to sin.

Genesis 5:1-3
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 6:5
Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart is only evil, all the time

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Romans 3:10
There is no one righteous, not even one.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

A person can also be born predisposed to become an alcoholic. Would you argue that that person be given access to alcohol? Would you argue it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or others' lives? How dare you! That's how he's made! It's not his choice he's an alcoholic! Have you no compassion? Judge not lest ye yourself be judged! You are a bigoted, egomaniacal hustler!False analogy. Unless you can prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism. It's not a false analogy. I do not need to prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism, just that homosexuality is just as sinful. Stealing is a sin. So is rape. Is stealing more harmful than rape? Hardly. But it IS just as sinful.

The AIDS epidemic had its roots in homosexuality. I realize it is not politically correct to state that, but such is life, and for this reason, most of the loudest voices in the world crying for a cure, are in the gay communities.
I do NOT say anything like it is deserved, as some "christians" will say, but it certainly has caused a great deal of harm.

This may be the case (although I would like to see a source), but homosexuals are not solely reponsible for the spread of AIDS, and being homosexual doesn't make one anymore likely to catch AIDS than one who is a heterosexual. Alcoholism, when indulged, is ALWAYS harmful whether the harm is inflicted on others, one's own body, or both.

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 6:5
Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart is only evil, all the time

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Romans 3:10
There is no one righteous, not even one.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It's not a false analogy. I do not need to prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism, just that homosexuality is just as sinful. Stealing is a sin. So is rape. Is stealing more harmful than rape? Hardly. But it IS just as sinful.

Exactly, good point... As I said a few times, the wording of the question, once you use the word "sin" it means religious, and there are reasons religion counts homosexuality as sin, even if it is because"God said so", it is the reason.

This may be the case (although I would like to see a source), but homosexuals are not solely reponsible for the spread of AIDS, and being homosexual doesn't make one anymore likely to catch AIDS than one who is a heterosexual. Alcoholism, when indulged, is ALWAYS harmful whether the harm is inflicted on others, one's own body, or both.
Actually, the UN, WHO, and many organizations, at first considered it as strictly a gay- associated disease. And still, according to statistics kept by many nations, you are MUCH more likely to get it as a gay person than a hetero, although the trend the last several years has started to even out, as more hetero- people are being infected in Africa and parts of Asia.

Why are we born in Adam's image? Or why are we sinful because of this? I'm not too clear what you mean, so I'll try to encompass a lot.

We are born in Adam's image because Adam is our natural father. In the same way that birds give birth to birds and cows give birth to cows, so too, sinful Adam and Eve give birth to sinful offspring.

We're sinful because, like I said, it's human nature to sin.

Genesis 5:1-3
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 6:5
Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart is only evil, all the time

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Romans 3:10
There is no one righteous, not even one.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It's not a false analogy. I do not need to prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism, just that homosexuality is just as sinful. Stealing is a sin. So is rape. Is stealing more harmful than rape? Hardly. But it IS just as sinful.

I see your point, but the analogy appeared to imply that homosexuality is just as physically and emotionally harmful as alcoholism, rather than just as sinful. I contend that it isn't. As for what I meant when I asked why, I was asking why God felt it necessary to condemn all of man to a life of sin because of the actions of one.

I believe only the Catholic Church endorses Original Sin? I'm Lutheran and we follow Original Sin. So I'm fairly sure most Protestant denominations do it. Maybe not. They should, as there's plenty of Biblical basis for it.


You are lumping a lot of things together under "sin". Are people born predisposed to take the lord's name in vain? Are people born predisposed to steal? Sexuality is very different from most other instances you would consider "sinning". You really can't lump it all together (and of course, this is just supposing that homosexuality actually IS a sin...) Yes, people are born predisposed to take the Lord's name in vain. Yes, people are born predisposed to steal. Notice how in my post I wrote, "People are born predisposed to sin." I'm not sure how sexuality is all that different- could you be more specific?

Nice try. Alcoholism hurts people. Homosexuality doesn't. So it's not a sin if there's no direct causality? If I take the Lord's name in vain, surely this is a sin. It doesn't hurt people on the level that alcoholism does. This doesn't mean that abusing alcohol isn't a sin.

You're not the first to misunderstand that analogy, so I think it was a bit misleading. My bad. I was merely presenting a concrete situation where you could understand the concept of Original Sin.

And still, according to statistics kept by many nations, you are MUCH more likely to get it as a gay person than a hetero.

What makes this so, exactly?

Actually, the UN, WHO, and many organizations, at first considered it as strictly a gay- associated disease. And still, according to statistics kept by many nations, you are MUCH more likely to get it as a gay person than a hetero, although the trend the last several years has started to even out, as more hetero- people are being infected in Africa and parts of Asia.
That's like saying black people are much more likely to steal. You can back it up with statistics all you want, but it's essentially pointless and contributes nothing helpful, and only furthers bigotry without revealing the true cause of the problem. The cause of the AIDS epidemic is not homosexuality, it is unprotected sex.

What makes this so, exactly?

No idea, really...

I see your point, but the analogy appeared to imply that homosexuality is just as physically and emotionally harmful as alcoholism, rather than just as sinful. I contend that it isn't. As for what I meant when I asked why, I was asking why God felt it necessary to condemn all of man to a life of sin because of the actions of one.
I understand. I guess it wasn't that good of an analogy. I didn't mean that it was as physically or emotionally harmful as alcoholism, just that it was as spiritually harmful. Sorry for the confusion.

As for your second question, that's a question for a theology professor. Still, we are all judged on the basis of our own sins. There's only one person who can ever say, "You punished Adam for his sin, and now you have punished me for his sin. I've done nothing wrong."

That's like saying black people are much more likely to steal. You can back it up with statistics all you want, but it's essentially pointless and contributes nothing helpful, and only furthers bigotry without revealing the true cause of the problem. The cause of the AIDS epidemic is not homosexuality, it is unprotected sex.
As I said at first, it is not politically correct, politically correct would want to hush about anything like this.
I do n ot believe that being gay causes AIDS, either...anymore, but at the beginning, the entire epidemic, was created in the gay community, despite the fact people had unprotected sex(hetero)for years.

I'm Lutheran and we follow Original Sin. So I'm fairly sure most Protestant denominations do it. Maybe not. They should, as there's plenty of Biblical basis for it.
Ok. I was raised Catholic, and am not very knowledgable about the differences between other Christian denominations.

Yes, people are born predisposed to take the Lord's name in vain. Yes, people are born predisposed to steal. Notice how in my post I wrote, "People are born predisposed to sin." I'm not sure how sexuality is all that different- could you be more specific?
Well, you will have a hard time showing that some people are born more likely to swear. As well, I'd say stealing also comes purely from upbringing. Sexuality is clearly based on genetic factors.

So it's not a sin if there's no direct causality? If I take the Lord's name in vain, surely this is a sin. It doesn't hurt people on the level that alcoholism does. This doesn't mean that abusing alcohol isn't a sin.

You're not the first to misunderstand that analogy, so I think it was a bit misleading. My bad. I was merely presenting a concrete situation where you could understand the concept of Original Sin.
I see. I believe all these different things considered "sin" are very different in nature, and comparing them is not helpful.

As I said at first, it is not politically correct, politically correct would want to hush about anything like this.
I do n ot believe that being gay causes AIDS, either...anymore, but at the beginning, the entire epidemic, was created in the gay community
It's not a matter of PC. Just because one group of people has a higher rate of some problem, does not mean that group of people is to blame for it. Black people are statistically more likely to steal. oookay. Now what? Do you condemn blacks in general?

And I'll grant you that AIDS first surfaced in the gay communities. It could just as easily have surfaced in the hetero communities, though.

despite the fact people had unprotected sex(hetero)for years.
*cough* syphilis. :p

Well, you will have a hard time showing that some people are born more likely to swear. As well, I'd say stealing also comes purely from upbringing. Sexuality is clearly based on genetic factors. I'd have a hard time showing that some people are born more likely to swear RELATIVE to other people, but show me the goody two shoes who has never sworn before. Show me the goody two shoes who has never sinned before. As for stealing, I think kleptomania is partially a genetic thing. I'm no psychologist.

It was precisely because sexuality is clearly based on genetic factors that I related it to alcoholism, which is also genetic. Maybe you still don't accept that analogy, but it is another instance where a person is genetically predisposed to sin.

I see. I believe all these different things considered "sin" are very different in nature, and comparing them is not helpful. Okay. I think I get your point- we don't treat an adultress like we treat a murderer. But it's important to keep in mind that one sin is just as damning before God. It's not the same on a physical level, or on an emotional level, but it's just as bad on a spiritual level.

I love reading these long posts... From is homosexuality a sin to the very nature of sin itself...
This is what sucks about working at home, I get so easily distracted...

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.
Not a very nice bloke, is he? Can't see what you lot see in this God of Love.

Once I saw a gay man.

It's not a false analogy. I do not need to prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism, just that homosexuality is just as sinful. Stealing is a sin. So is rape. Is stealing more harmful than rape? Hardly. But it IS just as sinful.

The point behind my post wasn't that it was a sin.

I was using an analogy to show God as being an abusive father.

In fact, let me question some more:

Why are we naturally born sinful? God doesn't have to let that happen. He can just snap his fingers and BOOM! We're not born sinful.

Is it because of Satan? Right, like an all powerful god is gonna let THAT go by.


Sorry, but in the end, I can't see how christianity can follow anything but a predetermined belief. Because the only way God would allow things to happen is if he has a plan, which means everything has already been decided.

The point of Jesus meeting with Moses was, as you pointed out, to demonstrate the continuity of the Law. As Jesus said, "I have come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it!"
We both argue that the moral law is continuous. But here's where we differ: I believe, after reading Paul's letters (especially to the Galatians), that the ceremonial law WAS thown out by Jesus- because he was perfect, I don't have to follow it.
I'm 15/16th German, the rest being mutt. A Gentile in any case. Why should I follow ancient ceremonial law meanst specifically for a people I am not a part of? Paul would answer, "Exactly!"
That said, if you want to follow the ceremonial laws, be my guest. If the speed limit says 65MPH and you go 50MPH, you're even safer, and I can't complain. Just be sure to remember that we are not saved by following ceremonial law, but rather by faith in Jesus Christ.
Oh, again one of those who count Paul as a source of information. Paul was an antisemitic asshole who had no connection whatsoever with Jesus or his "message". Only the gospels have at least some information on Jesus, the rest of NT is theological and historical crap.

I believe only the Catholic Church endorses Original Sin?What? "Original Sin" is the defining issue of Christianity, for otherwise no Jesus would be needed. Jesus' sole purpose was to un-make the Original Sin with his sacrifice and thus remove what separates human from god. Although I still cannot see how the sacrifice (i.e. death) of any creature could possibly be a means to appease god. Does god not consider all life to be worthy?

The AIDS epidemic had its roots in homosexuality. I realize it is not politically correct to state that, but such is life, and for this reason, most of the loudest voices in the world crying for a cure, are in the gay communities.
I do NOT say anything like it is deserved, as some "christians" will say, but it certainly has caused a great deal of harm.Just shut up if you have no knowledge of AIDS and its history. :mad:

Why are we born in Adam's image? Or why are we sinful because of this? I'm not too clear what you mean, so I'll try to encompass a lot.

We are born in Adam's image because Adam is our natural father. In the same way that birds give birth to birds and cows give birth to cows, so too, sinful Adam and Eve give birth to sinful offspring.

We're sinful because, like I said, it's human nature to sin.

Genesis 5:1-3
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 6:5
Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart is only evil, all the time

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Romans 3:10
There is no one righteous, not even one.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It's not a false analogy. I do not need to prove homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism, just that homosexuality is just as sinful. Stealing is a sin. So is rape. Is stealing more harmful than rape? Hardly. But it IS just as sinful.
What you are saying is that god created man to be sinful? What asshole is this god?
PS: and please do not refer to Paul's letters to demonstrate anything. They have NO theological or social value at all. They are just the expression of one man's hate.

Exactly, good point... As I said a few times, the wording of the question, once you use the word "sin" it means religious, and there are reasons religion counts homosexuality as sin, even if it is because"God said so", it is the reason.What gives your god the authority to define what is sinful or not?

And still, according to statistics kept by many nations, you are MUCH more likely to get it as a gay person than a hetero.Which nations? Maybe you better want to check statistics about AIDS in Africa.

Cuz it's just repulsive, but I have to admit that I like lesbians very much :fluffle: . Gay men could just hang themselves, honestly. :sniper:

for that matter, where do the sons of Adam and Eve find their wives? they suddenly have wives at some point, with whom they start begatting, but there is no mention of where these wives come from. if Adam and Eve were the only 2 people God created, then the wives must have been their kids as well...so all humanity is the result of incest?

I seem to remember that Adam and Eve weren't the only people. God, nice fair guy that he was, created some more, just not in the Garden of Eden. The question then arises as to why all humanity was punished for original sin.

But then, I never understood why we must be punished for Eve's temptation. We don't, after all, blame germans for what their grandparents may/may not have done during the second world war.

And I never understood why a just God would create an immortal soul but make it inherently sinful.

More importantly, people sin all the time. People are jealous, avaricious, callous, greedy and lustful all the time. Thousands are killed every year, thousands of women are raped, thousands of people starve every year.

Doesn't the church have bigger sins to worry about?

(But of course, its so much easier to go after a persecuted minority and scapegoat them for everything than actually try and make the world a better place.)

I seem to remember that Adam and Eve weren't the only people. God, nice fair guy that he was, created some more, just not in the Garden of Eden. The question then arises as to why all humanity was punished for original sin.

But then, I never understood why we must be punished for Eve's temptation. We don't, after all, blame germans for what their grandparents may/may not have done during the second world war.

And I never understood why a just God would create an immortal soul but make it inherently sinful.

More importantly, people sin all the time. People are jealous, avaricious, callous, greedy and lustful all the time. Thousands are killed every year, thousands of women are raped, thousands of people starve every year.

Doesn't the church have bigger sins to worry about?

(But of course, its so much easier to go after a persecuted minority and scapegoat them for everything than actually try and make the world a better place.)
BINGO. well said.

I understand. I guess it wasn't that good of an analogy. I didn't mean that it was as physically or emotionally harmful as alcoholism, just that it was as spiritually harmful. Sorry for the confusion.

As for your second question, that's a question for a theology professor. Still, we are all judged on the basis of our own sins. There's only one person who can ever say, "You punished Adam for his sin, and now you have punished me for his sin. I've done nothing wrong."

But, due to Original Sin, we are judged as sinful the moment we're born, before we've really even had the chance to do anything wrong. I'm not saying that I never make mistakes, but that still seems a little unfair.

It’s a sin because back in the day they needed people to reproduce often because of the mortality rate. Simply put they needed to replenish their numbers and couldn’t afford having too many solely homosexual relationships. A little sneaky sex on the side didn’t really matter all that much so long as you were still doing your part to reproduce. Although I’m sure that if people found out than they would still be treated with hostility. Unless maybe they were somebody of influence. Nowadays we have a much better mortality rate. Suddenly the need to replenish our numbers isn’t as important as it once was. In fact some would say that there is more of a need to reduce our numbers.

Ahem. No it is not. There is nothing in the gospels that would suggest so. Why does Jesus meet with Moses? To demonstrate the continuity, especially in the law.

YES THERE IS. I dont know how much you have read the bible but it is there. Did you not read my post from the bible about this.

5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15: Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18: Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

King James Bible Hebrews chapter 10 Verses 5 - 8

This tells us that the ritualistic sacrifices (in this context, all of the ritualistic old testement law) is no longer nessecary thanks to Jesus's death. How much more do I have to do to explain this?

I don’t believe in all this original sin nonsense. It was Gods plan to kick people out of paradise to begin with. He knew what Adam and Eve were like. They were like innocent little children who frolicked around freely and in the buff. Then god suddenly comes down and tells them not to eat from the forbidden tree of mystery. Which as we all should know only helps to encourage the forbidden action. However they wont do it without being enticed into doing it because god told them that it’s dangerous. So god sends his still loyal servant down to show them that it’s really alright to eat the fruit. So just like gullible kids they eat. The snake tells god “mission accomplished.” So shortly thereafter god finishes his paperwork and stacks them neatly in the corner of his desk. Then he nonchalantly goes own to earth and acts like he can’t find Adam and Eve. Then he scolds them when he "finds out" why they're hiding. Meanwhile he’s thinking to himself that it took them long enough. So he gives them the boot and locks the door.

So now why does he go through all this? It gives humanity the taste of paradise. Something in which we can strive for in hopes that one day we may return to paradise.

There are other reasons, but right now I’m having a brain fart.

Which nations? Maybe you better want to check statistics about AIDS in Africa.
Let's see...Ours(USA) Thailand, just two off the top of my head, plus the WHO, the UN, etc...
I did also list off Africa as a probable exception, nevertheless, my point was it STARTED in the gay community...for many years it was ONLY in the gay community, and they referred to it as the "gay plague" even my gay friends talk about this, it is known fact. I do not imply anything about WHY it started there, really, I have no idea, just $hit luck maybe even, but it started there and was confined to that community for nearly 25 years before EVER having a recorded, verified case in the non-gay community.For the most part gays of that time were afraid to even have it looked at because it would indicate(in a still un-accepting society) that they were in fact gay...hence they suffered in silence, and talked to each other about the "gay plague".

Let's see...Ours(USA) Thailand, just two off the top of my head, plus the WHO, the UN, etc...
I did also list off Africa as a probable exception, nevertheless, my point was it STARTED in the gay community...for many years it was ONLY in the gay community, and they referred to it as the "gay plague" even my gay friends talk about this, it is known fact. I do not imply anything about WHY it started there, really, I have no idea, just $hit luck maybe even, but it started there and was confined to that community for nearly 25 years before EVER having a recorded, verified case in the non-gay community.For the most part gays of that time were afraid to even have it looked at because it would indicate(in a still un-accepting society) that they were in fact gay...hence they suffered in silence, and talked to each other about the "gay plague".

Actually... AIDS is believed to have started in AFRICA. And yeah, since virtually nothing was known about the disease and gay people were a marginalised group, of course the disease spread rapidly in that community once it got started. Although I'm pretty sure HIV infections at the moment are growing the fastest among heterosexual people and IV drug users.

And on topic. I don't think homosexuality is a sin. But then I'm an agnostic, so I don't really believe in "sin" from a religious point of view. I just think that people need to get a life. Consenting adults, not harming anyone should be free to do whatever the hell they want.

Actually... AIDS is believed to have started in AFRICA. And yeah, since virtually nothing was known about the disease and gay people were a marginalised group, of course the disease spread rapidly in that community once it got started. Although I'm pretty sure HIV infections at the moment are growing the fastest among heterosexual people and IV drug users.

And on topic. I don't think homosexuality is a sin. But then I'm an agnostic, so I don't really believe in "sin" from a religious point of view. I just think that people need to get a life. Consenting adults, not harming anyone should be free to do whatever the hell they want.

Yes, I have read that it is possible it made a jump from apes to humans somehow in Africa...considering how it is known to spread, I hate to even consider how that happened.

Yes, I have read that it is possible it made a jump from apes to humans somehow in Africa...considering how it is known to spread, I hate to even consider how that happened.
It could have been passed from ape to human via poacher who also just happened to have an open wound on his hand while cutting up an ape. Poacher has sex with a woman. Woman has sex with other guys. Guys spread it further…

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

Marriage existed LONG before Christianity did, and marriage exists in almost all religions. It was originally secular (non-religious), even in Christianity.

Those who quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality also need to read the rest of the story. The same part of Leviticus that condemns it equally condemns weaving two different kinds of threads into one fabric -- thus outlawing polyester (as it should be!) and all cotton blends (which covers most of American clothing). Nice try. And the men of S. & G. were rapists, not generic homosexuals.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.

Homosexuality is a sin becuase the Bible say it is. A sin is a relgiuos word. As far as i know it is only one used in Bibles (but could possibly be used in other religious books, etc.). A sin is something that is agianst God, and homosexuality is against God. simple explanation. If you don't believe in God, then why would you be looking at it as a sin to begin with...? I'm not trying to step on any feet, but don't use the word unless it actually applies to what you believe. And te whole sexuality thing with me is that I personally think it is "sinful" but if thats what you feel like doing than hey go for it, I wont say anything to you about it.

well actually, since sin is a religious word and our religon is about god, he has every right to do so. so :upyours:

Let's see...Ours(USA) Thailand, just two off the top of my head, plus the WHO, the UN, etc...
I did also list off Africa as a probable exception, nevertheless, my point was it STARTED in the gay community...for many years it was ONLY in the gay community, and they referred to it as the "gay plague" even my gay friends talk about this, it is known fact. I do not imply anything about WHY it started there, really, I have no idea, just $hit luck maybe even, but it started there and was confined to that community for nearly 25 years before EVER having a recorded, verified case in the non-gay community.For the most part gays of that time were afraid to even have it looked at because it would indicate(in a still un-accepting society) that they were in fact gay...hence they suffered in silence, and talked to each other about the "gay plague".
probably some guy swung both ways ;)

the :upyours: was at ankahr for asking what gave the christian god the right to decide sin :mp5:

Ok i'm a devout catholic and these are my views, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

In Catholic teaching there are two reasons for sex: 1) To bring the couple together aka unitive and 2) To create new life aka procreative. The problem with homosexuality is that it closes off the procreative aspect of sex.

To quote from the Catechism: "These two meaning or values of marriage CANNOT BE SEPERATED without altering the couple's spiritual life and COMPROMISING THE GOODS OF MARRIAGE and the future of the family" CCC 2363

God created man and woman to complement each other. Homosexual acts "are contrary to natural law" and "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentary" CCC 2357

Homosexuals are called to chastity, which is a challenge...and although she frowns upon gay sex, the Church teaches that homosexuals must be accpeted with respect, compasion, and sensitivity.

Even if we were to remove religon, think about this:
Every human being in America has a right to marry one person of the opposite sex that is not a relative. That is your right. The pro-gay marriage stand does not want EQUAL rights, they want EXTRA rights.

Let's see...Ours(USA) Thailand, just two off the top of my head, plus the WHO, the UN, etc...
I did also list off Africa as a probable exception, nevertheless, my point was it STARTED in the gay community...for many years it was ONLY in the gay community, and they referred to it as the "gay plague" even my gay friends talk about this, it is known fact. I do not imply anything about WHY it started there, really, I have no idea, just $hit luck maybe even, but it started there and was confined to that community for nearly 25 years before EVER having a recorded, verified case in the non-gay community.For the most part gays of that time were afraid to even have it looked at because it would indicate(in a still un-accepting society) that they were in fact gay...hence they suffered in silence, and talked to each other about the "gay plague".

Let's see, maybe only gays got it because they did not know about it or how it was transmitted. How would they know that they needed to use protection just like all those hetero couples. They weren't worried about having babies through sex, because they couldn't. Meanwhile, all those heteros were using protection to prevent babies. Of course, i doubt that it was completely isolated for 25 years. Just more rare in heteros.

A few people have said that 2 men or 2 women cannot have children together. What about cloning/embryonic inserion/IVF? Surely we can now take DNA from two guys sperm and put them in an empty egg or take DNA from a woman and put it in the egg of another woman to make a foetus. Im sure the technology exists and people are trying to get permission to do it but generally governments say no due to the mass controversy.

Apologies if I actually dreamed this all and we are still only at Dolly the sheep stage.

The point behind my post wasn't that it was a sin.

I was using an analogy to show God as being an abusive father.

In fact, let me question some more:

Why are we naturally born sinful? God doesn't have to let that happen. He can just snap his fingers and BOOM! We're not born sinful.

Is it because of Satan? Right, like an all powerful god is gonna let THAT go by.


Sorry, but in the end, I can't see how christianity can follow anything but a predetermined belief. Because the only way God would allow things to happen is if he has a plan, which means everything has already been decided.
God doesn't have to let us be sinful. You want a way out. How gracious it is that God has provided that with Jesus!

God could indeed snap his fingers and FORCE everyone to love him. But how valuable is love that is forced? How much more valuable is love that is freely given!

As an example, remember back to Christ being tempted by Satan. In a way, the tempations represented what sort of messiah he was going to be. He had the choice to change stones to bread, to in effect compel belief in him through his power. He replied by saying that man lived not on bread alone, but also on the living word of God.

I've often thought, "What if God just wrote out in the constellations in big bold letters, 'Hey Earth! Up here! I do exist! Jimmy Hoffa's body is at 3587 Elm Street, go see for yourselves!'" But I remember that He did more than that: He sent his Son to hang out with us and to redeem us.

He does have a plan, but that doesn't mean everything's set in stone and there's no point to anything. As John Lennon wrote in a very cool song, "There's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy! All you need is love."

Every human being in America has a right to marry one person of the opposite sex that is not a relative. That is your right. The pro-gay marriage stand does not want EQUAL rights, they want EXTRA rights.

Not really. The rights that homosexuals are seeking are already available to heterosexuals. When two people get married, they receive a whole slew of other legal benefits. These aren't available to homosexual couples because, in most places, they aren't allowed to get married. Even if we were to look at it your way, gay marriage wouldn't be giving extra rights to homosexuals, it would actually be giving everyone the right to marry whomever they choose.

What you are saying is that god created man to be sinful? What asshole is this god?
PS: and please do not refer to Paul's letters to demonstrate anything. They have NO theological or social value at all. They are just the expression of one man's hate.

I'm not saying that God created man to be sinful. Far from it. Indeed, God created man to be perfect. We threw that in his face, and THAT is why we are sinful. Again, sin didn't arise from a design flaw from God, it arose from mankind.

Why no props for Paul? He was an Apostle, and thanks to his hard work, lots of people are Christian now. How strange it is that St. Paul, Apostle of Jesus Christ and devout Christian, should be called a hateful political man! I don't get it. But if you don't like Paul, super. But Jesus certainly liked Paul. Peter certainly liked Paul.

God doesn't have to let us be sinful. You want a way out. How gracious it is that God has provided that with Jesus!

God could indeed snap his fingers and FORCE everyone to love him. But how valuable is love that is forced? How much more valuable is love that is freely given!

Technically, he does force us to love him, through the threat of going to Hell

As an example, remember back to Christ being tempted by Satan. In a way, the tempations represented what sort of messiah he was going to be. He had the choice to change stones to bread, to in effect compel belief in him through his power. He replied by saying that man lived not on bread alone, but also on the living word of God.

I've often thought, "What if God just wrote out in the constellations in big bold letters, 'Hey Earth! Up here! I do exist! Jimmy Hoffa's body is at 3587 Elm Street, go see for yourselves!'" But I remember that He did more than that: He sent his Son to hang out with us and to redeem us.

When you think about it though, wouldn't it have been better to just reveal himself. Back when I was a Christian, I constantly worried whether there really was a God, and if there is, whether I was going about worshipping Him the right way. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, could have been saved a lot of anguish if He had been a little more forward than sending some guy who could easily have been a lunatic to speak for Him.

He does have a plan, but that doesn't mean everything's set in stone and there's no point to anything. As John Lennon wrote in a very cool song, "There's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy! All you need is love."

I'm not saying that God created man to be sinful. Far from it. Indeed, God created man to be perfect. We threw that in his face, and THAT is why we are sinful. Again, sin didn't arise from a design flaw from God, it arose from mankind.

If man was created to be perfect, how could he have sinned in the first place? Did God make a mistake?

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

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

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

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

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

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo
Who cares if it is a sin? It is counter to nature, and counter to public opinion.

Just so you know the scripture said that a man must not lay with another man as he would lay with a woman...this was not said by god but by the priests therefor homosexuality in males is not a sin and no where does it say anything about homosexuality in females. I hope this solves your problem.

Even if we were to remove religon, think about this:
Every human being in America has a right to marry one person of the opposite sex that is not a relative. That is your right. The pro-gay marriage stand does not want EQUAL rights, they want EXTRA rights.


Technically no, because there is no hard legal definition of marriage in terms of one man and one woman and it is legal for non-immediate family members to be married. Secondly, the claim the 'pro-gay marriage committee' seeks EXTRA RIGHTS might be valid if homosexuals were actually interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex as you would be interested in such an arrangement with the same sex.

Homosexuals are called to chastity, which is a challenge...

And what puts "the Church" in a position to decide this? lol

and although she frowns upon gay sex, the Church teaches that homosexuals must be accpeted with respect, compasion, and sensitivity.

That is utter bullshit and religious groups such as "the church" have taught little but hatred in this case. Does being refused communion sound like respect and compassion? Their past antics would run them afoul with the law in certain western countries.

God created man and woman to complement each other. Homosexual acts "are contrary to natural law" and "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentary" CCC 2357

Purely religious view and such a statement form an organization which long held to the belief earth was the center of the universe, amongst other things, doesn't put the Church in a very good position to babble about what is natural.

And what puts "the Church" in a position to decide this? lol

The Church is Christ's institution on Earth. You tell me.

That is utter bullshit and religious groups such as "the church" have taught little but hatred in this case. Does being refused communion sound like respect and compassion? Their past antics would run them afoul with the law in certain western countries.

You are refused communion if you are not in communion with the Church's teaching...thus the name...it is not an act of hatred.

Purely religious view and such a statement form an organization which long held to the belief earth was the center of the universe, amongst other things, doesn't put the Church in a very good position to babble about what is natural.

True, the Church did believe at one time the Earth was the center of the universe, but was disproved by indisputable scientific evidence. Now show me indisputable scientific proof that gay sex is natural. Being as it does not create life, i doubt it is natural.

God doesn't have to let us be sinful. You want a way out. How gracious it is that God has provided that with Jesus!

God could indeed snap his fingers and FORCE everyone to love him. But how valuable is love that is forced? How much more valuable is love that is freely given!Technically, he does force us to love him, through the threat of going to Hell It's about proper framing, though. God wants no one to go to Hell. When Christ walked on water and Peter came out to him, did Jesus hold Peter's head under the water? Of course not! Instead, he saved him from drowning. In the same way, God doesn't take the Three Stooges route of, "Do it or I'll poke you in the eye. Why I aughtta!" Instead, he reaches out his hand and says, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

As an example, remember back to Christ being tempted by Satan. In a way, the tempations represented what sort of messiah he was going to be. He had the choice to change stones to bread, to in effect compel belief in him through his power. He replied by saying that man lived not on bread alone, but also on the living word of God.

I've often thought, "What if God just wrote out in the constellations in big bold letters, 'Hey Earth! Up here! I do exist! Jimmy Hoffa's body is at 3587 Elm Street, go see for yourselves!'" But I remember that He did more than that: He sent his Son to hang out with us and to redeem us.When you think about it though, wouldn't it have been better to just reveal himself. Back when I was a Christian, I constantly worried whether there really was a God, and if there is, whether I was going about worshipping Him the right way. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, could have been saved a lot of anguish if He had been a little more forward than sending some guy who could easily have been a lunatic to speak for Him. Sending Jesus Christ wasn't enough? C'mon, that's pretty much above and beyond what's expected.

Person 1: "I won't believe in God unless I hear what he has to say. He's gotta talk to me."
Person 2: "There's the Bible, the Word of God. And you can pray. He'll listen."
Person 1: "Okay....but I need to see a miracle. I need a little more proof."
Person 2: "How about if He delivers Israel from the hands of the Egyptians?"
Person 1: "Okay, parting the Red Sea was cool, giving miraculus manna from heaven was cool, appearing in a fiery cloud was cool, but I'm not convinced. I need to see more proof."
Person 2: "Sigh. Okay, what if God sent his only Son down here to Earth?"
Person 1: "No, that's not enough. He's got to do some neat stuff"
Person 2: "Okay. He'll turn water to wine, heal the sick, walk on water, feed 5000, and even rise from the dead and redeem the whole world."
Person 1: "Pffft. Unless I see the nail marks, I'm not getting this."
Person 2: "So all the miracles and the revelations and the prophets and even God's Son himself won't cut it?"
Person 1: "Why won't God just make things easy and be more forward?"

The above is a rhetorical device that'll probably be as ineffective as the alcoholism analogy, but I hope you get the point. I just don't see the idea that sending Christ wasn't enough. What's it gonna take?

If man was created to be perfect, how could he have sinned in the first place? Did God make a mistake?

No. He just created us with free will. He didn't screw up, we did. It's hard to understand, because we can't create things with free will. If we build a building and it falls down, the design was flawed. But we can't create things with free will. So don't attribute this to God.

The Church is Christ's institution on Earth. You tell me.

And what if someone isn't Christian and rejects its 'teachings'?

You are refused communion if you are not in communion with the Church's teaching...thus the name...it is not an act of hatred.

Ok, how about influencing governments even the medical community to bend to Catholic views, filing obstructive lawsuits, engaging in a propaganda smear campaign etc. Doesn't sound too lovey dovey compassionate respect.

True, the Church did believe at one time the Earth was the center of the universe, but was disproved by indisputable scientific evidence. Now show me indisputable scientific proof that gay sex is natural. Being as it does not create life, i doubt it is natural.

The capacity to procreate is not a qualifying point. Show me indisputable scientific proof it isn't natural, not religious dogma.

The priemeval atom would have had to be at absolute zero before it exploded, so where did the energy come from for it to explode. And how out of an explosion (a chaotic event if ever there was one) form an ordered system like our universe now of orbits and suchThere is no primeval atom in the big bang theory. In the big band theory the universe starts out with high energy, not at absolute zero. The early universe also had limited entropy due to its small size and quantum mechanics. (I don't think the physics for just how this works has yet been worked out). The current big band theory has a period of very rapid expansion (inflation). Thus the universe has a large entropy, but because its so enormous now it's quite ordered. I should note I'm a bit out of my depth here. As I understand it the mechanisms behind inflation are still being debated, and the initial conditions of the universe are so far outside the realm of physics.

It actually is accepting Christ as God, nowhere , however, is that even given any basis, unless you believe the Bible..without believing the Bible, there is no basis for even knowing Christ existed, what's more was God.Yes, well there are degrees of belief. I mean I'm an atheist, but I still believe that the person referred to as the Christ existed, had a beef with the temple authorities, was not pleased with the practice of animal sacrifice at the temple, caused a ruckus, and was crucified for his trouble. And there's precious little evidence for that occuring other than the Bible and apocrypha.
I am far from a fundamentalist Christian, but to accept Christ as God, requires acceptance of his word as commandments, basically.That makes sense. But that's different than accepting the Bible as a faithful record of His word.
Also, the dead sea scrolls were found in modern times where they were hidden in caves near the dead sea. When found, they were not banned . They have been translated, there are some parts missing that were broken off or unreadable, but the parts readable, are a close facsimile of the same bible I read.I was talking about testaments suppressed after being rejected for inclusion in the bible at the first council of Nicaea, I think it was. Some of these "apocrypha" no longer exist, and some have been rediscovered only recently. The dead sea scrolls I don't doubt provide invaluable insights into the world of the Jesus Christ, but my understanding is that they don't countain testamony of His life.
I said, it DOES say homosexuality is a sin, it compares it to the evil of Soddom and Gomorrah even in the new testament, and states that when people begin being more like that, the "End shall soon come" etc...I don't recall that. I remember condemnations of male homosexual acts of some nature. Not quite the same thing as homosexuality.
But if I say "Why do Bostonians think the Red Sox will win?" then, it would be up to the Bostonian to answer...the way this question was placed, left it up to the Christian to answer, and why Christians regard it as sin, is not really open to debate.Well sure. But the merits of those reasons can be examined. Does the bible condemn homosexuality. And if so, where?

YES THERE IS. I dont know how much you have read the bible but it is there. Did you not read my post from the bible about this.

5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15: Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18: Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

King James Bible Hebrews chapter 10 Verses 5 - 8

This tells us that the ritualistic sacrifices (in this context, all of the ritualistic old testement law) is no longer nessecary thanks to Jesus's death. How much more do I have to do to explain this?
I'm sorry, but that text does not count. Nor does any of the Epistles.

Let's see...Ours(USA) Thailand, just two off the top of my head, plus the WHO, the UN, etc...
I did also list off Africa as a probable exception, nevertheless, my point was it STARTED in the gay community...for many years it was ONLY in the gay community, and they referred to it as the "gay plague" even my gay friends talk about this, it is known fact. I do not imply anything about WHY it started there, really, I have no idea, just $hit luck maybe even, but it started there and was confined to that community for nearly 25 years before EVER having a recorded, verified case in the non-gay community.For the most part gays of that time were afraid to even have it looked at because it would indicate(in a still un-accepting society) that they were in fact gay...hence they suffered in silence, and talked to each other about the "gay plague".You still don't get it, do you?
AIDS first developed in Africa (not in gays). Gays were later affected most though because of the ways in which they have intercourse (remember? HIV is a bug transmitted through body fluids) and not because they were gays as such. And of course there have been cases of AIDS long before that (among all kinds of folks), but all of these cases were assigned to other deseases prior to the discovery of HIV.

I'm not saying that God created man to be sinful. Far from it. Indeed, God created man to be perfect. We threw that in his face, and THAT is why we are sinful. Again, sin didn't arise from a design flaw from God, it arose from mankind.But since god knew all that beforehand, it was his intentional design to make humans flawed. He knew before he even started the task of man-making that with man he would also create "wrong"-doing, but he still continued. God WANTED and NEEDED man to fall.
Why no props for Paul? He was an Apostle, and thanks to his hard work, lots of people are Christian now. How strange it is that St. Paul, Apostle of Jesus Christ and devout Christian, should be called a hateful political man! I don't get it. But if you don't like Paul, super. But Jesus certainly liked Paul. Peter certainly liked Paul.Paul had never known nor met Jesus. And what Paul really attempted was to remove all that was traditionally Jewish from this new sect of Judaism. Although Paul obviously liked the god of the Jews he did not like the Jews themselves and also not their habits.

It's about proper framing, though. God wants no one to go to Hell. When Christ walked on water and Peter came out to him, did Jesus hold Peter's head under the water? Of course not! Instead, he saved him from drowning. In the same way, God doesn't take the Three Stooges route of, "Do it or I'll poke you in the eye. Why I aughtta!" Instead, he reaches out his hand and says, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

Sending Jesus Christ wasn't enough? C'mon, that's pretty much above and beyond what's expected.

Person 1: "I won't believe in God unless I hear what he has to say. He's gotta talk to me."
Person 2: "There's the Bible, the Word of God. And you can pray. He'll listen."
Person 1: "Okay....but I need to see a miracle. I need a little more proof."
Person 2: "How about if He delivers Israel from the hands of the Egyptians?"
Person 1: "Okay, parting the Red Sea was cool, giving miraculus manna from heaven was cool, appearing in a fiery cloud was cool, but I'm not convinced. I need to see more proof."
Person 2: "Sigh. Okay, what if God sent his only Son down here to Earth?"
Person 1: "No, that's not enough. He's got to do some neat stuff"
Person 2: "Okay. He'll turn water to wine, heal the sick, walk on water, feed 5000, and even rise from the dead and redeem the whole world."
Person 1: "Pffft. Unless I see the nail marks, I'm not getting this."
Person 2: "So all the miracles and the revelations and the prophets and even God's Son himself won't cut it?"
Person 1: "Why won't God just make things easy and be more forward?"

The above is a rhetorical device that'll probably be as ineffective as the alcoholism analogy, but I hope you get the point. I just don't see the idea that sending Christ wasn't enough. What's it gonna take?

But how do I know the Bible really is God's word? And how do I know that these miracles actually happened? And how do I know Christ was really God's son. I'm a reasonable man, if something like the parting of the Red Sea happened today, and there was no rational explanation, I would most likely start to believe. However, all your giving me for proof is a 2,000-year old book and your word that everything contained within is true. I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I doubt the validity of this story.

No. He just created us with free will. He didn't screw up, we did. It's hard to understand, because we can't create things with free will. If we build a building and it falls down, the design was flawed. But we can't create things with free will. So don't attribute this to God.

Even if we can't blame God for the sin of man, I still don't think it's very fair for Him to throw us out of paradise and introduce death into the world just because man disobeyed God once. God made us with free will, he knew what the possible consequences would be, so why should we be punished for using it? Not to mention the fact that man didn't even know right from wrong before he disobeyed God, so he couldn't have known that disobeyeing God would be that bad.

I'm not saying that God created man to be sinful. Far from it. Indeed, God created man to be perfect. We threw that in his face, and THAT is why we are sinful. Again, sin didn't arise from a design flaw from God, it arose from mankind.But since god knew all that beforehand, it was his intentional design to make humans flawed. He knew before he even started the task of man-making that with man he would also create "wrong"-doing, but he still continued. God WANTED and NEEDED man to fall. No, you're still thinking like a human. Men are not buildings, they can think and feel for themselves. God created them perfect, and with holy free will. If men misuse that holy free will, again I say it is not an indictment of God's design, but of man himself.

You say God wanted and needed man to fall. On the contrary, God wants all men to come to salvation. If he wanted us to fall, why send a savior at all? So we'd be beholden to God? So we'd love him even more?


Paul had never known nor met Jesus. And what Paul really attempted was to remove all that was traditionally Jewish from this new sect of Judaism. Although Paul obviously liked the god of the Jews he did not like the Jews themselves and also not their habits. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. This was where he was converted. How can you say Paul did not like the Jews themselves or their habits? He was a Jew! More than that, he was a really, really, REALLY DEVOUT Jew! He followed all the ceremonial laws to the letter. He was the biggest persecutor of Christians before he was converted.

So do you accept that Paul was a devout Jew, or no? If you do, what could be so powerful that it could change Paul's mind from following Jewish ceremonial law and persecuting Christians to being one of the biggest helpers of the Christian church? I guess I'm curious of how you view Paul. I've inferred it's not favorably, but maybe some more information would be helpful.

But how do I know the Bible really is God's word? And how do I know that these miracles actually happened? And how do I know Christ was really God's son. I'm a reasonable man, if something like the parting of the Red Sea happened today, and there was no rational explanation, I would most likely start to believe. However, all your giving me for proof is a 2,000-year old book and your word that everything contained within is true. I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I doubt the validity of this story. Okay. Fair enough. Even Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, said he would not take the other disciple's words for the ressurection. Unless he put his hand in the nail marks and in the side, it wasn't good enough. As Jesus said, "Because you have seen, you have believed. But blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

And that really comes down to Faith. As Paul said, "Faith is being certain of what we have not seen." I understand it takes a little jump. But once you're in, the water feels warm, I'm telling ya. I promise. Would I lie?

Even if we can't blame God for the sin of man, I still don't think it's very fair for Him to throw us out of paradise and introduce death into the world just because man disobeyed God once. God made us with free will, he knew what the possible consequences would be, so why should we be punished for using it? Not to mention the fact that man didn't even know right from wrong before he disobeyed God, so he couldn't have known that disobeyeing God would be that bad.So you want a freebie? A do-over? An undo? That excuse might have worked in baseball when I was seven, but it's not going to cut it.

Man did know right from wrong. He was created in God's image, which means not that he had the same brown eyes and curvy nose as God, but that he was perfect. He had perfect knowledge of what was wrong and what was right.

God had a pretty easy rule: don't hit the big red button. Ever. I repeat, don't ever hit the big red button. We did, and so were separated from God. God doesn't sin, not even once. Even one sin is unacceptable by comparison.

Man did know right from wrong. He was created in God's image, which means not that he had the same brown eyes and curvy nose as God, but that he was perfect. He had perfect knowledge of what was wrong and what was right.
Minor point: eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first sin, no? So in the beginning, man didn't know right and wrong, just God's one rule?

This means that the way I am naturally is evil, is sinful. It's sort of the opposite of humanism, which believes that humans are mostly good in spite of (LOTS of) evidence to the contrary."Evil" is quite a strong word to me. I do think that humans do need to be taught to be moral, and to show restraint, and that it is natural to be so taught.

Just because someone is born homosexual or predisposed to homosexuality doesn't make it right. All people are born predisposed to sin. That obviously doesn't make it right.Yes, absolutely. I believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or necessarily with homosexual acts, but I don't think the innateness (or lack thereof) has much to do with this.

A person can also be born predisposed to become an alcoholic. Would you argue that that person be given access to alcohol? Would you argue it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or others' lives?Yes, absolutely I would argue "that it's not wrong that that person could destroy his or other's lives". Now if a person, knowing that they were predisposed to become an alcoholic, drank, that would be wrong. And if a person, being an alcoholic, drank, that would be wrong. Although, given the nature of the disease, some compassion is called for. But there is nothing morally wrong with being predisposed to becoming an alcoholic.

Still, we are all judged on the basis of our own sins.That's appropriate. What I have a quibble with is the extremely negative judgement some people have of everyone, and which they attribute to God.

And I'll grant you that AIDS first surfaced in the gay communities. It could just as easily have surfaced in the hetero communities, though.There was a subculture of the gay community that was extremely promiscuous and none to careful to use condoms. Prior to AIDS this put them at risk for some fairly nasty but generally treatable diseases. Given the lack of knowledge of AIDS and the nature of HIV it was inevitable that they were hit early, and hit very hard.

And that really comes down to Faith. As Paul said, "Faith is being certain of what we have not seen." I understand it takes a little jump. But once you're in, the water feels warm, I'm telling ya. I promise. Would I lie?No I do not think you're lieing. But I do think you are mistaken about the existance of God. It's nothing against you; I think that people are easily mistaken. I do not have access to your inner experience, but merely what you report. And many people report ufos, leprecons, or being mounted by loa. With my preconceptions and biases, and without the inner experience of knowing God, I just don't find Christianity more compelling a belief system than other very different belief systems.

And the jump does not seem small to me. Turn the matter around, could you believe in the nonexistance of God, even if only for a day? Just give it a try? And if you could, would you? What I believe is not a small matter for me, and not something I can change on whim. And there is a subtler hang-up; I'm not about to try and make myself believe something I now believe to be false. I am willing to examine the evidence, but so far I have not found it persuasive.

Paul had never known nor met Jesus. And what Paul really attempted was to remove all that was traditionally Jewish from this new sect of Judaism. Although Paul obviously liked the god of the Jews he did not like the Jews themselves and also not their habits.

This is off-topic, but I must reply. Paul didn't dislike Jews or their habits (except perhaps for their habits of being against the new sect). However, he was a pragmatist. He knew that Christ wanted the Gospel spread everywhere, not just within the Jewish community. And he saw just how many Gentiles were intrigued by the new religion but didn't want to undergo circumcision or give up eating some of their favorite foods.

So you want a freebie? A do-over? An undo? That excuse might have worked in baseball when I was seven, but it's not going to cut it.

Man did know right from wrong. He was created in God's image, which means not that he had the same brown eyes and curvy nose as God, but that he was perfect. He had perfect knowledge of what was wrong and what was right.

God had a pretty easy rule: don't hit the big red button. Ever. I repeat, don't ever hit the big red button. We did, and so were separated from God. God doesn't sin, not even once. Even one sin is unacceptable by comparison.

God kicked man out of paradise for one misstep and condemned us to a life of sin. I still maintain that He overreacted.

God kicked man out of paradise for one misstep and condemned us to a life of sin. I still maintain that He overreacted.

No, its actually very much an under reaction. It was a rearly simple command to keep. Dont eat from one tree. In a garden of thousands. While we dont know the exact size of the garden of Eden, if it contained every plant in existance, even only one of each, it would still need to be huge. Its realy easy to keep. Rearly easy. And not only was it rearly easy to keep, it was made plainly clear what the punishment was. And it wasnt as if everything around them wasnt good enough for them. It was PERFECT. Humans just had to go for the one thing they couldnt have.

No, its actually very much an under reaction. It was a rearly simple command to keep. Dont eat from one tree. In a garden of thousands. While we dont know the exact size of the garden of Eden, if it contained every plant in existance, even only one of each, it would still need to be huge. Its realy easy to keep. Rearly easy. And not only was it rearly easy to keep, it was made plainly clear what the punishment was. And it wasnt as if everything around them wasnt good enough for them. It was PERFECT. Humans just had to go for the one thing they couldnt have.
Uh huh...and thus, people are evil and sinful and condemned to shitty pathetic lives.

I wonder, if you had never heard of the Bible (or at the very least, not heard of Genesis) would your opinion of humanity in general be different?

Minor point: eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first sin, no? So in the beginning, man didn't know right and wrong, just God's one rule?

Man knew right from wrong. There was more to God's law back then than just not to eat that fruit. Adam and Eve didn't lie. They weren't violent. They didn't curse, etc.

It wasn't this trade-off by eating from that tree, where we gain knowledge of morality, but lose immortality. At least I don't read it like that. But come to think of it, I wouldn't be suprised if some denominations taught this. I'm pretty confident with my interpretations of Paul because I've read a lot, but interpreting Eden is where I have less experience.
***
Dettibok, we still disagree on the alcoholism/Original Sin issue. Why don't you think being predisposed to sin is wrong? Because we can't choose how we're born, or to whom? To me, it sort of sounds like shifting blame. God doesn't want us to do our best, He wants more. Jesus says, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." God doesn't grade on a curve.

No I do not think you're lieing. But I do think you are mistaken about the existance of God. It's nothing against you; I think that people are easily mistaken. I do not have access to your inner experience, but merely what you report. And many people report ufos, leprecons, or being mounted by loa. With my preconceptions and biases, and without the inner experience of knowing God, I just don't find Christianity more compelling a belief system than other very different belief systems.

And the jump does not seem small to me. Turn the matter around, could you believe in the nonexistance of God, even if only for a day? Just give it a try? And if you could, would you? What I believe is not a small matter for me, and not something I can change on whim. And there is a subtler hang-up; I'm not about to try and make myself believe something I now believe to be false. I am willing to examine the evidence, but so far I have not found it persuasive. If it's not your cup of tea, I'm not going to force you to drink it. That's too close to Inquisition. But seriously, I think that guy 2000 years ago was really on to something.

Homosexuality is a sin because not only was it called an abomination of God, but it is downright unnatural. You can claim it isn't all you want, but a man with a man is wrong and nothing good can come from it.

Gay marriage is wrong as well. Marriage is a religious institution, but even if it wasn't the purpose would remain the same. Marriage is for couples who procreate. Gays cannot procreate. Open your eyes and shut your mouths. Gays just aren't accepted by most cultures worldwide.

Homosexuality is a sin because not only was it called an abomination of God, but it is downright unnatural. You can claim it isn't all you want, but a man with a man is wrong and nothing good can come from it.

Gay marriage is wrong as well. Marriage is a religious institution, but even if it wasn't the purpose would remain the same. Marriage is for couples who procreate. Gays cannot procreate. Open your eyes and shut your mouths. Gays just aren't accepted by most cultures worldwide.
there's another trend i have noticed: homophobes also expect everybody to bow down and kiss their egos, and they seem to think that the rest of the world is prepared to just accept their opinions as gospel (pardon the pun). why is that? why should people over look scientific data, civil rights, logical reasoning, and common decency, simply because you say "a man with a man is wrong?"

Homosexuality is a sin because not only was it called an abomination of God, but it is downright unnatural. You can claim it isn't all you want, but a man with a man is wrong and nothing good can come from it.

Gay marriage is wrong as well. Marriage is a religious institution, but even if it wasn't the purpose would remain the same. Marriage is for couples who procreate. Gays cannot procreate. Open your eyes and shut your mouths. Gays just aren't accepted by most cultures worldwide.
All I have to say is...love your screenname. :p

ok.. I must say that I haven't read this whole debate so I don't know if this has been brought up yet.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22 (i think..)

Pretty much what the bible says is that not to have sex with the same gender. That is the sin. It says nothing about loving someone of the same sex or anything of that matter.

Uh huh...and thus, people are evil and sinful and condemned to shitty pathetic lives.

I wonder, if you had never heard of the Bible (or at the very least, not heard of Genesis) would your opinion of humanity in general be different?

Humanity should consider itself very lucky

1) The wages of sin are DEATH. God could wipe out every single human on this planet and be completely just. Why, because the wages of sin are death. The fact that he doesnt proves that he cares about us, and loves us, dispite the fact that we all sin against him on a daily basis.

2) Adams sin, and all our sin can be delt with. The way this can be done is via the greatest act of love ever shown to the human race. Jeusus's death made it possible to reconsile that link which was ruined by sin. Now as far as God is concerened anyone who accepts him and genuinely and sincerely, then their slates are clean and God has nothing agaisnt them. Their sins are gone, forgotten. That doesnt mean your live is instantly happy. On the contaray, it can get a good deal harder. But thats nothing compared to the end result. Hevan and Neo-Jerusluem

Humanity should consider itself very lucky

1) The wages of sin are DEATH. God could wipe out every single human on this planet and be completely just. Why, because the wages of sin are death. The fact that he doesnt proves that he cares about us, and loves us, dispite the fact that we all sin against him on a daily basis.
Do you honestly believe that God nuking the world would be just? I thought the whole vengeful Old Testament God was passe...

there's another trend i have noticed: homophobes also expect everybody to bow down and kiss their egos, and they seem to think that the rest of the world is prepared to just accept their opinions as gospel (pardon the pun). why is that? why should people over look scientific data, civil rights, logical reasoning, and common decency, simply because you say "a man with a man is wrong?"

Scientific data: Be specific

Logical reasoning: Be specific

Common decency: Be specific

I can see where you are comming from. There is data that people are born homosexual. There is also evidence that they arent. And the reason we think you should take our word as gospel is that we KNOW it is, as it says in the Bible. We are not Homophobes. We destest homosexuality, but not Homosexuals. Christians are all extremely thankful that a part of the concequences of the death of Christ means that the sin can be seperated from the sinned. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Simple and effective in theory. Harder in practice. Abortion clinic bombings are proof of the misconception of this system. You dont go around killing people because they sin. We never say that.

Do you honestly believe that God nuking the world would be just? I thought the whole vengeful Old Testament God was passe...

He wouldnt do it because he loves us, my point was he COULD and be just. All have sined. Sin equals death. Therefore all die. However, all will only die physicaly. Spirtiualy we can be saved, see the second part of the post you quoted from.

It is a sin because God deems it so. He created us a certian way and to go against it is an abomination. I defend my position with God's word

However we don't hate homosexuals, we hate the sin. Someone gay can be saved, they just must choose not to act on those sinful desires and ask God for forgiveness when they do.

He created us a certian way and to go against it is an abomination.
Considering that evidence shows most homosexuals are born that way, I'd say God creates people the way they are, gay, straight, and bisexual. To go against THAT, must be the abomination. Good luck telling gays they must be as chaste as a priest (no altar boys either) while you get to have all the merry fuckery you want as a heterosexual.

Let me throw you this: does a father punish a child who steals when noone ever told them that stealing was wrong? Or even moreso if someone told them it was right? God is just.

Scientific data: Be specific

Logical reasoning: Be specific

Common decency: Be specific

I can see where you are comming from. There is data that people are born homosexual. There is also evidence that they arent. And the reason we think you should take our word as gospel is that we KNOW it is, as it says in the Bible. We are not Homophobes. We destest homosexuality, but not Homosexuals. Christians are all extremely thankful that a part of the concequences of the death of Christ means that the sin can be seperated from the sinned. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Simple and effective in theory. Harder in practice. Abortion clinic bombings are proof of the misconception of this system. You dont go around killing people because they sin. We never say that.

Hmm.. Mathew 5:28 - ?

I believe that God made it a sin because one thats how AIDS started. God also made it like that because Men and Women are meant to be and not a Man and a Man and a Woman and a Woman. He probably also made AIDS to punish those who were adulturers and homosexuals. Marriage I believe would create more AIDS its not about religon its about the health problems. AIDS is a terrible disease and a 300 pound man can turn 75 pounds when he dies from it. To think about it AIDS is a blaming on the 60's and the homosexuals because sex was greatly numerous then. God has made many peneltys for the sinners. One big one is hell were you are tortured forever and you don't live you are in pain. God's heaven is a place of life and un worryness. I want God's truth and not satans lie.

There is also evidence that they arent.

A few lines in the Bible does not equate to evidence. You can find evidence for anything you want in the Bible.

I believe that God made it a sin because one thats how AIDS started.

Did God tell you that? Because AIDs didn't start from homosexuality - so your entire premise is wrong.

I believe that God made it a sin because one thats how AIDS started. God also made it like that because Men and Women are meant to be and not a Man and a Man and a Woman and a Woman. He probably also made AIDS to punish those who were adulturers and homosexuals. Marriage I believe would create more AIDS its not about religon its about the health problems. AIDS is a terrible disease and a 300 pound man can turn 75 pounds when he dies from it. To think about it AIDS is a blaming on the 60's and the homosexuals because sex was greatly numerous then. God has made many peneltys for the sinners. One big one is hell were you are tortured forever and you don't live you are in pain. God's heaven is a place of life and un worryness. I want God's truth and not satans lie.

AIDS is God's judgement against homosexuals? Are you crazy?

It's a valid point to say that it's spiritually devestating. But I don't see the physical connection. AIDS will kill you if you're a homosexual, heterosexual, Christian, Jew, or atheist. God doesn't judge people like this- it doesn't have that much causality. Just read Job.

America truly is the land of Fear and Loathing!

Ok i know that my last post was VERY confusing, so let me clear this up. I HATE GAY PEOPLE! there i said it, i think they are disgusting and repulsive, and they do nothing for society except insult straight couples and the human race! NOW I SAID IT! I HATE GAY PEOPLE! IT IS WRONG! IT IS F***ING DISGUSTING! AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE WANT "GAY RIGHTS"! YOU MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT! IT IS A SIN! THE BIBLE SAYS NOT TO LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN, PERIOD! IT DOES NOT SAY DONT HAVE SEX WITH HIM/HER OF THE SAME SEX, BUT YOU CAN LOVE HIM/HER! IT SAYS DO NOT LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN! AND YOU MAY THINK THE OLD TESTAMENT MAY NOT COUNT AND WE DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, BUT YOU ARE ALL WRONG! IT JUST MEANS WE DONT HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND LIVE A LEGALISTIC LIFE! THATS ALL IT MEANS! I AM VERY ANIT-GAY, I GO TO ANTI-GAY PROTESTS, AND I AM PART OF AN ANTI-GAY CLUB! I HATE GAYS!
:fluffle: :sniper:

"Because AIDs didn't start from homosexuality"

Aids started from a animal "loving" african man. Crazy africans.

Ok i know that my last post was VERY confusing, so let me clear this up. I HATE GAY PEOPLE! there i said it, i think they are disgusting and repulsive, and they do nothing for society except insult straight couples and the human race! NOW I SAID IT! I HATE GAY PEOPLE! IT IS WRONG! IT IS F***ING DISGUSTING! AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE WANT "GAY RIGHTS"! YOU MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT! IT IS A SIN! THE BIBLE SAYS NOT TO LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN, PERIOD! IT DOES NOT SAY DONT HAVE SEX WITH HIM/HER OF THE SAME SEX, BUT YOU CAN LOVE HIM/HER! IT SAYS DO NOT LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN! AND YOU MAY THINK THE OLD TESTAMENT MAY NOT COUNT AND WE DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, BUT YOU ARE ALL WRONG! IT JUST MEANS WE DONT HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND LIVE A LEGALISTIC LIFE! THATS ALL IT MEANS! I AM VERY ANIT-GAY, I GO TO ANTI-GAY PROTESTS, AND I AM PART OF AN ANTI-GAY CLUB! I HATE GAYS!
:fluffle: :sniper:
Just a small point.The Secret to good debate is not to be Ambiguous o.k.
P.S. I'm positive John Wayne was Gay.

Ok i know that my last post was VERY confusing, so let me clear this up. I HATE GAY PEOPLE! there i said it, i think they are disgusting and repulsive, and they do nothing for society except insult straight couples and the human race! NOW I SAID IT! I HATE GAY PEOPLE! IT IS WRONG! IT IS F***ING DISGUSTING! AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE WANT "GAY RIGHTS"! YOU MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT! IT IS A SIN! THE BIBLE SAYS NOT TO LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN, PERIOD! IT DOES NOT SAY DONT HAVE SEX WITH HIM/HER OF THE SAME SEX, BUT YOU CAN LOVE HIM/HER! IT SAYS DO NOT LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN! AND YOU MAY THINK THE OLD TESTAMENT MAY NOT COUNT AND WE DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, BUT YOU ARE ALL WRONG! IT JUST MEANS WE DONT HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND LIVE A LEGALISTIC LIFE! THATS ALL IT MEANS! I AM VERY ANIT-GAY, I GO TO ANTI-GAY PROTESTS, AND I AM PART OF AN ANTI-GAY CLUB! I HATE GAYS!
:fluffle: :sniper:
Suck it.

I believe that God made it a sin because one thats how AIDS started. God also made it like that because Men and Women are meant to be and not a Man and a Man and a Woman and a Woman. He probably also made AIDS to punish those who were adulturers and homosexuals. Marriage I believe would create more AIDS its not about religon its about the health problems. AIDS is a terrible disease and a 300 pound man can turn 75 pounds when he dies from it. To think about it AIDS is a blaming on the 60's and the homosexuals because sex was greatly numerous then. God has made many peneltys for the sinners. One big one is hell were you are tortured forever and you don't live you are in pain. God's heaven is a place of life and un worryness. I want God's truth and not satans lie.
Then I suppose syphilis is God's punishment against heterosexuals?

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?
christians aren't the only people who get married. never were.

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

I think the funniest thing about the anti-gay marriage groups is their assertion that allowing gay marriage would "destroy the sacred institution of marriage". It's a little challenging to understand how gay marriage would destroy it, and how marriage has not already been destroyed, with divorce rates in the USA at roughly one in two.
Yes, but we have the high divorce as a direct result of the continued demoralization of America. That would be something the Christians try to prevent. And also, here is a scripture referring to homosexuality, from the New Testament.
Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Now, I state it is from the New Testament, and I only quote from there, because any Christian should know that we are held accountable to the New Law, that preached by Jesus Christ and his disciples. Now, if your actions support homosexuality, then you may have led others into a life of sin, and therefore their lost soul would be inextricably bound to yours. Thus, homosexuality is a sin, and I would consider supporting it as something that is "OK" to be a sin as well, for the simple fact that your actions will lead to others defying the word of God and thus not being able to enter heaven. That's about all there is to say on that topic.

Ok i know that my last post was VERY confusing, so let me clear this up. I AM GAY, I GO TO GAY CLUBS! I LOVE IT GAY!
:fluffle: :sniper:
Thought so

christians aren't the only people who get married. never were.
However, marriage is, and has always been, a religious institution. That is not denied by anyone, or at leats not anyone who is properly informed. I would point out that although Christians are not the only ones who get married, I have never seen marriage practiced without a religious aspect. However, a civil union is an entirely different scenario. That, I do not disagree with, simple because it has nothing to do with any religion.

Maybe so. There are plenty of sinful heterosexuals.

However, marriage is, and has always been, a religious institution. That is not denied by anyone, or at leats not anyone who is properly informed. I would point out that although Christians are not the only ones who get marriage, I have never seen marriage practiced without a religious aspect. However, a civil union is an entirely different scenario. That, I do not disagree with, simple because it has nothing to do with any religion.
You can get married without a religious ceremony. Plenty of people do.

In any case, if marriage is and always has been a religious institution, then the government should stop regulating it for chrissakes. The tax breaks, alimony laws, child laws, etc, should all apply to only civil unions. Until that happens, marriage is fair game by non-religious and/or gay folks.


And I am honored to be on both yours and Munkebrain's sigs. (bows).

Although I was joking on yours, serious on Munkebrain's. :p

Maybe so. There are plenty of sins a heterosexual can do.
Think about this: What if everyone in the world followed God's plan for sexuality? Have sex with only your spouse after you are married. There would be no STDs, they wouldn't transfer. If everyone did that now it would cause a fast decline and eventual demise of the diseases.

Maybe so. There are plenty of sins a heterosexual can do.
Think about this: What if everyone in the world followed God's plan for sexuality? Have sex with only your spouse after you are married. There would be no STDs, they wouldn't transfer. If everyone did that now it would cause a fast decline and eventual demise of the diseases.
yes...and if everyone used condoms and was properly educated about sexuality a similar result would occur. Best of both worlds, you get to fuck without the responsibility! :D

Yes, but we have the high divorce as a direct result of the continued demoralization of America. That would be something the Christians try to prevent. Yet Christianity is wildly popular in the US compared to much of Europe. Why is it that their divorce rates fell just like ours did, yet their 'demoralization' was already high to begin with? Could it be that there's a more nuanced answer, one that could be found by sociologists or something?

That's what I think.

Ok i know that my last post was VERY confusing, so let me clear this up. I HATE GAY PEOPLE! there i said it, i think they are disgusting and repulsive, and they do nothing for society except insult straight couples and the human race! NOW I SAID IT! I HATE GAY PEOPLE! IT IS WRONG! IT IS F***ING DISGUSTING! AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY PEOPLE WANT "GAY RIGHTS"! YOU MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT! IT IS A SIN! THE BIBLE SAYS NOT TO LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN, PERIOD! IT DOES NOT SAY DONT HAVE SEX WITH HIM/HER OF THE SAME SEX, BUT YOU CAN LOVE HIM/HER! IT SAYS DO NOT LAY WITH ANOTHER MAN! AND YOU MAY THINK THE OLD TESTAMENT MAY NOT COUNT AND WE DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, BUT YOU ARE ALL WRONG! IT JUST MEANS WE DONT HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND LIVE A LEGALISTIC LIFE! THATS ALL IT MEANS! I AM VERY ANIT-GAY, I GO TO ANTI-GAY PROTESTS, AND I AM PART OF AN ANTI-GAY CLUB! I HATE GAYS!
:fluffle: :sniper:

Ahhh...now it all makes sense.

"Because AIDs didn't start from homosexuality"

Aids started from a animal "loving" african man. Crazy africans.

Still wrong. It most likely came from dressing bushmeat and getting infected blood on the skin.

However, marriage is, and has always been, a religious institution. That is not denied by anyone, or at leats not anyone who is properly informed. I would point out that although Christians are not the only ones who get married, I have never seen marriage practiced without a religious aspect. However, a civil union is an entirely different scenario. That, I do not disagree with, simple because it has nothing to do with any religion.

I have seen many marriages practiced without any religious aspect. It happens all the time with atheists/agnostics. It's called going down to the justice of the peace and getting a marriage license. You don't even have to bring your own witness - they'll provide one for you.

All a civil union would be is a civil marriage under a different name. Such would only be proper if *all* civil marriages were, in fact, civil unions.

Maybe so. There are plenty of sins a heterosexual can do.
Think about this: What if everyone in the world followed God's plan for sexuality? Have sex with only your spouse after you are married. There would be no STDs, they wouldn't transfer. If everyone did that now it would cause a fast decline and eventual demise of the diseases.

Funny, that's exactly what many homosexuals are trying to do.

Aids started from a animal "loving" african man. Crazy africans.


Evidence? Aside from the fact that it is generally believed to have crossed the species barrier due to eating monkey flesh, rather than inter-species sexual relations, the first recorded case of HIV is from a British man in 1959.

No, its actually very much an under reaction. It was a rearly simple command to keep. Dont eat from one tree. In a garden of thousands. While we dont know the exact size of the garden of Eden, if it contained every plant in existance, even only one of each, it would still need to be huge. Its realy easy to keep. Rearly easy. And not only was it rearly easy to keep, it was made plainly clear what the punishment was. And it wasnt as if everything around them wasnt good enough for them. It was PERFECT. Humans just had to go for the one thing they couldnt have.

Well, I'd prefer not to indulge in that kind of self-destructive thinking, but good luck to you. Seriously.

Maybe so. There are plenty of sins a heterosexual can do.
Think about this: What if everyone in the world followed God's plan for sexuality? Have sex with only your spouse after you are married. There would be no STDs, they wouldn't transfer. If everyone did that now it would cause a fast decline and eventual demise of the diseases.

You neglect to take into account the transference of AIDS via infected needles and infected blood used in transfusions.

You neglect to take into account the transference of AIDS via infected needles and infected blood used in transfusions.

It also neglects those STDs which are transfered from the mother to the fetus.

It also neglects those STDs which are transfered from the mother to the fetus.

It also neglects the fact that if you wear your tinfoil hat, you won't get an STD.

You neglect to take into account the transference of AIDS via infected needles and infected blood used in transfusions.
and the STDs that can be transmitted through non-sexual contact, like pubic lice, certain forms of genital warts, herpes, and others.

and the STDs that can be transmitted through non-sexual contact, like pubic lice, certain forms of genital warts, herpes, and others.

Yes but as religion clearly points out, your not supposed to touch each other - nevermind some parts of yourself. So none of things would be an issue if we were all amish. How many amish have STDs. None. That's how many.

Yes but as religion clearly points out, your not supposed to touch each other - nevermind some parts of yourself.

Clicky - Song of Solomon (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html)

It, most importantly, neglects divorce. If noone ever broke up or divorced, it'd work fine. But not on this planet.

It also neglects the fact that if you wear your tinfoil hat, you won't get an STD.

nice

It, most importantly, neglects divorce. If noone ever broke up or divorced, it'd work fine. But not on this planet.

why is everyone just systematically elimintaing what he said instead of coming up with new statements? just curious :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Yes but as religion clearly points out, your not supposed to touch each other - nevermind some parts of yourself. So none of things would be an issue if we were all amish. How many amish have STDs. None. That's how many.
Then go be a fucking Amish and be as plain as you want. Go ahead, no one's stopping you.

and I think Amish secretly get around, ya know...they just don't like to talk about it...

And I am honored to be on both yours and Munkebrain's sigs. (bows).

Although I was joking on yours, serious on Munkebrain's. :p
Ya, I know, but it was entirely too convenient.

I have seen many marriages practiced without any religious aspect. It happens all the time with atheists/agnostics. It's called going down to the justice of the peace and getting a marriage license. You don't even have to bring your own witness - they'll provide one for you.

All a civil union would be is a civil marriage under a different name. Such would only be proper if *all* civil marriages were, in fact, civil unions.
However, marriage licenses and all that other rubbish are fairly recent additions. You should remember that marriage existed for thousands of years before the marriage license, or the justice of the peace.

why is everyone just systematically elimintaing what he said instead of coming up with new statements? just curious :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Because every now and then, discussion is interrupted by crazy people. So here's a new statement: if homosexuality is genetic, as I usually think of it as, how come there are a lot more homosexuals now than there were, say, 100 years ago? What about 400 years ago? Was it just that it was so repressed that people who were homosexual threw in the towel and gave in to society, or what?

Because every now and then, discussion is interrupted by crazy people. So here's a new statement: if homosexuality is genetic, as I usually think of it as, how come there are a lot more homosexuals now than there were, say, 100 years ago? What about 400 years ago? Was it just that it was so repressed that people who were homosexual threw in the towel and gave in to society, or what?


Do you actually have any evidence that there are more homosexual people now as a ratio of the population as a whole, or are you just reacting to the fact that homosexuality is now more overt than it has been some times in the past?

However, marriage licenses and all that other rubbish are fairly recent additions. You should remember that marriage existed for thousands of years before the marriage license, or the justice of the peace.
Citing historical context isn't very helpful. Many things that have existed for thousands of years were suddenly found to be immoral, and no one complained.

It, most importantly, neglects divorce. If noone ever broke up or divorced, it'd work fine. But not on this planet.

...or remarried after the death of their spouse.

Do you actually have any evidence that there are more homosexual people now as a ratio of the population as a whole, or are you just reacting to the fact that homosexuality is now more overt than it has been some times in the past?

Hard evidence? No. I don't think it's the sort of thing census records indicate. But it's essentially what I am asking: obviously not as many people admitted they were gay in the past. Lots more do now. Is that increase simply because it's getting to be ok in our society to admit that, or is it just because there are more gay people?

Citing historical context isn't very helpful. Many things that have existed for thousands of years were suddenly found to be immoral, and no one complained.
huh?
Who argued that marriage is immoral?

Greetings all!
What interesting topics one can find in these forums!
Might I suggest a short book entitled "Christianity and Homosexuality Reconciled" by Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D. You may find an online version at www.cebiaz.com or type in "Christ Evangelical Bible Institute" on your search engine.
If one will take the time to research (and believe me, it takes a LOT of time) the origional languages and cultural context of the scriptures, you may be surprised by what you find!
Saint Paul admonished us to search the scriptures for ourselves. I will in no way attempt to sway anyones belief one way or the other. I only wish to encourage anyone who may be struggling with this issue to use the brain God gave you and the available resources to come to your own conclusion.
And yes, I am a Gay Christian in a happy and committed relationship who will love and serve God and my fellowman til my dying breath.

Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural. When a man and woman are together they have the ability to create a child therefore making straight sex natural because it is needed in order to reproduce. However when two men are in a relationship there is nothing that can be produced as a result of that relationship(well nothing except AIDS, HIV, or one of the men will start walking in an akward way...)

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

Judging from your vivid coice of words, I'm fairly certain that you had a serious woodie while writing that.

huh?
Who argued that marriage is immoral?
You said marriage has existed as man+woman for thousands of years, as if that should be support to keep it that way. I'm just saying plenty of age-old traditions (slavery, wife-beating, etc.) were never found to be immoral until people got a little more tolerant. Denying marriage to people who want it is in my eyes immoral.

Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural. When a man and woman are together they have the ability to create a child therefore making straight sex natural because it is needed in order to reproduce. However when two men are in a relationship there is nothing that can be produced as a result of that relationship(well nothing except AIDS, HIV, or one of the men will start walking in an akward way...)
Then you better not wear a condom because nothing can come from that.

Being bi-curious (having a strong attraction to males) makes me want to reply to this thread... However, I am not religious and thus do not care what religious folk do call a sin or If they hate me for it, that's they're problem, they are missing out on a great kid.

Eep, looks like I replied anyways ^_^

Just to note, if my grandfather found out, he would constantly remind me how deep into Hell I am going. Haha... oh well.

But yeah, like I said, I'm not worried if I am sinning or not, because that's not what I believe in. I'll let people believe in what they believe in, if they let me alone to carry on what I believe in.

I want some nice gay ass right now!

:eek: :fluffle:

You guys should try Atheism. ;)

Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural. When a man and woman are together they have the ability to create a child therefore making straight sex natural because it is needed in order to reproduce. However when two men are in a relationship there is nothing that can be produced as a result of that relationship(well nothing except AIDS, HIV, or one of the men will start walking in an akward way...)

So the over 400 species that practice homosexuality is not natural?

So...the most unnatural thing in the world is nature?



Look, NOBODY responded to this before, so I'll state it again.

As a christian, you have two, and only two choices to make. Either God is NOT all knowing, or humans were set up.

If God is all knowing, he knows the future. And if God knows the future, he KNEW that mankind would eat from the tree. Yet he made them anyways. Why? Did he think he was going to just change his mind?

For that matter, why have the tree there in the first place? It's like putting a bowl of food in front of a starving dog, and then punishing it when it tries to at the food.



Oh, and if sex would only ever happen in marrige? I do believe the hand oil manufacterors would be the richest people imaginable.

You guys should try Atheism. ;)
Works good for me. :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't know how to quote stuff yet, sorry! :P

Note that none of these laws apply to modern-day Christians. When Christ came to earth, he abolished the Old Laws and formed new ones. Homosexual marriage, dealings, intercourse, etc. were all condemned.

oy vey... k well ppl i hate to say it but the church has been cherry picking the laws they wanna teach.

For instance: they say if you get remariied after a divorce, every time you have sex it is adultary.

So hmmm in order to keep the sanctity of marrige we should outlaw divorce! But wait, the divorce rate in America is 1:3 and marrige is now a government issue. Not much sanctity to keep eh?

Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural. When a man and woman are together they have the ability to create a child therefore making straight sex natural because it is needed in order to reproduce. However when two men are in a relationship there is nothing that can be produced as a result of that relationship(well nothing except AIDS, HIV, or one of the men will start walking in an akward way...)

You have a very convincing argument. However humans are flawed, er... different... They seek what they find pleasurable, and according to some research anal sex can be very stimulating, much more so than "normal" sex.

I wouldn't know this, however.

Anyways, with over-population a gay couple could adopt a kid no problem. However some have no interest in children anyways.

I'm not retorting, because as I said, you have a good point. If that's why Chatholics or Christians think being gay is a sin, because it's unnatural, that's their problem. I just disagree, as do many others. Why is it considered 'unnatural' is so many people do it? If there were more gays in the world, would being straight be considered unnatural?

I once saw a movie were women ruled the world. Lesbians ruled, haha... it was rather aweful, however I guess they recreated more girls by some type of cloning process between the two women that wished to have a couple. One girl, a scientist... ended up having a son (because she was curious) ew... and he grew up fast and she had SEX with him. ack ack ack... her own SON!

I am upset with your last comment. The reason why more gay couples get AIDs, HIV, and what not is because they are a smaller group of people, and thus have a smaller selection of people to spread it to. For straight people it's more difficult to spread it because you have to go through a girl to get it, instead of going straight to the source. Er.. I hope that made sense. Basically, there is a person inbetween.

oy vey... k well ppl i hate to say it but the church has been cherry picking the laws they wanna teach.

For instance: they say if you get remariied after a divorce, every time you have sex it is adultary.

So hmmm in order to keep the sanctity of marrige we should outlaw divorce! But wait, the divorce rate in America is 1:3 and marrige is now a government issue. Not much sanctity to keep eh?
____________________

Not completely true. The RC Church (I don't know about the others) does sanctify SOME divorces... assuming that the person you married did NOT have true faith in God and made the marriage "for show". This is hard to prove, however, but it is possible to abolish a marriage in the Church.

The bible outlaws loads of things which most people think its good to outlaw, eg stealing, killing etc. Yet there are somethings which people seem to debate. Why? If you accept part of the bible as right then why not the rest?
fine, then don't tell the cops i'm wearing a cotton-poly blend or they'll get to stone me to death.

heh. isn't it funny how people in the west condemn muslim nations where women are stoned to death for being raped (they called it adultery though), yet the holy book of many americans advocates the same thing...

However, marriage is, and has always been, a religious institution. That is not denied by anyone, or at leats not anyone who is properly informed. I would point out that although Christians are not the only ones who get married, I have never seen marriage practiced without a religious aspect. However, a civil union is an entirely different scenario. That, I do not disagree with, simple because it has nothing to do with any religion.
before christianity, there were pagan religions that permitted same sex marriages.

what's your point?

christianity is far from the oldest religion in the world.

Man did know right from wrong. He was created in God's image, which means not that he had the same brown eyes and curvy nose as God, but that he was perfect. He had perfect knowledge of what was wrong and what was right.
have you read the bible? man did not have knowledge of right or wrong. that's the one thing that god didn't give him. it was from eating of the tree of knowledge that man gained this ability to tell right from wrong.
why do you think it's called the fall from innocence? man was innocent of right and wrong before eating from the tree.

God had a pretty easy rule: don't hit the big red button. Ever. I repeat, don't ever hit the big red button. We did, and so were separated from God. God doesn't sin, not even once. Even one sin is unacceptable by comparison.
god didn't give adam and eve the knowledge to tell that the snake was bad. they just assumed that everything was good as that's all they knew. they trusted what they were told... how were they to know that the snake was bad?

aside from that, another part of the bible also says that the sins of the father don't transfer to the son... so why is it that the sin of our great-great-great-*? grandparents is transferred to us? last i checked, no snake came up to me and told me to eat an apple i was forbidden to eat.

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

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

all of the above is a sin

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

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?
As its been said many times above homosexuality is unnatural, God destroyed an entire city and made sure nothing could live there ever again, simply because the people who lived there were gay, and the list goes on and on. I don't really feel like adding on do to many people, have or will say what I have to say

have you read the bible? man did not have knowledge of right or wrong. that's the one thing that god didn't give him. it was from eating of the tree of knowledge that man gained this ability to tell right from wrong.
why do you think it's called the fall from innocence? man was innocent of right and wrong before eating from the tree. It's called the fall from innocence because Man was previously innocent. Note how it's not the fall from ignorance. This isn't an unknowing innocence- what makes you believe this?

It's plain to me that Eve knew what was going on. She replied to the serpent, "God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Does that sound like it's a wide-eyed innocent?

Remember Satan's reply, "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So are you going to believe Satan, or God?

god didn't give adam and eve the knowledge to tell that the snake was bad. they just assumed that everything was good as that's all they knew. they trusted what they were told... how were they to know that the snake was bad? They knew good from bad. They knew what God said (see above). They knew what the serpent said. They believed the serpent. Hence, sin.

aside from that, another part of the bible also says that the sins of the father don't transfer to the son... so why is it that the sin of our great-great-great-*? grandparents is transferred to us? last i checked, no snake came up to me and told me to eat an apple i was forbidden to eat. As I've said before, everyone is judged on their own sins. Because my parents were sinful, I am sinful too. Because a cow's parents are cows, they give birth to a cow. It's simple to me. How can two people that are sinful create another thing that is holy? It's impossible.

But again, everyone is judged for their own sins. And no one is innocent. No one is perfect. You've never met a serpent telling you to eat some fruit, but do you mean to say that you have never sinned? I sin, you sin, we all sin. So we all need a savior.

fine, then don't tell the cops i'm wearing a cotton-poly blend or they'll get to stone me to death.

heh. isn't it funny how people in the west condemn muslim nations where women are stoned to death for being raped (they called it adultery though), yet the holy book of many americans advocates the same thing...

Now this is just a guess, so don't hold me to this, but MAYBE BECUASE THE US DOESN'T ACTUALLY STONE THE WOMEN TO DEATH.

Just speculating.

As its been said many times above homosexuality is unnatural, God destroyed an entire city and made sure nothing could live there ever again, simply because the people who lived there were gay, and the list goes on and on. I don't really feel like adding on do to many people, have or will say what I have to say

Well... f*** God. I bet he destroyed that city out of spite because Lord Odin, or Zeus turned him down. That's why he "outlawed" gays, because he was a little curious himself but couldn't get any, so he took it out on those that were.

Please note that I am not religious at all, but if God destroyed a city because the people within were gay... that's just sick. God is a bastard.

Dettibok, we still disagree on the alcoholism/Original Sin issue. Why don't you think being predisposed to sin is wrong? Because we can't choose how we're born, or to whom?Essentially yes. Being predisposed to sin is not a choice or an action; it can be wrong in the sense that cancer is wrong (the outcome is bad), but it can't be wrong in the sense that murdering someone is wrong.
To me, it sort of sounds like shifting blame.Ah, we might be onto something here. I'm quite interested in what actions are moral and which are immoral (and which are wise and which are foolish). And I am interested in making the world a better place, and how to do so. But I am generally not interested in assigning blame, or making sure wrongs are punished. And another tangent: I've been generally using sin as a synonym for "moral wrong". What is their relation?
God doesn't want us to do our best, He wants more. Jesus says, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." God doesn't grade on a curve.And so we fail to provide what God is looking for. That's one thing. But to say that we are therefore evil people deserving of death is quite another. To my knowledge you haven't said that we are all deserving of death. But some people on this thread have.
If it's not your cup of tea, I'm not going to force you to drink it. That's too close to Inquisition. But seriously, I think that guy 2000 years ago was really on to something.I do agree with a fair amount of what he had to say. But no, it's not my cup of tea, and I doubt I will ever be a believer. And I don't expect to change your positions. But you don't appear to be close-minded or close-eared, so I do hope we can learn a little about each other's philosophy. But not today, as I am falling asleap :-(.

Essentially yes. Being predisposed to sin is not a choice or an action; it can be wrong in the sense that cancer is wrong (the outcome is bad), but it can't be wrong in the sense that murdering someone is wrong. So you separate actions from conditions, yes? If someone goes and murders someone, that's a sin. But if he thinks about it and just gives him a dirty look instead, it's not, according to what I think you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong).

I propose (as did Jesus) that if someone even thinks about committing murder, it's a sin.

I've been generally using sin as a synonym for "moral wrong". What is their relation?
And so we fail to provide what God is looking for. That's one thing. But to say that we are therefore evil people deserving of death is quite another. To my knowledge you haven't said that we are all deserving of death. But some people on this thread have.:Sheepish Grin: Yeah, I guess I'm one of Them. The Bible teaches that the wages of Sin is death. The reason why Adam died was because he sinned. Therefore, because we all sin, we all deserve death.

But the important thing is that this isn't the end of the story. Too many churches preach hellfire and sulfer and brimstone and damnation. You have to remember what Christ did- offered a way out from that death sentence hanging over us. You need both Law and Gospel. Just having Law does nothing but condemn. Just having Gospel gives nothing to be saved from.

I do agree with a fair amount of what he had to say. But no, it's not my cup of tea, and I doubt I will ever be a believer. And I don't expect to change your positions. But you don't appear to be close-minded or close-eared, so I do hope we can learn a little about each other's philosophy. But not today, as I am falling asleap :-(. While I obviously pay attention to what Jesus said, I pay much more attention to what Jesus did. The work of redeeming mankind, of bringing atonement between God and men, is the biggest part. Just accepting what he said cuts out that part about the crucifixion and especially ressurection.

As a christian, you have two, and only two choices to make. Either God is NOT all knowing, or humans were set up.


God was all knowing and humans were not set up. Just because God knew humans were going to sin, doesnt mean he was willing to take away free will from us. Its like going on a school trip with a year 1 class. Your efectively certian that one or two of these 6/7 year olds will misbehave but that doesnt mean you dont take the class on the trip. God gave us free will, just because he knew that we would sin, doesnt mean he would stop us. It was our choice. A parent will have a child and that child will do wrong. A parent does not lead the child in such a sheltered life that it cannot do any wrong at all.


So the over 400 species that practice homosexuality is not natural?
So...the most unnatural thing in the world is nature?


Killing happens a lot in nature too. Are you going to tell me that is nautral and therefore not a sin?

be a bit more humble, which btw is a christian virtue.

as is forgivness you homophobic bastards (NOT meant to offend Jester III)

as is forgivness you homophobic bastards (NOT meant to offend Jester III)

Christians are not homophobes. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Basic idea but solves lots of problems when practiced.

Allow me to begin with the fact that I am both male, and not gay.

*ahem* I am both male, and not gay. That said, I have no disrespect for gay people. As a matter of fact, I think their culture is kinda cool once you start being mature about the issue and check it out.

As for society being against gay people on the basis that it's gross, that is absolutely ridiculous. These people only find it gross because they haven't been exposed to it, just like how they would consider their parents having sex gross, but hey, they had to get here somehow, didn't they? Also, you have the "macho" guys out there who are afraid some gay guy is gonna make a pass at them. Once again, ridiculous. Why is it that these people believe every gay person they encounter are just checking them out? Dude, that's entirely egotistical and self-centered. Thousands of years ago we proved that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Yet, why is it people still believe that they are the center of the universe?

That said, Christians are simply against gay people and anything that stands for it because God told them not to mix in with the tribes that did so. Big whoop. Does that mean they should entirely oppose it? Not really. It should mean that they simply ignore it, not run around like maniacs acting as if seeing a gay couple is like watching the devil play hop-scotch with the little kid down the street.

As for me? I'm a back sliding Christian whose thoughts about this issue fall on deaf ears because of my location (in case you've forgotten, the military doesn't approve of gay people), despite the fact that I'm not even in the military (I'm in high school, and proud of it!). I think that sexual preference shouldn't matter on a marriage certificate, and that anyone who tries to stop them is denying them of their "pursuit of happiness", so said in the constitution that we hold so dear. If being married makes a gay person happy, then it would actually be unpatriotic to deny them this right. 50 odd years ago, interracial dating was deemed as irrational and gross and illogical. Is it now? No. So why should gay rights be any different?

50 odd years ago, interracial dating was deemed as irrational and gross and illogical. Is it now? No. So why should gay rights be any different?


There is a simple reason why Christians detest gay marriage. Mariage is not just the state recognising the union of two people, it is a religious ceremony. Personaly, I feal that marriage should be denyed to people of no religion, they see an aspect of religion they like and are quite happy to use that but ignore all others. The bible does say something to the effect of
"For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife and the two will become one". MAN AND WIFE. Not man and man or anything like that. Gay marriage undermines God's origingal purpose of marriage.

Killing happens a lot in nature too. Are you going to tell me that is nautral and therefore not a sin?

Protecting your young, even at the cost of your own life, happens a lot in nature too. Shall we call that a sin too?

There is a simple reason why Christians detest gay marriage. Mariage is not just the state recognising the union of two people, it is a religious ceremony. Personaly, I feal that marriage should be denyed to people of no religion, they see an aspect of religion they like and are quite happy to use that but ignore all others. The bible does say something to the effect of
"For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife and the two will become one". MAN AND WIFE. Not man and man or anything like that. Gay marriage undermines God's origingal purpose of marriage.

So, when are you going to follow Islam's marriage laws? Or Hindu marriage laws? Or Pagan laws? or native indian laws?

So, when are you going to follow Islam's marriage laws? Or Hindu marriage laws? Or Pagan laws? or native indian laws?

Find me one religion that aproves of gay marriage. And anyway we are only talking about Chirstianity here since last time i checked SIN was a Christian term

Find me one religion that aproves of gay marriage. And anyway we are only talking about Chirstianity here since last time i checked SIN was a Christian term

You're the one claiming that, because your book says 'x', we should *all* do 'x'. I refuse to accept that.

You're the one claiming that, because your book says 'x', we should *all* do 'x'. I refuse to accept that.
That's exactly why I don't get people who oppose homosexuality, or abortions for that matter. It has NOTHING to do with you! Even if you believe it's wrong, you have no right to impose your views on everyone else. You believe homosexuality is bad? Fine, don't do it. You think abortion is murder? Don't have one. Just don't tell me what to do.

And I was raised Hindu. Admittedly, not very religious, but still... I've never encountered objections toward homosexuality. But then I wasn't exposed to orthodox Hinduism, so I'm probably not the best source. The way I see it, Hinduism is a very open belief system. You can believe whatever you want really, it's not like there's an official "church" telling you what to think; although the forces of family and tradition are strong. :p

That's exactly why I don't get people who oppose homosexuality, or abortions for that matter. It has NOTHING to do with you! Even if you believe it's wrong, you have no right to impose your views on everyone else. You believe homosexuality is bad? Fine, don't do it. You think abortion is murder? Don't have one. Just don't tell me what to do.

Excuse me, what is the title of the thread. Something along the lines of
"Why is homosexuality a sin?". We (Christians) are being asked by non christians why we believe what we believe and how we justify it.

And your arguement is flawed. We believe its wrong, you believe its right. You refute us without supporting yourself. For example, allowing Y contrivertail thing is effectively the same as saying its ok. The people that are making it allowed are forcing it in the faces of those who dont agree with it.

Protecting your young, even at the cost of your own life, happens a lot in nature too. Shall we call that a sin too?

Read the quote, your missing the point. Goed's arguement was that homosexuality was found in nature (Other animals do it) it cannot be a sin or unnautral. My arguement back is that animals kill each other too. That is nautral and senseable for them but we dont do it. He seemed to have this idea that everything that happend is nature was nautral and thats what everyone should do. I was pointing out that nature isnt much better than us and vice versa.

So, when are you going to follow Islam's marriage laws? Or Hindu marriage laws? Or Pagan laws? or native indian laws?
But we are not muslim or hinuist countries. So we follow our western laws which have grown historically out of our tradition.
Therefore bigamy or polygamy is illegal as well as gay marriages.
And by the way: name one culture that allows gay marriages (christian, hinuists, buddhist or other?)

Find me one religion that aproves of gay marriage. And anyway we are only talking about Chirstianity here since last time i checked SIN was a Christian term
the Episcopalians (sp?) who have a church across the street from my place gave a gay commitment service last Sunday. last time i checked they were a recognized denomination of Christianity.

You're the one claiming that, because your book says 'x', we should *all* do 'x'. I refuse to accept that.

Why do you refuse. My book (the bible) seems to strike accord with almost everything else on most issues, its just one or two that people seem to think they are supiror to God on. If it gets it right in most places, there is no reason to dismiss it in the rest.

if God says its bad its bad.personal Gay people do not worry me! do they obey
the laws of their counrty if they do i have no problem. and hey all the more women for me!

the Episcopalians (sp?) who have a church across the street from my place gave a gay commitment service last Sunday. last time i checked they were a recognized denomination of Christianity.

Find me a religion that rather than not caring about homosexuality, actualy has homosexuality enshirned in its doctrine somewhere, where the right for men to sleep with and marry men (and the same for women) is actualy enshirned and preseved. Where it promotes homosexuality.

Why do you refuse. My book (the bible) seems to strike accord with almost everything else on most issues, its just one or two that people seem to think they are supiror to God on. If it gets it right in most places, there is no reason to dismiss it in the rest.
so, wait, because your holy book happens to agree with me on some moral issues, that means that i have to obey it on ALL moral issues?

what the hell kind of logic is that?

Find me a religion that rather than not caring about homosexuality, actualy has homosexuality enshirned in its doctrine somewhere, where the right for men to sleep with and marry men (and the same for women) is actualy enshirned and preseved. Where it promotes homosexuality.
like i said, they married homosexuals in the eyes of their God. i'd say that's as much of a "promotion" of homosexuality as they give "promotion" to heterosexuality. they celebrate the formation of families, regardless of the gender of the family members, and don't celebrate heterosexual unions any more or less than homosexual ones.

so, wait, because your holy book happens to agree with me on some moral issues, that means that i have to obey it on ALL moral issues?

what the hell kind of logic is that?

The poor kind. By that logic I could say I agree with... Nelson Mandela and worship him as my new god. Haha.

And by that logic, all religions are as valid. I mean they obviously strike a chord with some people.

well im not a christian or anything, but i still feel that homosexuality is wrong by the laws of nature.
Blaze a fire pon di chi chi man :sniper:

like i said, they married homosexuals in the eyes of their God. i'd say that's as much of a "promotion" of homosexuality as they give "promotion" to heterosexuality. they celebrate the formation of families, regardless of the gender of the family members, and don't celebrate heterosexual unions any more or less than homosexual ones.

Check again. I said DOCTRINE. That means in Christian terms THE BIBLE. These people are not listening to the Bible if they are allowing this.

Check again. I said DOCTRINE. That means in Christian terms THE BIBLE. These people are not listening to the Bible if they are allowing this.
they interpret the Bible to support their views. just because they interpret it differently doesn't make them wrong. please list the specific passages that you believe forbid homosexuality, and explain why those passages are to be taken seriously while the passages on wearing clothes of mixed fabrics etc. should not be followed to the letter.

"If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?"

If you do not confess that you are a christian you can live your life as you see fit, God does not require anything from anyone but his children.

Homosexuality is a sin, however it is not for anyone to condem anyone else no one has that right, no matter who they think they are. The bible does say however that if you see someone in a fault and you say nothing then their blood is on your hands. So I let people know ( I don't go around randomly, ONLY SPECIFIC people who cross my path), hey thats not pleasing to GOD. If they say " I'm a christian anyway", I'll have to show then where its wrong. If they choose to dismiss it that's on them. MOVE ON.
:( I AM SICK OF CHRISTIANS WHO FOLLOW THESE HOMOSEXUALS AROUND AND SCREAM "PERVERT, PERVERT!!". IT IS YOU WHO ARE THE PERVERT FOR PEVERTING THE WORD OF GOD. GOD DID NOT SAY STALK THEM. HE SAID TO LOVE THEM. :(
I HAVE HOMOSEXUAL ASSOCIATES. I RESPECT THAT THEY ARE GAY AND CLAIM NOT TO BE A CHRISTIAN. AND THEY RESPECT THAT I AM A CHRISTIAN.

LET YOU LIFE SPEAK FOR ITSELF. :cool:

Truthfully...if we are going to debate scripture we should be doing this in Hebrew. Anyone who has a Christian Bible has a Bible already interpreted many times and you should intrepret it for yourself not let others do it for you. Would you let someone else think for you and make your decisions for you?

Christian conservatives need to begin to think for themselves and not use other people's thoughts. Besides there are at least 3 ways of interpreting the passage in Leviticus. Only one is ever used and that is the "literal" one (read: not actually literal, still an interpretation). Use your brains and think!!!

Also, does this apply to bisexuality as well???

so, wait, because your holy book happens to agree with me on some moral issues, that means that i have to obey it on ALL moral issues?

what the hell kind of logic is that?

A very logical pice of logic. If God got everything else moraly correct then whose to say he got this wrong. He is God, he is not suceptable to human error. And who are you to judge morals aginst God?

"If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?"

If you do not confess that you are a christian you can live your life as you see fit, God does not require anything from anyone but his children.

Homosexuality is a sin, however it is not for anyone to condem anyone else no one has that right, no matter who they think they are. The bible does say however that if you see someone in a fault and you say nothing then their blood is on your hands. So I let people know ( I don't go around randomly, ONLY SPECIFIC people who cross my path), hey thats not pleasing to GOD. If they say " I'm a christian anyway", I'll have to show then where its wrong. If they choose to dismiss it that's on them. MOVE ON.
:( I AM SICK OF CHRISTIANS WHO FOLLOW THESE HOMOSEXUALS AROUND AND SCREAM "PERVERT, PERVERT!!". IT IS YOU WHO ARE THE PERVERT FOR PEVERTING THE WORD OF GOD. GOD DID NOT SAY STALK THEM. HE SAID TO LOVE THEM. :(
I HAVE HOMOSEXUAL ASSOCIATES. I RESPECT THAT THEY ARE GAY AND CLAIM NOT TO BE A CHRISTIAN. AND THEY RESPECT THAT I AM A CHRISTIAN.

LET YOU LIFE SPEAK FOR ITSELF. :cool:

I aggre with you. Christians should not go after Gays calling them perverts. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and that. I think a lot of people here are not getting at the debate here. The thread says "Why is homosexuality a sin".

Those who contend that the Legalization of Homosexual Marriages will destroy the very fabric of society, must believe that Mosexual Marriages are, or feel, soooo goood that people will stop marrying people from the oposite sex.

Thinks that make you go Hummm...

Those who contend that the Legalization of Homosexual Marriages will destroy the very fabric of society, must believe that Mosexual Marriages are, or feel, soooo goood that people will stop marrying people from the oposite sex.


I personaly believe that homosexual marrigae will not destroy marriage but it will be a gross insult to the institution of marriage and an horendious insult to God

A very logical pice of logic. If God got everything else moraly correct then whose to say he got this wrong. He is God, he is not suceptable to human error. And who are you to judge morals aginst God?
but the Hindu Gods also got all those things correct. as did the God of the pagans. since all of them also agree with me on those moral issues, why should i follow the Bible just because it happens to be one of MANY religious texts that states similar moral laws to the ones i follow?

If this was the 60's, your statement would be this: "I personaly believe that intterracial marrigae will not destroy marriage but it will be a gross insult to the institution of marriage and an horendious insult to God"

Well...for lack of a better answer, "God said so." There is an element of faith, ya know.

I don't believe the Bible spells out why many things are sins, including sex outside of marriage. However, many rules are to keep us safe: Sleep around too much, and you will put yourself at risk for a number of diseases. Wait until you are married and that risk goes way down. As for the pork issue, that was written to the Jewish people. Gentiles have a mildly different set of rules (the New Testament). As far as the whole, "What about the things the NT doesn't state, but the OT does?" - That's an entirely different discussion on Denominational Christianity.

Anyway, as to the task at hand, I honestly believe that the reasons why homosexuality is a sin are diseases, and that it goes against the way God has everything designed. In Genesis, God created a man and a woman, so that they could populate the planet. That was His design. Homosexuality being unproductive and against the design, God spelled it out for the generations by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (I think I spelled it right...). God sent angels to rain fire and brimstone (I think it was) on the city, thereby destroying it. So yeah, He nuked 'em.

While I'm a Christian, I make it a point to state that I'm not a fundie. If homosexuality is your thing, far be it for me to stop you. Have fun with it, enjoy life. You may be sinning according to my religion, but hey, guess what: I sin too. :)

Feel free to telegram me with questions about specific passages...as I'm not sure where my Bible currently is, and I need to go figure out some Calc 2. :(

If this was the 60's, your statement would be this: "I personaly believe that intterracial marrigae will not destroy marriage but it will be a gross insult to the institution of marriage and an horendious insult to God"

No it wouldnt. There is nothing in the bible regarding inter racial marriage. There is statements amount marriage between Christians and Non Christians.

they interpret the Bible to support their views. just because they interpret it differently doesn't make them wrong. please list the specific passages that you believe forbid homosexuality, and explain why those passages are to be taken seriously while the passages on wearing clothes of mixed fabrics etc. should not be followed to the letter.

I dont know how many times I have done this already, but I will do it agian for your benefit

Stage one: We are all HUMANS (IE no distinciton between homosexual and hetrosexual)

Genesis Ch 1 Vs 27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Note, male and female. Not male, female, male homosexual, female homosexual etc. JUST Male and Female. Any other sexual orientation is not nautral.

Stage two: Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis Ch 19

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!" But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar.)
By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land.

Here God destroys an entire city because of the Homosexuals in it. This is a clear example of Gods anger towards homosexuals. For those who say "God killed people here and killing is a sin" I have a very simple answer. The wages of sin are death. God has every right to kill whoever he wants as all have sinned.

Stage three: Old testement MORAL law

Leviticus Ch 18 Vs 22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

Leviticus Ch 20 Vs 13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"

The punishement here is made irelvent later by what Jesus says

Mathew Ch 5 Vs 38 - 39

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

however the LAW remains intact as I will explain later. Here again God shows how homosexuality is detestable to God

Stage four: New testement refrances

Romans Ch 1 Vs 26 - 27

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.

Now when reading this passage in the context of the rest of the section, it may apper that God is causing these people to become homosexual. In actual fact what is being said is that homosexuality is one possible concequence of not obeying God. It in itself too is not obeying God.

One Corinthians Ch 6 Vs 9 - 10

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.

This is an important passage. Not only is it new testement proof that homosexuality is a sin but it also makes clear the diffrence that homosexuality has from other sins. None at all. Homosexuality is a sin like any other. And like all sin it can be redeamed thanks to Jesus's action on the cross. If you accept that then you are saved and can enter the kingdom of heven at the end. However, asking for repentence isnt a simple contract signing affair. If you accept what Jesus did for you then you also accept the way God wanted life to be for humans and try to follow his rules to the best of your ability

Stage five: New Testement outdating Old in part

Hebrews Ch 10 Vs 5 - 18

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

This passage shows us how the Old testement ritualsitic laws (sacrifices etc) are no longer nessecary. These were done to 'appese' God (for want of a better word) because there was nothing except these to bridge the gap that sin had created between God and Man. Jesus however changed all that. His death meant that sin was no longer seperating man and God. That act on the cross ended our sins, all were forgiven and removed. The moral law however still remains as Jesus re emphisesd it.

Mathew Ch 5 Vs 27 - 30

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

That and the rest of the sermon re-emphises nearly all of the old testement's moral law. Now I know what it says here about self harm, but it is true. He actually does mean that, but what it is also saying is work hard on trying not to sin or else these are the extremes you may have to go to. He is being serious in pointing out the diffiuclty of the struglle against sin.

There, do you understand now


but the Hindu Gods also got all those things correct. as did the God of the pagans. since all of them also agree with me on those moral issues, why should i follow the Bible just because it happens to be one of MANY religious texts that states similar moral laws to the ones i follow?


Again, the debate here is about christianity. The topic was "Why is homosexuality a sin" and sin is a christisan term.

I dont know how many times I have done this already, but I will do it agian for your benefit

Stage one: We are all HUMANS (IE no distinciton between homosexual and hetrosexual)

Genesis Ch 1 Vs 27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Note, male and female. Not male, female, male homosexual, female homosexual etc. JUST Male and Female. Any other sexual orientation is not nautral.
DId he do it before or after he created animals?
Juuuuuust wondering...

Stage two: Sodom and Gomorrah

snip

Here God destroys an entire city because of the Homosexuals in it. This is a clear example of Gods anger towards homosexuals. For those who say "God killed people here and killing is a sin" I have a very simple answer. The wages of sin are death. God has every right to kill whoever he wants as all have sinned.
Quote me the exact verse that says it was for homosexuality.
Because in Isaiah 1, Judah is compared to the two cities. And while there's a plethora of sins mentioned, not once is homosexuality mentioned. Same thing with Jeremiah 23:14. And Ezekeiel 16:49-50. And Matthew 10:14-15. And Luke 10:7-16. And hey-both of those were said by Jesus, so unless you're a godless heathen, you better believe it.
Once again, tell me the exact verse that says "God killed them homos good"

Stage three: Old testement MORAL law

Leviticus Ch 18 Vs 22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

Leviticus Ch 20 Vs 13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"

The punishement here is made irelvent later by what Jesus says

Mathew Ch 5 Vs 38 - 39

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

however the LAW remains intact as I will explain later. Here again God shows how homosexuality is detestable to God
Sorry, but it's all or nothing. You either follow all of Leviticus or none of it. Stop saying "there's moral and ritual law!" because guess what bud? It's all law. You can't pick and choose from a holy book, heathen.

Stage four: New testement refrances

Romans Ch 1 Vs 26 - 27

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.

Now when reading this passage in the context of the rest of the section, it may apper that God is causing these people to become homosexual. In actual fact what is being said is that homosexuality is one possible concequence of not obeying God. It in itself too is not obeying God.

One Corinthians Ch 6 Vs 9 - 10

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.

This is an important passage. Not only is it new testement proof that homosexuality is a sin but it also makes clear the diffrence that homosexuality has from other sins. None at all. Homosexuality is a sin like any other. And like all sin it can be redeamed thanks to Jesus's action on the cross. If you accept that then you are saved and can enter the kingdom of heven at the end. However, asking for repentence isnt a simple contract signing affair. If you accept what Jesus did for you then you also accept the way God wanted life to be for humans and try to follow his rules to the best of your ability
All of which Paul, not Jesus, said. Paul never once met Jesus. He was a bastard, hateful mysogonist. Not the best guy to be quoting.

Stage five: New Testement outdating Old in part

Hebrews Ch 10 Vs 5 - 18

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

This passage shows us how the Old testement ritualsitic laws (sacrifices etc) are no longer nessecary. These were done to 'appese' God (for want of a better word) because there was nothing except these to bridge the gap that sin had created between God and Man. Jesus however changed all that. His death meant that sin was no longer seperating man and God. That act on the cross ended our sins, all were forgiven and removed. The moral law however still remains as Jesus re emphisesd it.
Once again: it's all law. All of it or none of it, you can't pick and choose, heathen.

Mathew Ch 5 Vs 27 - 30

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

That and the rest of the sermon re-emphises nearly all of the old testement's moral law. Now I know what it says here about self harm, but it is true. He actually does mean that, but what it is also saying is work hard on trying not to sin or else these are the extremes you may have to go to. He is being serious in pointing out the diffiuclty of the struglle against sin.

There, do you understand now
That's against lust, mot homosexuality.

Again, the debate here is about christianity. The topic was "Why is homosexuality a sin" and sin is a christisan term.

And the answer has already been given: because some stupid, outdated, contradictory book says so.

Oh, and as for the "which religions promote homosexuality?" I dunno about PROMOTING it, but many Native American tribes saw it as a good thing. I dunno the details, but I'm sure others would gladly give them to you.

I am a gay 18 year old male. I have some pretty standard views but I do have the occasional radical view. Let's just get that out of the way.


Okay, who wrote the Bible? Not God. He didn't PHYSICALLY WRITE the Bible. It was written by MAN. This in itself says it all. Man's written word has been open for interpertation for thousands of years now. And how many versions of the Bible are there? Over fifteen (I think...)? Each one of those Bibles were tailored for specific religions. None the less they are all written by man. Man is not always honest; in fact we are rather vindictive animals. So the Bible can say that homosexuality is a sin but that's because man decided that it was. No matter what religion your practice, the entire idea to God is that He will accept you for who you are regardless of your "sins". All the religions say that if you repent you shall be saved. A vast majority of death row inmates repent. So does that mean that they are saved and will escape the "wrath of hell"? Unfortunately we like to believe not. But if you follow religion down to the period (of the sentence) everybody will be saved. Even axe murderers.

Hell was also a creation of man. To be precise, hell is a creation of the Catholic religion. This firey, scary, painful place exsists only if we allow it to. The Catholics decided to keep their congregation very much in tune with the church; the church was the government in those days. To keep their followers from straying, Catholics invented hell. They made sure that everybody believed it because they would all attend church in hopes of escaping hell. The more they are in church the more money the church receives through its donations. It kept the money coming in. That's what it all boils down to: Money.

I know it may seem as though I've gone off on a tangent, but to be very susincted (sp?) it doesn't matter if you sin because God will love you no matter what. And besides, do you really think God cares who you love as long as you love Him as well? It's only a sin in man's eyes because man chooses not to accept the different. We are arrogant assholes that stick our noses into other's business. What is conducted in the privacy of your own home with whomever it is only those that partake that should care about it. What I do in my bedroom is private. Period. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. It's none of your business because it doesn't involve you. Everybody needs to realize this and chill out. Life is too damn short to waste it hating. If everybody could just take a step back and analyze the situtation (I mean seriously giving it some thought) we could possiblely wipe out violence, hate, and discrimination in its entirety.

But out of everybody elses' business. Until it involves you, stay out. And keep an open mind. People will love whomever they wish. It's not a choice...believe me! Why would I want to make my life any harder than it should be? That's like hitting yourself in the face with a hammer; it's pointless and painful.

Please. Think about the things you say. Who knows, you could even save a life. Maybe that one person that you insult is on the verge of commiting suicide or murder... your ONE kind comment could change EVERYTHING in their world. Besides, it's better to make someone smile than to make someone frown. There is no need for name calling and no need for hate and discrimination based on sexuality.

Let God do the judging. It's not your job. It will never be your job. Leave it up to the professional.

Goed, stop being stupid and go read leviticus. There is moral law and ritualistic law, it is not all law. They are in diffrent sections and some of the stuff is related back to in the new testement and some isnt. Jesus re-enforces that which was to stay. And as for it only being Paul mentioning homosexuality, Jesus's concept was more genral, stop sinning. As for the mathew reference, since homosexuals in Christianitys view, cannot be married then their sex is outside marrige and therefore a sin anyway. Homosexuality is a sin. Accept it. That is how Christianity views it. Now I dont go round shouting at all the homosexuals I meat "Pervert, Pervet" like some others. I love the sinner but hate the sin, or I do the best I can to.

Goed, stop being stupid and go read leviticus. There is moral law and ritualistic law, it is not all law. They are in diffrent sections and some of the stuff is related back to in the new testement and some isnt. Jesus re-enforces that which was to stay. And as for it only being Paul mentioning homosexuality, Jesus's concept was more genral, stop sinning. As for the mathew reference, since homosexuals in Christianitys view, cannot be married then their sex is outside marrige and therefore a sin anyway. Homosexuality is a sin. Accept it. That is how Christianity views it. Now I dont go round shouting at all the homosexuals I meat "Pervert, Pervet" like some others. I love the sinner but hate the sin, or I do the best I can to.

1) I have read leviticus. Extensivly. You might wanna start asking every woman you meet if she's on her period, because if so you don't wanna touch anything she's touched. Say goodbye to any material made of two cloths.

Or are all these ritualistic laws? You can't just say "Ok, these are and these arn't." The Bible doesn't say "Don't wear cloth of two different matierals, because this is a ritualistic law."

2) And nobody but Catholics, in a catholic's view, can be married. SO all those christian couples are heathen dogs, right?

3) No, you don't go around shouting "pervert, pervert." You just treat them like second class citizens by attempting to force them into your morals.

4) It's a sin to christianity. Not a sin to other religions. We've covered that, try to keep up now.

I am a gay 18 year old male. I have some pretty standard views but I do have the occasional radical view. Let's just get that out of the way.


Okay, who wrote the Bible? Not God. He didn't PHYSICALLY WRITE the Bible. It was written by MAN. This in itself says it all. Man's written word has been open for interpertation for thousands of years now. And how many versions of the Bible are there? Over fifteen (I think...)? Each one of those Bibles were tailored for specific religions. None the less they are all written by man. Man is not always honest; in fact we are rather vindictive animals. So the Bible can say that homosexuality is a sin but that's because man decided that it was. No matter what religion your practice, the entire idea to God is that He will accept you for who you are regardless of your "sins". All the religions say that if you repent you shall be saved. A vast majority of death row inmates repent. So does that mean that they are saved and will escape the "wrath of hell"? Unfortunately we like to believe not. But if you follow religion down to the period (of the sentence) everybody will be saved. Even axe murderers.

Hell was also a creation of man. To be precise, hell is a creation of the Catholic religion. This firey, scary, painful place exsists only if we allow it to. The Catholics decided to keep their congregation very much in tune with the church; the church was the government in those days. To keep their followers from straying, Catholics invented hell. They made sure that everybody believed it because they would all attend church in hopes of escaping hell. The more they are in church the more money the church receives through its donations. It kept the money coming in. That's what it all boils down to: Money.

I know it may seem as though I've gone off on a tangent, but to be very susincted (sp?) it doesn't matter if you sin because God will love you no matter what. And besides, do you really think God cares who you love as long as you love Him as well? It's only a sin in man's eyes because man chooses not to accept the different. We are arrogant assholes that stick our noses into other's business. What is conducted in the privacy of your own home with whomever it is only those that partake that should care about it. What I do in my bedroom is private. Period. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. It's none of your business because it doesn't involve you. Everybody needs to realize this and chill out. Life is too damn short to waste it hating. If everybody could just take a step back and analyze the situtation (I mean seriously giving it some thought) we could possiblely wipe out violence, hate, and discrimination in its entirety.

But out of everybody elses' business. Until it involves you, stay out. And keep an open mind. People will love whomever they wish. It's not a choice...believe me! Why would I want to make my life any harder than it should be? That's like hitting yourself in the face with a hammer; it's pointless and painful.

Please. Think about the things you say. Who knows, you could even save a life. Maybe that one person that you insult is on the verge of commiting suicide or murder... your ONE kind comment could change EVERYTHING in their world. Besides, it's better to make someone smile than to make someone frown. There is no need for name calling and no need for hate and discrimination based on sexuality.

For the most part here, I agree with you on this. I dont believe that the Catholics invented hell or anything like that but on the most part here, I do agree. However you have to understand the church's problem here. Accepting open gays and lesbians is to them like saying "I'm a thief/murderer/adulterer etc and I will not repent that". To them Homosexuality is a sin as much as any other and so Gays who are prideful in what they are and refuse to repent are saying just like what I said above. Chrisitans dont hate gays, in the same way we dont hate thiefs/rapeists/murderers etc. We love the sinner, hate the sin. A simple idea which more should put into practice. But to us, if gays wont repent and accept they are sinning, then there is nothing more we can do.

1) I have read leviticus. Extensivly. You might wanna start asking every woman you meet if she's on her period, because if so you don't wanna touch anything she's touched. Say goodbye to any material made of two cloths.


So have I, the seciton on homosexuality is in a section on sexual imorality which is MORAL LAW. You can tell the diffrence, and I have delt with the concept of ritualistic law being refuted before

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.



2) And nobody but Catholics, in a catholic's view, can be married. SO all those christian couples are heathen dogs, right?


I'm not a catholic, I dont know how catholics think but the bible mentions nothing about them specificly, just Christians as a whole so your logic is flawed there.


3) No, you don't go around shouting "pervert, pervert." You just treat them like second class citizens by attempting to force them into your morals.


No I don't. If they come to my chuch then I will talk to them about this. If they ask I will tell but I dont treat them any diffrently if I see them in the street. And anyway, you dont know me or what I do so dont judge me.


4) It's a sin to christianity. Not a sin to other religions. We've covered that, try to keep up now.


Its also a sin to Islam, but thats not an issue here. You were the one who refuted my point about holy books, I'm just redireciting you.

For the most part here, I agree with you on this. I dont believe that the Catholics invented hell or anything like that but on the most part here, I do agree. However you have to understand the church's problem here. Accepting open gays and lesbians is to them like saying "I'm a thief/murderer/adulterer etc and I will not repent that". To them Homosexuality is a sin as much as any other and so Gays who are prideful in what they are and refuse to repent are saying just like what I said above. Chrisitans dont hate gays, in the same way we dont hate thiefs/rapeists/murderers etc. We love the sinner, hate the sin. A simple idea which more should put into practice. But to us, if gays wont repent and accept they are sinning, then there is nothing more we can do.
no, you dont' hate them, you just equate them with murderers for who they love.

i thought that god is love. so if there's love, shouldn't god be there as well at any rate?

A very logical pice of logic. If God got everything else moraly correct then whose to say he got this wrong. He is God, he is not suceptable to human error. And who are you to judge morals aginst God?
who are you to say that you know who the real god is?
you don't know any better than a muslim, or a hindhu, or an atheist for that matter. you just have faith. and you take your personal faith and use it to base universal truths off. just because you think something is right doesn't make it so.

no, you dont' hate them, you just equate them with murderers for who they love.

i thought that god is love. so if there's love, shouldn't god be there as well at any rate?

God loves people and hates sin. I try to follow his example as best I can. As for equating Homosexuality with murder, acoridng to the bible, both are sins. In God's eyes sin is sin. There is no worse or better

who are you to say that you know who the real god is?
you don't know any better than a muslim, or a hindhu, or an atheist for that matter. you just have faith. and you take your personal faith and use it to base universal truths off. just because you think something is right doesn't make it so.

Well as I have said several times, we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin here, so we are talking about the Christian God as since last time I checked sin was a christian term. Althought if you want my opinion on other religons and schools of thought then I will give them to you

Athiest: Arrogent and moraless. If there is no god then there are several questions to be answered. Firstly, what created the universe? I know the big bang, but what caused that? And secondly if we are all random accidents and their is no God or higher authority then where do we get our morals from. Ourselves, thats a little aragonet. And if we are random acidents then is there no purpose behind life at all? I could go on but I wont

Islam: A religion of ritual and divine apeasement. I agree with a vast ammount with Muslims but they do have one flaw. Their God is one purely of judgement and not one of love or compassion.

However we are discussing homosexuality here so I am going off on a tangent.

God loves people and hates sin. I try to follow his example as best I can. As for equating Homosexuality with murder, acoridng to the bible, both are sins. In God's eyes sin is sin. There is no worse or better

so killing someone is just as bad as loving someone.

and again... if god=love then bob and ken, who love each other deeply, have god in their relationship, the same way that jimmy and sue do. and hell, if you let them get married, then they could even have sex together without it being a sin, since it's premarital sex that's the big lust issue thing, right? i mean, there aren't any laws against barren women having sex in the bible are there?

However, marriage licenses and all that other rubbish are fairly recent additions. You should remember that marriage existed for thousands of years before the marriage license, or the justice of the peace.

So? Now we have a separate, secular definition for it. And that is all that homosexuals are fighting to have access to.

Well as I have said several times, we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin here, so we are talking about the Christian God as since last time I checked sin was a christian term.
last i checked, it's used in english translations of hinhdu scriptures too.

Athiest: Arrogent and moraless. If there is no god then there are several questions to be answered. Firstly, what created the universe? I know the big bang, but what caused that? And secondly if we are all random accidents and their is no God or higher authority then where do we get our morals from. Ourselves, thats a little aragonet. And if we are random acidents then is there no purpose behind life at all? I could go on but I wont

1. what makes them arrogant? i've met many atheists who are more humble than many christians i know who are arrogant enough to presume that their morals should be applied to everyone.
2. what makes them without morals? i've met more moral atheists than some christians i know. i've met christians who use people to their own gains and atheists who work in soup kitchens and help others whenever they get the chance.
3. vacuum fluctuation, multiverse expansion causing contraction of our own universe, creating a suingularity that then expands, oscillating universe. these are three theories concerning how the big bang started. there are a lot more though.
4. we're social animals, in order to live in a society, we kinda have to develop some rules and regulations to deal with other people. not stealing things from other people makes sense because well, you have to be able to leave your stuff around while you go out and hunt for the tribe without worrying that it will be stolen when you come back. it makes more sense that morals evolved from individual societies than from some divine decree as every culture has its own set of morals.

Islam: A religion of ritual and divine apeasement. I agree with a vast ammount with Muslims but they do have one flaw. Their God is one purely of judgement and not one of love or compassion.

how compassionate is a god who forbids certain people to love each other, exactly?

However we are discussing homosexuality here so I am going off on a tangent.

not really. i asked why you thought that your morals should be enforced over what other people believe because really, you only have faith, not knowledge (no matter what you claim) that your god is the right god. different people have faith in different things. who the hell do you think you are to say that your faith is better than theirs.


heh. and you say atheists are arrogant.

so killing someone is just as bad as loving someone.

and again... if god=love then bob and ken, who love each other deeply, have god in their relationship, the same way that jimmy and sue do. and hell, if you let them get married, then they could even have sex together without it being a sin, since it's premarital sex that's the big lust issue thing, right? i mean, there aren't any laws against barren women having sex in the bible are there?

The Biblical definiton of marriage is between one man and one woman. There is no biblical scope for a gay marriage, thus in God's eyes it is not marriage. And as for comparing loving someone to killing someone, it is not real love. It is not what God intended and therefore cannot be a true emotion. Emotions were given by God as gifts. It is only humans who misuse them and manipulate them into things like a mans love for another man.

No it wouldnt. There is nothing in the bible regarding inter racial marriage. There is statements amount marriage between Christians and Non Christians.

Yes, it would.

And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

Genesis 24:3

Athiest: Arrogent and moraless. If there is no god then there are several questions to be answered. Firstly, what created the universe? I know the big bang, but what caused that? And secondly if we are all random accidents and their is no God or higher authority then where do we get our morals from. Ourselves, thats a little aragonet. And if we are random acidents then is there no purpose behind life at all? I could go on but I wont

And this? This is the moast idiotic statement I've read from you so far. Just because atheists refuse t o worship an indifferent and uncaring diety, does not mean they are moraless or arrogant. Hell, Christians are more arrogant than atheists.

And if God created the big bang, then where dfid he come from? And whetre did the one who created him come from? Something had to come from nothiung, because it would be the same with if God was all that exists.

God was all knowing and humans were not set up. Just because God knew humans were going to sin, doesnt mean he was willing to take away free will from us. Its like going on a school trip with a year 1 class. Your efectively certian that one or two of these 6/7 year olds will misbehave but that doesnt mean you dont take the class on the trip. God gave us free will, just because he knew that we would sin, doesnt mean he would stop us. It was our choice. A parent will have a child and that child will do wrong. A parent does not lead the child in such a sheltered life that it cannot do any wrong at all.

One difference. In your examples, you can't be sure whether the events you say will happen will actually happen, because you are not omniscient. God knew without a doubt that man would sin, and he did nothing, yet he still punished us harshly. Here's a better analogy. Say your best friend tells you he or she is going to commit suicide that night and you don't say anything about it. When it happens, don't you share part of the blame?

last i checked, it's used in english translations of hinhdu scriptures too.

1. what makes them arrogant? i've met many atheists who are more humble than many christians i know who are arrogant enough to presume that their morals should be applied to everyone.


Well Christian logic goes that since God made everyone, arego everyone should obey him. I accept it is a choice to become a christian or not though


2. what makes them without morals? i've met more moral atheists than some christians i know. i've met christians who use people to their own gains and atheists who work in soup kitchens and help others whenever they get the chance.


You misunderstand me, when I say without morals I mean without a set of morals. They may be nice people and such but where do they get their morals from. Themselves mostly, and while they will agree with Christians for the most part, when it becomes more difficult they back out.


3. vacuum fluctuation, multiverse expansion causing contraction of our own universe, creating a suingularity that then expands, oscillating universe. these are three theories concerning how the big bang started. there are a lot more though.


Yes their are those, but none of them explain how they themselves started. But if you do want a scientific debate then I do have a question which I think is unanswerable but on occasions I enjoy being proved wrong. How did animals evolve senses. And I mean originaly evolve, out of the sludge. When you break it down to its bare bones, sight is the detection of a certain bandwitdth of the EM spectrum being reflected of diffrent serfaces. How could something evolve that? How would it know that the EM spectrum even existed. And here's another question. How did evolution move from plants to animals. How was that jump made?


4. we're social animals, in order to live in a society, we kinda have to develop some rules and regulations to deal with other people. not stealing things from other people makes sense because well, you have to be able to leave your stuff around while you go out and hunt for the tribe without worrying that it will be stolen when you come back. it makes more sense that morals evolved from individual societies than from some divine decree as every culture has its own set of morals.


Yes but that doesnt explain where we started drawing the line when we stopped killing each other over certian things. If what you say is true then how does society progress?



how compassionate is a god who forbids certain people to love each other, exactly?


As I have explained homosexual love, as far as Christianity is concerend, is not true love. It is a malformation of real love between one man and one woman.




not really. i asked why you thought that your morals should be enforced over what other people believe because really, you only have faith, not knowledge (no matter what you claim) that your god is the right god. different people have faith in different things. who the hell do you think you are to say that your faith is better than theirs.


Well I have explained my perspectives on various schools of thought. The reasons I believe mine to be greater than the others is that A) mine is true (but I'm not going to start with that point as all of you are not going to accept that) and B) The christian faith flows from the greatest act of love displayed to the human race, Christs death.

Why do you refuse. My book (the bible) seems to strike accord with almost everything else on most issues, its just one or two that people seem to think they are supiror to God on. If it gets it right in most places, there is no reason to dismiss it in the rest.

yeah, i mean aristotle was right on a bunch of thigns too... but then he contended that the earth was the centre of the universe. there's no reason to dismiss the claim that the earth is the centre of the universe since he was right on other things. hell, everything's made of five elements as well, since aristotle made one correct statement, everything else he said is also right.

One difference. In your examples, you can't be sure whether the events you say will happen will actually happen, because you are not omniscient. God knew without a doubt that man would sin, and he did nothing, yet he still punished us harshly. Here's a better analogy. Say your best friend tells you he or she is going to commit suicide that night and you don't say anything about it. When it happens, don't you share part of the blame?

Ok yes my examples were flawed because of that, but I will work within yours. If you try to convince your friend to the best of your ability that sucide is not the option that he should take but he still choses to and then you physicaly restrain him but he gets free and jumps then you are no longer guilty. God did everything he could (short of physiclay restraing us but I will come to why he didnt do that later) to stop us. He put the tree in the middle of the garden, where it was clear and obvious that it was diffrent and he told them what would happen if they ate it. The reason he didnt physicaly restain us is that would be an assult. Grabing hold of eve and pushing her away would have been undermining free will. I dont know about you but I treasure free will. I believe it is one of the many great gifts God gave us. If he had stoped us or made it somehow imposible for eve or adam to eat the tree then it is not a choice. They had freedom to do as they wanted. They were not any barriers on what they could do, but their were concquences. We have free will, and when we abuse it we cant complain about the concequences because it was our choice and we knew what would happen if we did it.

A gift to the human race, eh? Could you quote the bible on this one?

Wow, I wish I had my bible with me. There is plenty in the new testament, at least, about how neither the husband nor wife should deny themselves to their spouse, and--well, anyway there is a whole chapter about sex that some people think is apocryphal--shoot, what is it called . . .someone help me out here.
Anyway here's my one-and-a-half cents:
I don't care if you're "gay" or "straight", I just wish everyone could find someone they love. if you find someone to spend the rest of your life with (or even a night or two) then have fun.
If you are a Christian (for example), then being gay is wrong. If you are not, then it doesn't matter.
No person of any religion has the right to foist their beliefs on someone else. Especially if it involves hurting them in any way.

Jesus said "love one another"! That means no matter what someone does you are to love them. If you disagree with their actions then pray for them but remain silent. You do not have the right to condemn them for being "right" or "wrong".
Wouldn't it be nice if the world really worked this way?

yeah, i mean aristotle was right on a bunch of thigns too... but then he contended that the earth was the centre of the universe. there's no reason to dismiss the claim that the earth is the centre of the universe since he was right on other things. hell, everything's made of five elements as well, since aristotle made one correct statement, everything else he said is also right.

Touch'e. Ok fine I was wrong about that arguement. The point is the places where people diverge from the bible are far outweighed by those where people agree so my question is, why do people find it so hard to agree with the rest?

But if you do want a scientific debate then I do have a question which I think is unanswerable but on occasions I enjoy being proved wrong. How did animals evolve senses. And I mean originaly evolve, out of the sludge. When you break it down to its bare bones, sight is the detection of a certain bandwitdth of the EM spectrum being reflected of diffrent serfaces. How could something evolve that? How would it know that the EM spectrum even existed.

Newsflash: You can sense electromagnetic radiation without using your eyes.
The first organisms to "see" probably did so because the heat that light brought them changed the equilibrium constant for their metabolism. Now that light is affected a creature, it behooves it to sense that light and react to it. So maybe the first "planned" reaction to light was developing an enzyme that denatured at high temperatures when the reaction was no longer beneficial. From there it's not hard to imagine having separate organelles on different ends of an organism that each "detect light" in this fashion, and eventually the response might get so complex as moving towards light.

If you want to know specifically about light in the visible spectrum, well, once organisms were using a lot of proteins one must have mutated to produce rhodopsin or a similar molecule that reacts with photons, and it managed to trigger nearby nerves and proved a more useful means of sensation than rudimentary "sight."

And here's another question. How did evolution move from plants to animals. How was that jump made?

It didn't. And we didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Plants and animals are derived from organisms that are somewhere between a plant and an animal. Cyanobacteria (still around today) are single-celled organisms that carry out photosynthesis (like a plant) but can move around (like an animal).


If you're really interested in questions like that (which clearly do have answers), you should read up on phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny)

And to help out Youst out, one of the verses he is refering to is this

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

You misunderstand me, when I say without morals I mean without a set of morals. They may be nice people and such but where do they get their morals from. Themselves mostly, and while they will agree with Christians for the most part, when it becomes more difficult they back out.
most atheists develop their own set of morals through personal experience. you don't need to be told what's right and wrong.

Yes their are those, but none of them explain how they themselves started. But if you do want a scientific debate then I do have a question which I think is unanswerable but on occasions I enjoy being proved wrong. How did animals evolve senses. And I mean originaly evolve, out of the sludge. When you break it down to its bare bones, sight is the detection of a certain bandwitdth of the EM spectrum being reflected of diffrent serfaces. How could something evolve that? How would it know that the EM spectrum even existed. And here's another question. How did evolution move from plants to animals. How was that jump made?
i'm not a bio major, find one and they can probably give you a better description than i ever could. i do know that not all animals see the same bandwidth we do. the world is much different in appearance to a number of birds for instance.

Yes but that doesnt explain where we started drawing the line when we stopped killing each other over certian things. If what you say is true then how does society progress?
well, if you kill someone, then they can't really contribute to the well being of the tribe, and other people can't trust you not to kill them. therefore killing is discouraged. and i don't see how developping morals based on how things work for a society stops the progress of a society.

As I have explained homosexual love, as far as Christianity is concerend, is not true love. It is a malformation of real love between one man and one woman.
how is it a malformation?
where is the proof that the same love, wanting to spend one's life with someone, being willing to die for them, wanting to take care of them should they be ill, looking out for their interests over your own et c. how is it so different?

Well I have explained my perspectives on various schools of thought. The reasons I believe mine to be greater than the others is that A) mine is true (but I'm not going to start with that point as all of you are not going to accept that) and B) The christian faith flows from the greatest act of love displayed to the human race, Christs death.

you believe it's true. that doesn't make it so. i could believe that there's a purple unicorn in the sky who gave the ultimate sacrifice of all its unicorn children so i could be happy and it wouldn't make it any more true. the thing is that you don't KNOW that your belief is true. you BELIEVE it is. there is a world of difference between knowledge and faith.

Touch'e. Ok fine I was wrong about that arguement. The point is the places where people diverge from the bible are far outweighed by those where people agree so my question is, why do people find it so hard to agree with the rest?
because people are different. we've all had different experiences in our lives that make it so that we are completely different people. we think completely differently, we believe different things. what one person believes coudl be utter hogwash to another person and vice versa.

and the thing is, christianity shares a number of elements with many religions... the golden rule is found in religions that predate christianity... there are some things that are just common sense (unless you want to start thinking that christianity borrowed elements of commonality...)

Newsflash: You can sense electromagnetic radiation without using your eyes.
The first organisms to "see" probably did so because the heat that light brought them changed the equilibrium constant for their metabolism. Now that light is affected a creature, it behooves it to sense that light and react to it. So maybe the first "planned" reaction to light was developing an enzyme that denatured at high temperatures when the reaction was no longer beneficial. From there it's not hard to imagine having separate organelles on different ends of an organism that each "detect light" in this fashion, and eventually the response might get so complex as moving towards light.

If you want to know specifically about light in the visible spectrum, well, once organisms were using a lot of proteins one must have mutated to produce rhodopsin or a similar molecule that reacts with photons, and it managed to trigger nearby nerves and proved a more useful means of sensation than rudimentary "sight."

It didn't. And we didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Plants and animals are derived from organisms that are somewhere between a plant and an animal. Cyanobacteria (still around today) are single-celled organisms that carry out photosynthesis (like a plant) but can move around (like an animal).


If you're really interested in questions like that (which clearly do have answers), you should read up on phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny)

Ok but what about light that doesnt come from heat. After all there can be light but it not be hot, and how did we develop coulored vision then? By your logic we should be able to see heat and not light. Why does the visable spectrum stop where it does. And what about sound, how did we develop hearing. How would we be aware of vibrations though the air, most of which cannot be felt by our touch centres?

you believe it's true. that doesn't make it so. i could believe that there's a purple unicorn in the sky who gave the ultimate sacrifice of all its unicorn children so i could be happy and it wouldn't make it any more true. the thing is that you don't KNOW that your belief is true. you BELIEVE it is. there is a world of difference between knowledge and faith.

For the millionth time (an exageration) the debate here is "Why is homosexualtiy a sin" and thus we are talking about why Christians believe what they do, and asking them how they justify it. But just to go along with you, I will refute your points


how is it a malformation?
where is the proof that the same love, wanting to spend one's life with someone, being willing to die for them, wanting to take care of them should they be ill, looking out for their interests over your own et c. how is it so different?


Well aside from the mountain of Biblical proof I have given already, there is also the biological and psycological aspect of this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1183596,00.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0086.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0087.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0089.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0091.html

Read what is in all of those URL's. Actually read it. Fully, properly. Some of it is the spirtiual and social reasons the church has against homosexuality but there are large sections devoted to biological arguments. And as for the guardien URL it proves that Homosexuality can be 'cured' (for want of a better word) and so it is a malformity of sorts.

actually, cell specification comes about through random mutation of DNA through ionisation via chemical or radiological methods. If a cell mutates and it is beneficial to the organism, it will probably lead to that organism having a greater advantage over its counterparts, allowing it to breed more, so spreading that gene or group of genes. For the example of sight, being able to tell light from dark would have been beneficial to early milticellular organisms as they may have still been photosyntheising, and knowing where the lght is would increase the growth rate of a photosynthesising organism a helluva lot. Or, early animals which had the gene would have had an advantage over other animals because they coul see their prey. Useful, no?

but on the topic of homosexuality, did anyone read that new scientist article which suggests that the so called "male gay genes" are more beneficial to the women who have them as it increases their fertility, thus allowing the genes to conform to natural selection. This is a further step towards proving that christian homophobia is based on fear and not what God told them

And to help out Youst out, one of the verses he is refering to is this

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

so what if you're not married?