NationStates Jolt Archive

and "satan" is derived from "shaitan" which literally means enemy of the church, not God. This just shows that "satan" is science. It's also where the idea that the illuminati were a devil-worshipping cult comes from. They were the original Shaitans

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
you were explaining why you think what you believe is true.
and sin isn't just a christian thing...

so what if you're not married?

Sex outside marriage is a sin, simple.

but neo cannen meant that, so that is what he is driving at. whether or not that was the original issue is irrelevant, as he is taking one particular view of things

Sex outside marriage is a sin, simple.

am i going to hell then

am i going to hell then

Not if you apologise to God for all your sin sincerely and with truth

you were explaining why you think what you believe is true.
and sin isn't just a christian thing...

Ive edited that post with some URL's. Go read them, actualy read them and dont dismiss thier infomation just because of where it comes from

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.

Yes, because God personally scripted every single line of the Bible.

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.

Yes, only humans are ever attracted to members of the same gender. Well, humans and sheep and apes and monkeys and giraffes and elephants and birds and cats and dogs and cattle and dolphins and whales and walruses and lizards and ...

Actually, when you think abbout it, monogamous heterosexual marriage is aunnatural. The only animals that naturally stay together are either polygamous unions(the lion), or homosexual unions(dolphins, birds, and other species). If it's heteroosexual, they just up and leave each other.

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.

I mentioned rhodopsin, which detects visible light. It, like pretty much all proteins, was first created through mutation.
Colour vision, you will admit is useful, I hope. As such, the only thing necessary for its evolution is that an organism have simultaneously two pigments (light-absorbing molecules) that preferentially absorb different wavelengths of light. One of them could be rhodopsin and the other a mutation.

Why does the visable spectrum stop where it does.

The visible spectrum represents the wavelengths at which the sun emits most of its radiation. It stops where it does because beyond the visible spectrum there is little worthwhile data, so it is not worth the bioligical resources it would take to sense.

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?

I think that hearing developed from the lateral-line sense of fish. As aquatic creatures, vibrations in their medium are easier to detect. A sensitive-enough "ear" for water is an ear in air as well (albeit it may not work well).
I'm not certain that hearing evolved from fish, but you will admit that very loud sounds can be sensed on your skin (I hope). Apparently evolution favored organisms that had very sensitive skin to detect sound, they could detect "pretty loud" sounds. Eventually it became adaptive to only have one or two such areas sensitive to sound, which became ears.


Now, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop this conversation. I've studied a good amount of biology I can make many reasonable inferences, but I am not a biologist. I'm sure I've made some mistakes in what I've told you. If you really are curious, find a biologist.

That said, in some sense it is not important for me to show how evolution did happen, merely how it could have happened, because if there is a reasonable way it could have happened it is a reasonable theory (and you seem to be trying to prove that it's not). I can keep speaking of hypothetical ways that things could have evolved, if you like.

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).Yeah, to me a sin/moral wrong is a social act. It's something that harms or could harm a (sometimes fairly abstract) other. But my position isn't that simple. Firstly I'm not entirely logical or self consistent about what constitutes harming another. I don't fantasize about women in Sears catalogs anymore, despite not seeing how they could possibly be harmed.

Secondly, I feel I have a moral responsibility not to get into patterns of thoughts that could cause me to harm others. So if I give someone a dirty look but think about killing them, the dirty look is the extent of my sin. But fantasizing about killing people is something I would need to fix. I feel I have an obligation to myself and others not to fall into harmful patterns of thought. I am trying to get back into the habit of second-guessing myself. This gets into my third point.

Because I don't have responsibility to assign blame, or to punish people, I don't need to determine the moral status of things I don't do.

I propose (as did Jesus) that if someone even thinks about committing murder, it's a sin.I disagree with this. Thoughts of murder are a fault that needs to be fixed. But they are a cause of sin rather than being sinful in themselves. Letting them lead to harming others would be a sin.

: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.As you probably noticed, I find this majorly squicky. I did a quick websearch, and yup, Paul said this. As I've said elsewhere, I wish people would ignore Paul. But I'm hardly in a position to debate Paul's credentials.

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.And too many people use it to lay guilt trips on others.

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.Ok ...

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.I guess we'll just have to disagree. Which isn't surprising, me being an atheist and all. But there do seem to be churches that don't emphasize the crucifixion and ressurection. Still it's not the bummer that "we all deserve to die" is.

Yes, because God personally scripted every single line of the Bible.

Ok, yes God did not personaly write each line of the Bible but its all we have to go on as Christians so we will believe what it says. Christians have no real alternitive to it to look for God's direction short of prayer for divine inspiration.


Yes, only humans are ever attracted to members of the same gender. Well, humans and sheep and apes and monkeys and giraffes and elephants and birds and cats and dogs and cattle and dolphins and whales and walruses and lizards and ...

Animals also kill and walk around naked all the time. Are you going to tell me those arnt sins?

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

Actually, that is your logic. Mine states that God is the source of all things and wishes to be worshiped and obeyed out of love, rather than fear.

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.

Morals could develop through evolution. It is very possible and most atheists I know believe that human beings developed a fairly objective base of morality. Those outside of it are generally punished.

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?

You aren't thinking about evolution properly. It didn't "know" anything. A random mutation gave an animal the possibility to sense light. This helped it survive, so it had more offspring than the rest without the mutation. Later, another mutation gave it the ability to sense a further spectrum, or to focus that light better. This helped *that* organism to survive, and thus gave it an advantage. And so on and so on...

You can't think of evolution as having a "plan" or as "knowing" something, or you'll never understand it.

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.

Stop acting as though you speak for all of Christianity. If you are not Jesus Christ, you do not.

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.

And yet you purport to state that some love, regardless of how strong, is morally wrong.

Ok, yes God did not personaly write each line of the Bible but its all we have to go on as Christians so we will believe what it says. Christians have no real alternitive to it to look for God's direction short of prayer for divine inspiration.

And prayer should be more important than a book written down by flawed human beings. I believe you should start with the Bible, but it is definitely not the end-all-be-all.

Animals also kill and walk around naked all the time. Are you going to tell me those arnt sins?

Walking around naked is not a sin.

Murder is a sin, killing is not necessarily one.

Actually, that is your logic. Mine states that God is the source of all things and wishes to be worshiped and obeyed out of love, rather than fear.


Again, you misunderstand me. My arguement regarding God creating everyone and thus everyone worshiping him was to explain why Chirstianity applys to all. Jesus also died for everyone and everyone has the oppotunity to go to heven to live with him eternally. I do agree though, God does want people to worship because they want to, not out of fear.




You aren't thinking about evolution properly. It didn't "know" anything. A random mutation gave an animal the possibility to sense light. This helped it survive, so it had more offspring than the rest without the mutation. Later, another mutation gave it the ability to sense a further spectrum, or to focus that light better. This helped *that* organism to survive, and thus gave it an advantage. And so on and so on...


What are the chances that something as complicated as sight could be random?


And yet you purport to state that some love, regardless of how strong, is morally wrong.

If homosexual love was what God wanted, he would have said so. As it stands he didnt and he has said plenty against it.

Murder is a sin, killing is not necessarily one


Exactly what is the diffrence between murder and killing. I'm not being patronising I am genuinely confused by what you are saying.

am i going to hell then
no you're not.

what hell? how about you investigate a system of belief (or multiple) rather than simply accept what someone who is as ill-informed as you are says. no matter what anyone else says, they don't know what happens after death. they may believe this happens or that happens, but that doesn't make it true.

Exactly what is the diffrence between murder and killing. I'm not being patronising I am genuinely confused by what you are saying.
if someone tries to kill you and you kill them in self defense, it's not murder.

also, when you eat a steak, you're indirectly killing something, but that's not murder.

Actually, when you think abbout it, monogamous heterosexual marriage is aunnatural. The only animals that naturally stay together are either polygamous unions(the lion), or homosexual unions(dolphins, birds, and other species). If it's heteroosexual, they just up and leave each other.
actually, canadian geese are strictly monogomous. which is why hunting them is a really bad thing as when you kill one, the other will never find a new mate.

actually, canadian geese are strictly monogomous. which is why hunting them is a really bad thing as when you kill one, the other will never find a new mate.

That cant be right, how would the species still exist?

What are the chances that something as complicated as sight could be random?

Considering that it developed in very small steps over time, not bad.

If homosexual love was what God wanted, he would have said so. As it stands he didnt and he has said plenty against it.

The priests of the OT said something against it. Paul said something against it. God personally, to my knowledge, has never said anything against it.

Well aside from the mountain of Biblical proof I have given already, there is also the biological and psycological aspect of this.
the "mountain of biblical proof" against homosexuality consists of like 10 verses and is hardly proof.

neither are any of your links, which are really quite innacurate.

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.

"cures" for homosexuality don't work. the best they do is force bisexuals to choose only opposite sex partners and homosexuals to go into celibacy or imagine themselves with a person of the same sex when they're with a member of the opposite sex.

any psychologist with any merit will tell you that such therapies are much more psychologically damaging than the "disease" ever is.

Exactly what is the diffrence between murder and killing. I'm not being patronising I am genuinely confused by what you are saying.

Dakini already answered, but what it boils down to is this:

Murder implies intent. You have to want to kill someone and intend to do so or cause death by complete negligence for human life for it to be murder. Murder implies that the person has no respect for human life.

However, killing in self defense (or defense of others), by complete accident (not negligence), or to eat (which would be killing animals or plants) is not murder.

That cant be right, how would the species still exist?

Don't you claim that human beings should be completely monogomous? And they still exist, last time I checked.

That cant be right, how would the species still exist?
usually they manage to mate a couple of times before one or the other dies.

you forget that human hunters with guns aren't exactly part of the natural order of things. neither is pollution or other factors that would result in the decline of a species.

i don't see how that can not be right... it happens...

Don't you claim that human beings should be completely monogomous? And they still exist, last time I checked.

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought they were saying the Goose was perminantly homosexual

side note: didn't the two original male foudners of love won out run off together?

or was that another group that advocated "curing" homosexuals?

What are the chances that something as complicated as sight could be random?

The odds of sight developing through random chance are incredibly slim. Almost negligible. Sight didn't develop on Mars, nor Jupiter, nor, as far as we know, anywhere else in the whole universe at any time in the whole history of the universe except once on Earth.
An infinitely improbable event can occur given infinite opportunities.

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought they were saying the Goose was perminantly homosexual
there are some gay geese who don't mate with opposite sex geese...

i never said that they were all straight geese, never that they're all gay either, they just mate for life, unlike humans.

The odds of sight developing through random chance are incredibly slim. Almost negligible. Sight didn't develop on Mars, nor Jupiter, nor, as far as we know, anywhere else in the whole universe at any time in the whole history of the universe except once on Earth.
An infinitely improbable event can occur given infinite opportunities.
why do you think it's infinitely improbable?

why do you think it's infinitely improbable?

I implied that, but I don't think it.
That said, some evolutionary innovations are extremely unlikely. Consider an average human gene. Current estimates say that human genes have something akin to 100,000 base pairs. So the odds of hitting upon the right sequence by random chance is (1/4)^100000. When I ask my calculator what that's equal to, it says 0. Obviously it's rounding down, but (1/4)^100000 is comparable to winning the mega-jackpot lottery every day in a row for a month.

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.Yup. But that child will grow up, and needs to learn lessons of life, and practice being moral. For a child that will not grow up (and there are such children), a sheltered life is appropriate.

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.Read the quote yourself. Goed's arguement was that homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it cannot be be unnatural. Full Stop. The natural conclusion is that the argument "Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural" is unsound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) because the premise is false. I don't recall him/her addressing the validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) of the argument at all. But even if he/she did, neither "unnatural things are sins" (implicit in Nationalist Hungary's argument), nor its negation ("not all unnatural things are sins") is equivalent to "natural things aren't sins". "natural things aren't sins" is the inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_%28logic%29) to "unnatural things are sins", and the two are not equivalent. It's a long thread, but I don't recall Goed arguing that natural things aren't sins. He has argued that things that are not a choice are not sins, but "not a choice" is not equivalent to "natural". (You may argue that "not a choice" implies "natural" (though I don't), but "natural" definitely doesn't imply "not a choice"). Welcome to logic.

The odds of sight developing through random chance are incredibly slim. Almost negligible. Sight didn't develop on Mars, nor Jupiter, nor, as far as we know, anywhere else in the whole universe at any time in the whole history of the universe except once on Earth.
An infinitely improbable event can occur given infinite opportunities.

Well that depends if you believe the univerese is infinte or not. And anyway, we are still discussing homosexuality. Amitidly I did start this but I'll leave it for a later time

neo cannen, i'm just curious, did you read the entire gardien article?

because it goes on to refute the initial opinion of the psychiatrist and examines his sample population...

It had taken Spitzer more than 18 months to find just 200 or so people willing to describe themselves as successfully converted. He found his interviewees by advertising through ex-gay organisations. Almost half were recruited through ex-gay ministries, and nearly a quarter by Narth. Religion was "extremely" or "very" important to 93% of them. One in five was a mental health professional (Cohen, for example, is a high-profile reparative therapist) or director of an ex-gay ministry, and more than three-quarters had previously lobbied for sexual reorientation. These are people who get paid to say that therapy works.

furthermore,

But in addition, many of the participants appeared to have been not so much altered from gay to straight, as bisexual all along. Ten per cent of the men had never had gay sex before therapy, whereas half had already slept with a woman. Only a third of the women and half the men said that before therapy they were "extremely" bothered by homosexual feelings. How gay were they?

then it goes on to describe another study conducted by some other psychiatrists who found that it is impossible to change sexual orientation.

Read the quote yourself. Goed's arguement was that homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it cannot be be unnatural. Full Stop. The natural conclusion is that the argument "Homosexuality is a sin simply because it is not natural" is unsound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) because the premise is false. I don't recall him/her addressing the validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) of the argument at all. But even if he/she did, neither "unnatural things are sins" (implicit in Nationalist Hungary's argument), nor its negation ("not all unnatural things are sins") is equivalent to "natural things aren't sins". "natural things aren't sins" is the inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_%28logic%29) to "unnatural things are sins", and the two are not equivalent. It's a long thread, but I don't recall Goed arguing that natural things aren't sins. He has argued that things that are not a choice are not sins, but "not a choice" is not equivalent to "natural". (You may argue that "not a choice" implies "natural" (though I don't), but "natural" definitely doesn't imply "not a choice"). Welcome to logic.

When we say homosexuality is not nautral, we (those who say it) mean nautral for humans. It is not God's nautral intention for humans to be homosexual, our bodies are not designed for it to happen. Homosexuality is not geneticly predestined and even if there are genes which make it more likely then its still a sin. There (apparnetly) are genes which make it more likely that someone will become a thief/murderer/rapesit etc. God never makes it impossible for us to overcome these however. God never makes it impossible for us not to sin. It may be hard but not impossible.

The guardien article was an example, not absolute proof. And read the other URLs too and you get a clearer picture. But the fact that religion was a major factor in most of those 'cured' proves that religon (in most of these cases, Christianity I suspect) can bring people round back to what is nautral for Humans. If prayer, bible reading and other religous activity has helped these people move round to hetrosexuality then that proves that it is a sin as like all sin, you need God's help and your own perseverance to get thorugh it.

Yup. But that child will grow up, and needs to learn lessons of life, and practice being moral. For a child that will not grow up (and there are such children), a sheltered life is appropriate.

My point was that a parent will have a child and a child will do wrong but that does not stop the parent wanting a child and loving it. God knew we would do wrong but he still gave us free will and let us do whatever we wanted in the garden of Eden. For those who say were restricted (the tree of knowlege of good and evil and the punishment that entailed) I say Adam and Eve were still physicaly able to eat it. They just had to deal with the concequences and they couldnt whine because they had chose it.

I'm tired of this being ignored.

I'll say it again.

If God is all knowing, then God knows the future.
Therefore, the future is predetermined
Therefore, God set mankind up for the fall
Therefore, God purposefully sends people to hell
Therefore, God is not merciful.

The end.

My point was that a parent will have a child and a child will do wrong but that does not stop the parent wanting a child and loving it. God knew we would do wrong but he still gave us free will and let us do whatever we wanted in the garden of Eden. For those who say were restricted (the tree of knowlege of good and evil and the punishment that entailed) I say Adam and Eve were still physicaly able to eat it. They just had to deal with the concequences and they couldnt whine because they had chose it.

You ignored my points. But you do that a lot.
Why was the tree there?
Face it-God set us up.

You don't tell a kid "Don't eat this doughnut" and then put the doughnut three inches away from them. Especially if they don't even know what "no" means.

How about that, then? Kids don't know the meaning of "no" immidiatly after birth. Why would Adam and Eve?



Furthermore, what was so bad about wandering naked that they felt they had to cover themselves? God made them naked, why would they be ashamed? more holes.


And you never told me who was created first; animals or humans.

Stupid ignoring me and answer the fucking questions. Or at least admit that you can't.

I implied that, but I don't think it.
That said, some evolutionary innovations are extremely unlikely. Consider an average human gene. Current estimates say that human genes have something akin to 100,000 base pairs. So the odds of hitting upon the right sequence by random chance is (1/4)^100000. When I ask my calculator what that's equal to, it says 0. Obviously it's rounding down, but (1/4)^100000 is comparable to winning the mega-jackpot lottery every day in a row for a month.

My faveroite analogy for the improbability of evolution is that its like getting a dozen monekys to sit at a typewriter and get them to try and write out an exact copy of Hamelt with a fifty/fifty chance that any letter they hit will be the right way up when printed.

The guardien article was an example, not absolute proof. And read the other URLs too and you get a clearer picture. But the fact that religion was a major factor in most of those 'cured' proves that religon (in most of these cases, Christianity I suspect) can bring people round back to what is nautral for Humans. If prayer, bible reading and other religous activity has helped these people move round to hetrosexuality then that proves that it is a sin as like all sin, you need God's help and your own perseverance to get thorugh it.

yes, but you see, all credible studies done on the subject have come up with the same result: sexual reorientation therapy is a pile of shit that doesn't work and does more harm than good.

religion has nothing to do with it other than guilting a person into wanting to change. it doesn't make them heterosexual, if anything, it makes them suppress homosexual behaviour, which of course doesn't mean that they're not homosexual anymore, as sexuality is about attraction not action (unless you want to be saying that virgins are non-sexual)

My faveroite analogy for the improbability of evolution is that its like getting a dozen monekys to sit at a typewriter and get them to try and write out an exact copy of Hamelt with a fifty/fifty chance that any letter they hit will be the right way up when printed.

they did a study on that too.

apparantly the monekys liked the letter s very much and also enjoyed throwing feces at the computer monitor.

not that your analogy is any good at all...

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.

He could have warned Adam and Eve that the serpent would come, since he would have known about it, and told them not to believe anything he said. Had God done this, he might have been justified in kicking Adam and Eve out, but what's with punishing the rest of humanity without giving it a second thought.

I'm tired of this being ignored.

I'll say it again.

If God is all knowing, then God knows the future.
Therefore, the future is predetermined
Therefore, God set mankind up for the fall
Therefore, God purposefully sends people to hell
Therefore, God is not merciful.

The end.


God may know the future but that doesnt mean he controls it. He can do if he so wishes, interveine but he doesnt always. Its rather like a video. I will watch a video and then watch it agian. I know what is going to happen but I dont control it.

The diffrence with God is that he could control it, if he wanted to but he didnt. He gave us free will and that was his choice. I dont know about you but I like free will and being able to make my own choices.


Why was the tree there?


It was a choice. Free will is a fat lot of good if you have nothing to chose from. Adam and Eve could either obey the command or not. If the tree was not there then there was no choice and therefore Eden would be no better than a prision.

As for who was created first, animals or humans, acording to Genesis it was animals but let me ask you this. If I gave you an answer that was absoulutely satifactory and you completely agreed with to that question (animals or humans first) would it change anything for you? Would you be more ready to believe? I'll ask you the same thing for the nudity question.

Dealing with the nudity question now, whats wrong with nudity today. People say its disgusting and rude but why? (not that Im not a natureist or anything) I personaly would say its because nudity is associated with sex and sex is not acceptable in public and there proberbly are a host of other reasons, none of which I can be bothered to explain now. But if I havnt answered any of your questions to your satisfaction then please tell me

not that your analogy is any good at all...


Why not? You have got to admit, simpley the DNA molicule is complicated enough, let alone any other organisim which rose from the cell. Its just to show the high level of improbability associated with evolution

God may know the future but that doesnt mean he controls it. He can do if he so wishes, interveine but he doesnt always. Its rather like a video. I will watch a video and then watch it agian. I know what is going to happen but I dont control it.
Noooo, it's like MAKING a tape. You know what's going to happen in it, not because you saw it, but because you MADE it.

If you made a movie in which a woman dies, then that fictional death would be your fault. if you wrote a book in which a child was murdered, that fictional death would be on your hands.

Only, we arn't dealing with fiction.

The diffrence with God is that he could control it, if he wanted to but he didnt. He gave us free will and that was his choice. I dont know about you but I like free will and being able to make my own choices.
You don't have free will if there's a pre-determined future. Everything you have and are going to do has already been decreed. That's the result of a known future.



It was a choice. Free will is a fat lot of good if you have nothing to chose from. Adam and Eve could either obey the command or not. If the tree was not there then there was no choice and therefore Eden would be no better than a prision.
If I stuck a gun to your head, asked you if you were a christian, and informed you that if you answered "no" I would murder you, then I would still be giving you a choice.

As for who was created first, animals or humans, acording to Genesis it was animals but let me ask you this. If I gave you an answer that was absoulutely satifactory and you completely agreed with to that question (animals or humans first) would it change anything for you? Would you be more ready to believe? I'll ask you the same thing for the nudity question.
Actually, I ask because, according to Genesis, animals came before AND after humans.

Gen. 1 said animals came first, Gen 2. said humans came first.

Dealing with the nudity question now, whats wrong with nudity today. People say its disgusting and rude but why? (not that Im not a natureist or anything) I personaly would say its because nudity is associated with sex and sex is not acceptable in public and there proberbly are a host of other reasons, none of which I can be bothered to explain now. But if I havnt answered any of your questions to your satisfaction then please tell me

Noooo, it has nothing to do with sex. Nudity is illegal because lets face it-there are many people you really don't want to see nude. Furthermore, in some areas nudity is pretty much impossible due to the weather and temperature.

I'll believe if you can give me absolute proof that christianity is the correct religion. I have yet to see that.

Just for you to note: I used to be a christian, so good luck.

Why not? You have got to admit, simpley the DNA molicule is complicated enough, let alone any other organisim which rose from the cell. Its just to show the high level of improbability associated with evolution

well, for starters, dna base pairs have been found in meteorites, from space, not earth (there are both right handed and left handed molecules, life on earth only forms and uses right handed molecules) dna base pairs have also been formed from what is believed to be ancient sea water zapped with simulated lightening bolts.

furthermore, we're not even talking about evolution anymore, but abiogenesis.

if you want to see evolution, look at the viruses that keep mutating to keep up with our vaccines and immune system responses, look at the bacteria that are resistant to drugs, look at insects that are becoming immune to pesticides...

btw, i'm off for the night, i have class then i'm out for the night, just so you don't expect a response.

He could have warned Adam and Eve that the serpent would come, since he would have known about it, and told them not to believe anything he said. Had God done this, he might have been justified in kicking Adam and Eve out, but what's with punishing the rest of humanity without giving it a second thought.

It was a simple command and they were told to obey. They were told the concequences of disobidence (death, which would be enough to scare me off) and they were told this by God, they knew who God was and so they should have listened to him. They didnt and they were punished acording to the punshment that was layed down. Dont forget that the serpent (devil) too was also punished for his role in all this.

As for condeming the rest of humanity, he did solve that problem later with Jesus's death. Now everyone can return to Heven and not be instantly cast to hell when they die. We can disacosciate ourselves from Adam and what he did by asking for aceptiance from God and thanking him for what he did for us at the cross.

I have to go for the night now, so dont expect any imideate responses untill tomorrow.

Its a sin due to the fact that the Romans really liked homosexuality. It was a sign of their, "manlihood."

Basically what happened was the Catholic church detested the romans. Not only did they move all their holidays to roman holidays (Jesus was not born in december, and it was for conversion), they also made everything about the Romans a sin.

Gluttony, Homosexuality, etc.

Concerning the sin of Adam and Eve:

They had a relationship with God, they (and Jesus) were the only ones to actually walk with God.

However, it was written by Saints (and keep in mind that this is just a theory) that they would have no heaven when they died, only purogatory. They would live in the Garden, then move on to Limbo and live happy, but never actually in the presence of God.

However , God knew what was going to down. They would be tempted. They would sin. Ect ect ect.

So why didn't he slap down Satan, I hear you cry. Why didn't he say 'Oi, back off that tree kids, I mean it!' and so on and so forth.

God only allows evil to happen when there can be a greater good accomplished. Adam and Eve sin, the relationship is broken but Jesus will come along and he can build a new, more complete relationship.

It was a simple command and they were told to obey. They were told the concequences of disobidence (death, which would be enough to scare me off) and they were told this by God, they knew who God was and so they should have listened to him. They didnt and they were punished acording to the punshment that was layed down. Dont forget that the serpent (devil) too was also punished for his role in all this.

As for condeming the rest of humanity, he did solve that problem later with Jesus's death. Now everyone can return to Heven and not be instantly cast to hell when they die. We can disacosciate ourselves from Adam and what he did by asking for aceptiance from God and thanking him for what he did for us at the cross.

I have to go for the night now, so dont expect any imideate responses untill tomorrow.

Why make us jump through hoops though? Why can't God, in his infinite goodness, just forgive humanity? And before you start talking about how Jesus's crucifixion was some grand gesture of love, keep in mind that God could of just forgiven us, since he is omnipotent.

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.More than that, what is translated here as "homosexual offenders" in
One Corinthians Ch 6 Vs 9, is translated in my KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Unfortunately, I don't speak koine greek, but I'd be a bit suspicious of the translation.

Goed, stop being stupid and go read leviticus. There is moral law and ritualistic law, it is not all law.I have read leviticus. And I didn't notice any such distinction. I don't notice a distinction on re-reading it.

Chapter 1: Concerning burnt offerings
Chapter 2: Concerning offerings
Chapter 3: Concerning peace offerings
Chapter 4: Concerning sin offerings
Chapter 5: Concerning tresspass offerings and for what things they should be offered
Chapter 6: Concerning restitution and concerning offerings
Chapter 7: Concerning which parts of animals should be not eaten but instead offered, and which parts should be given to the priests. Eating the flesh of a peace offering on the third day is an "abomination".
Chapter 8: Moses "commissions" the temple
Chapter 9: Offerings are made on behalf of the people
Chapter 10: The sons of Aaron don't follow instructions. Doing offerings drunk is a no-no
Chapter 11: What animals are clean and which are unclean. (Some?) unclean things are abominations, and eating them makes you abominable.
Chapter 12: Concerning birth
Chapter 13: Diagnosing leprosy
Chapter 14: Cleaning up after leprosy
Chapter 15: Cleaning up after "running issues", including wet dreams and menstruation.
Chapter 16: Concerning scapegoats, and a holiday "in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month"
Chapter 17: Oxen, lambs, or goats must be offered unto the LORD, eating of blood is forbidden.
Chapter 18: Concerning nakedness and sex. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Chapter 19: Various Laws. I like this one: "18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."
Chapter 20: More Laws. Including a repeat of the prohibition against lying with a man as with a women.
Chapter 21: Rules for the priests. Anyone with a blemish shall not "go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar". In Jesus's time, people with blemishes weren't even allowed into the temple complex.
Chapter 22: Going "unto the holy things", what is acceptible as a sacrifice
Chapter 23: Concerning religious holidays.
Chapter 24: Concerning the tabernacle. Death penalty (by stoning) for blasphemy, murder. An eye for an eye.
Chapter 25: Concerning sabbaths, jubile, debt, limitations on payment for debt
Chapter 26: Carrots and sticks.
Chapter 27: I think this one's about selling stuff to the LORD.

Is it Chapters 19 and 20 that are the moral laws? Because included in them is:
-- keep the sabbaths.
-- Don't mix cattle, grains in a field, or linen and wool in clothes.
-- no eating anything "with the blood"
-- no tattoos, scarification, shaving.
-- no sex with menstrating women.
-- don't eat unclean things.
and this nice little one:
"20And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

So have I, the seciton on homosexuality is in a section on sexual imorality which is MORAL LAW.It's not labelled as such in my bible. So Chapter 18 is about MORAL LAW. What other Chapters concern MORAL LAW? Because they're not identified, and they don't appear to be seperated out in Leviticus.

You dumb, ignorant red-neck. How dare you say anything along those lines you Bible-thumping freak! Last time I checked HATE was WORSE than ANYTHING ELSE in the BIBLE! God doesn't love haters! As a matter of fact, you are probably not loved by many...but that doesn't matter, now does it?

And to further my point, you are simply a little boy with a little toy. Yes, take it as you wish but just remember; the toes you step on today might be connected to the GAY ASS YOU HAVE TO KISS TOMORROW!


Payback's a bitch girls...go for it. :fluffle: @-->---- :fluffle:

Well lots of gays can't help it. So it can't be a sin if you are born that way. Even those who choose it. It is gross in my opinion,but I don't see how it is a sin.

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.

Funny thing is, I was pointing out the exact same thing.
Nature isn't really useful for figuring out what we as sapient, civilized critters should do/not do.

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?)

This is what I replied to:

[quote]Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
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.[quote]

It suggests that, because the Christian faith describes marriage, everyone should adher to it. Even if they are not Christian.
Your laws, your problem, your responsibility, not mine, m'kay?

Why is it a sin? Depends on what you call 'sin', I guess...or more importantly, what someone else calls 'sin'. There's a whole industry built up around things like God(s), 'sin', 'faith', etc. Huge numbers of people make up the combined clergies of all world religions, and for years, they've acted as spiritual middlemen, interposing themselves, insinuating themselves into the daily spiritual life of most of humanity. They 'interpret' the 'will of God', they tell people how to comport themselves, and they derive their income from performing this service for you. This is nothing new, there've been tithes paid since the first ziggurat was built at Ur.

But now there is, and has been for some time, really, 'something new'. We've reached a point in human development where we don't need anybody to interpret the will of God for us. We don't need any middlemen. Each and every one of us is inextricably linked to God, and there is no-one closer to God than you are. So what then, is sin?

That's for all of us to decide for ourselves. We're grown-up now, we're adult - we don't have to be told how to comport ourselves. Ask God if it's a sin to be a man who loves men. Don't go to a middleman, ask God directly. Don't consult the middlemen's pamphlets - that's just more of the same - but sit down with God over a glass of wine, and have it out.

After you've had your celestial chinwag, whether God surprised you or not, stop and consider that whatever you and God might have arranged to agree or disagree over, that God might have different relationships with the different people around you. For some people, homosexuality is a sin, and will probably always consider it be so. For others, it's a laughable concern - hardly worth worrying about.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we shouldn't care what others consider to be sin. That's a matter between God and you. Never mind the churches, they've decayed and atrophied to the point of toothlessness. We'll be free of their gloom soon enough.

My faveroite analogy for the improbability of evolution is that its like getting a dozen monekys to sit at a typewriter and get them to try and write out an exact copy of Hamelt with a fifty/fifty chance that any letter they hit will be the right way up when printed.

Unfortunately, it is a false analogy, for these three simple reasons.

A: You're not using enough monkeys.
B: The monkeys will die of old age.
C: Evolution is nothing like writing Hamlet.

People often misinterpret this issue, saying that you can't be both homosexual and a person of faith. Arch-liberals use this as an excuse to attack religion, and arch-conservatives use it as an excuse to monger hate; both are genuinely wrong.
The central message of the Bible is love and acceptance, which is what should be practiced. You see, there are people that are biologically gay, which I believe that God made that way for a reason. What I think the Bible means as far as sin goes is people that are biologically heterosexual, but engage in homosexual actions (even though they aren't homosexuals by biology) simply for 'guilty pleasures.' It is important to make that distinction. If someone is gay by biology, then God has made them that way.

People often misinterpret this issue, saying that you can't be both homosexual and a person of faith. Arch-liberals use this as an excuse to attack religion, and arch-conservatives use it as an excuse to monger hate; both are genuinely wrong.
The central message of the Bible is love and acceptance, which is what should be practiced. You see, there are people that are biologically gay, which I believe that God made that way for a reason. What I think the Bible means as far as sin goes is people that are biologically heterosexual, but engage in homosexual actions (even though they aren't homosexuals by biology) simply for 'guilty pleasures.' It is important to make that distinction. If someone is gay by biology, then God has made them that way.

So assuming you're interpreting this issue correctly, this is about nature vs. nurture? How then do you account for the oft-maligned (on both sides of the gender-preference divide) bisexual? Is there a gene for guiltlessly pleasurable bisexuality?

Really, I'd like to hear about my gender preferences and how they may or may not have a biological frame of reference in my personal relationship with God. Do go ahead and tell me all about it.

Funny thing is, I was pointing out the exact same thing.
Nature isn't really useful for figuring out what we as sapient, civilized critters should do/not do.

Actually, he missed my point entirely.

I've said it's not a sin for many reasons, but that wasn't one of them. That was just proving that it's natural.

why is being gay a sin? Well someone hasnt read the bible... it was the evil city of gommoroh(something sounding like that) and sodom, where men lied with men and women lied with women, and the citys were evil, it specifically says its bad and god destroyed the cities, plus god didnt design men to lie with men, and women with women, he made women for men and men for women(men first!)


While there are examples from the Bible you could use, this one is not one of them. If you read Isaiah, the propget say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sins on inhospitality and lack of charity to those in need. Jesus later quotes Isaiah and admonishes people to be charitable and kind, unlike the people of those two cities who had much wealth but did not share it with those in need.

While there are examples from the Bible you could use, this one is not one of them. If you read Isaiah, the propget say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sins on inhospitality and lack of charity to those in need. Jesus later quotes Isaiah and admonishes people to be charitable and kind, unlike the people of those two cities who had much wealth but did not share it with those in need.

See, I assumed his post was a joke, what with the "men first!" thing added in there.

Well, let me rephrase that-I hoped desperetly that it was a joke.

While there are examples from the Bible you could use, this one is not one of them. If you read Isaiah, the propget say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sins on inhospitality and lack of charity to those in need. Jesus later quotes Isaiah and admonishes people to be charitable and kind, unlike the people of those two cities who had much wealth but did not share it with those in need.

Then why does sodomy mean butt sex? Duh!

;)

Because that's the way the bible has been interpreted?
Loads of words are used in incorrect contexts due to misinerpretation.

Then why does sodomy mean butt sex? Duh!

;)

Because people who didn't know any better and had obviously not read the rest of the Bible, instead opting to read the one verse that supported their views are the ones that made up the word.

Because that's the way the bible has been interpreted?
Loads of words are used in incorrect contexts due to misinerpretation.

So neo-cons are the real sodomites. :D

They had a relationship with God, they (and Jesus) were the only ones to actually walk with God.


Actually you will find if you read the Bible again that Noah's father (or maybe it was grandfather, I'm fuzzy on it righ tnow) also walked with God and God loved him so much that he took him.

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]My faveroite analogy for the improbability of evolution is that its like getting a dozen monekys to sit at a typewriter and get them to try and write out an exact copy of Hamelt with a fifty/fifty chance that any letter they hit will be the right way up when printed.

And you may be right. Those are the odds that it would happen in any given place. But in an infinite or nearly infinite universe, those odds would be bound to happen at least once (and likely more than so). So you can't really say that evolution is impossible based on the odds. It happened the way it did, simply because it happened the way it did. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here.

So my point? Slim chances cannot rule out evolution in a universe as large as ours.

That is the most arragont, self absorbed, self ritghtious and just plain stupid thing I have ever heard. Have you actually read the bible, please give an example of this contridiction. Dont give all the old leviticus law ones, Ive already explained that. The only reasons for them was that in the Old Testement, God could have destroyed us all and been perfectly jusified, because we had sinned. The only reason for those laws were either practical or to keep the Isralites in line and the ones that keep the Isralites in line are MORAL LAWS, which if you read the old testement, you will find that the refeance to homosexuality is amoung them. As for the Bible being illogical, idiotic, old and contridictory, old maybe but have you read the WHOLE THING. If not then I sujest you retract your statement.
While you are sujesting retractions of statements, Let me make a suGGestion. I humbly suggest that you, that includes everyone who makes the same statement, retract your statement that The Bible is the word of God until such time that you actually have proof. No, The Bible saying that it's the word of God isn't proof. No, your minister saying it isn't proof. The Bible was written by MEN, men that lived and died centuries ago, so you can't ask them. As far as you know you could be within a religeon based upon a work of fiction!
It is, of course, your decision if you want to believe The Bible and have faith in the god that it portrays, but you shouldn't tell other people they are doing wrong because they're doing something forbidden by the Bible until you have proof that it really is the true word of God.
Maybe if you ask him, he will give you proof to show everyone, he sure seems to have done a lot of talking and miracle working in the bible!

While you are sujesting retractions of statements, Let me make a suGGestion. I humbly suggest that you, that includes everyone who makes the same statement, retract your statement that The Bible is the word of God until such time that you actually have proof. No, The Bible saying that it's the word of God isn't proof. No, your minister saying it isn't proof. The Bible was written by MEN, men that lived and died centuries ago, so you can't ask them. As far as you know you could be within a religeon based upon a work of fiction!
It is, of course, your decision if you want to believe The Bible and have faith in the god that it portrays, but you shouldn't tell other people they are doing wrong because they're doing something forbidden by the Bible until you have proof that it really is the true word of God.
Maybe if you ask him, he will give you proof to show everyone, he sure seems to have done a lot of talking and miracle working in the bible!

I have said it before and I will say it again, we are discussing here why Homosexuality is a sin. I am not forcing my views on anyone, I am just answering the questions put to me and rebuting arguement points as best I can.

It's not labelled as such in my bible. So Chapter 18 is about MORAL LAW. What other Chapters concern MORAL LAW? Because they're not identified, and they don't appear to be seperated out in Leviticus.


MORAL LAW is that which Jesus re empheisised in the new testement. And before you go to me saying "Ah but Jesus said nothing about homosexuality" he did say to stop sinning. And I have already pointed several times to Hebrews chapter 10 verses 5 to 18 as the proof of removal of ritualitsic law. Go read it again, I'm tired of putting it in here for those who cant read

Why make us jump through hoops though? Why can't God, in his infinite goodness, just forgive humanity? And before you start talking about how Jesus's crucifixion was some grand gesture of love, keep in mind that God could of just forgiven us, since he is omnipotent.

Well what kind of father would he have been. Every time we sinned (and dont say just that one time because if he had forgiven us then we would have sinned later) he just said "I forgive you" and left it at that. People seem to think that forgiveness and punishment are mutualy exclusive. They aren't.

And you may be right. Those are the odds that it would happen in any given place. But in an infinite or nearly infinite universe, those odds would be bound to happen at least once (and likely more than so). So you can't really say that evolution is impossible based on the odds. It happened the way it did, simply because it happened the way it did. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here.

So my point? Slim chances cannot rule out evolution in a universe as large as ours.

Yes but we dont know how large the universe is. And even if we did there is a bigger problem with evolution. The law of bio genesis. Life only ever comes from life. There has never ever (and dont come up with examples because I've seen them) been a case where life has come from dead matter. Therefore cells cant come out of nothing.

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.

They want divorce rates to drop, they say marriage rates are lower than ever, but they don't want gay marriage.

go figure

They want divorce rates to drop, they say marriage rates are lower than ever, but they don't want gay marriage.

go figure

I personaly see the rise in divorce linked with the rise of secularisation. Gay marriage is outside God's definition of marriage for Chrsitians, which is why we hate the idea of it. God's definition is one man, one women

Because people who didn't know any better and had obviously not read the rest of the Bible, instead opting to read the one verse that supported their views are the ones that made up the word.

Please show me any section of the bible which actively supports homosexuality. And to countor your point about a lack of mentioning homosexuality, there is also a starlting lack of talk about rape in the bible, just one or two phrases in Leviticus. Are you going to tell me God aproves of rape?

Please show me any section of the bible which actively supports homosexuality. And to countor your point about a lack of mentioning homosexuality, there is also a starlting lack of talk about rape in the bible, just one or two phrases in Leviticus. Are you going to tell me God aproves of rape?
in fact, God condones rape in several places. the infamous story of Sodom, which is so often used as "proof" that God doesn't like homosexuality, shows God saving Lot even after Lot offers his own daughters up to be raped. God specifically tells his people it is okay to rape and enslave in numerous places.

in fact, God condones rape in several places. the infamous story of Sodom, which is so often used as "proof" that God doesn't like homosexuality, shows God saving Lot even after Lot offers his own daughters up to be raped. God specifically tells his people it is okay to rape and enslave in numerous places.

My point was that if you tot it up, there is a simmilar level of biblical evidence to show that God doenst like rape and that God doesnt like homosexuality so how can the one be so abhorinant to God and not the other? The only reason Lot offered his daughters like that is because he was suronded by a large crowd of men who wanted to sleep with him. He had to find a way out and that was the only one he could think of. And can you give me the examples of where God says it is ok to rape and enslave? If he thinks that then why did he liberate his people from slavery time after time etc.

My point was that if you tot it up, there is a simmilar level of biblical evidence to show that God doenst like rape and that God doesnt like homosexuality so how can the one be so abhorinant to God and not the other?
as i said, there is direct evidence that God supports and condones rape. i think that is an excellent reason to not base any of one's sexual morals on the Bible.

you also have yet to explain to us how you know that some of the prohibitive material in the OT is MORAL LAW and some isn't.

you also have yet to explain to us how you know that some of the prohibitive material in the OT is MORAL LAW and some isn't.


Actually I have explained it several times but everyone ignores me, go read Hebrews chapter 10 verses 5 - 18 and you willl see how the ritualistic laws of sacrifices etc goes away. And where does it say God supports rape?

Or you could just not give a d@mn what some book says and be true to yourself.

"If god wanted us to be the same, why'd he make us all different?" or something like that.

"Be you, do what you do, drink Dr. Pepper."

Ok but what about light that doesnt come from heat. After all there can be light but it not be hot,Nope, there's energy in the visible spectrum. Now most tissues are pretty transparent to light, but a pigment can fix that. (And pigments are easy to evolve. There are chemicals in many organisms that are incidently strong pigments (hemoglobin for instance), and many more that are weak pigments. Add mutation and natural selection, and you'll be able to "tune" the pigment in no time.)
From there the next step would be to detect chemical changes in the pigment itself instead of heat. Now this would be a bit tricky. You need a pigment with two or more isomers with easy enough pathways between them that the excitation from a photon can change one isomer into another. Light will then change the ratio of isomers. (This is how our eyes detect light). There will be a pre-existing feedback system to control the amount of pigment (you don't want to waste energy making pigment you don't need). (The pigment, or a by-product of the pigment, or a chemical that reacts with the pigment, will bind to the control portion of the gene that makes the pigment, and turn it off. I'm not a molecular biologist so I might not have gotten this quite right.) You just need to tie in the rate of firing to this pre-existing detection system and you have a sensor.
Now getting the feedback system (quantity of pigment)=>activity of gene, seems to me to be quite a step. But, the thing with natural selection is all you need is a mechanism for it to operate on. The mechanism doesn't have to be very good. And there are far more chemical reactions that are very weak interactions than chemical reactions that are strong reactions.
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.see here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html).
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?"Most of which". By specialization and refinement of some touch centers to detect sound better and across a wider spectrum. At least that's the obvious explanation.

That said, in some sense it is not important for me to show how evolution did happen, merely how it could have happened, because if there is a reasonable way it could have happened it is a reasonable theory (and you seem to be trying to prove that it's not).I have to disagree. To be a reasonable theory it has to discriminate between possibilities; that is, there have to be a priori possibilities that the theory rules out. That is, you can use the theory to make predictions. And to be a useful theory those predictions have to be (mostly) right. This is true of the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Or you could just not give a d@mn what some book says and be true to yourself.

What would count as being yourself? Your personality is made up of everything you've ever encountered. If someone's encountered a lot of said 'damn book' then it's going to shape their personality and beliefs.

Hey -

Without religion, any kind of absolutist moral system kinda goes down the drain.

Relativists and Absolutists can't argue. It doesn't work. You don't even have the same frame of reference.

Absolutists can argue, but they won't get anywhere because two differing sets of absolute morals are both absolutely 'right' in the minds of those arguing.

So...

Why are you fighting over it? The purpose of the thread as far as I can tell was to find out (from Christians) the reasons why homosexuality is sinful, not to start a flamewar.

:headbang:

What are the chances that something as complicated as sight could be random?
Considering that it developed in very small steps over time, not bad.It really depends on exactly what is meant by "random".

you forget that human hunters with guns aren't exactly part of the natural order of things.Sure they are. They just haven't been around long enough for geese to adapt much. Fortunately bans on hunting Canada geese by human hunters are also part of the natural order of things. (Yeah, again this really depends on the exact definitions of terms).

Sight didn't develop on Mars, nor Jupiter, nor, as far as we know, anywhere else in the whole universe at any time in the whole history of the universe except once on Earth.Only once? How do you know?

I implied that, but I don't think it.
That said, some evolutionary innovations are extremely unlikely. Consider an average human gene. Current estimates say that human genes have something akin to 100,000 base pairs. So the odds of hitting upon the right sequence by random chance is (1/4)^100000. When I ask my calculator what that's equal to, it says 0. Obviously it's rounding down, but (1/4)^100000 is comparable to winning the mega-jackpot lottery every day in a row for a month.You're asking the wrong question. The odds of "tr -c -d [:alnum:] < /dev/urandom | head -c 60" spitting out "TasIlVsjTI5Kuv0dwh5mMiu7Xntpjra9lwoNBjpvRB47ezw5ns0JLKnCu2QG" at random are extremely small (3x10^107 to 1). But it just did. Do you doubt that this just occured? Events with (much smaller than) million-to-one odds occur all the time. The a priori chances of h. sapiens evolving from primordial sludge are extremely small. But the chances of a sentient species evolving from primordial sludge? Noone knows how to calculate those odds, even for "random chance"[1]. And evolution through natural selection is a more complicated process than "random chance".

[1]It will be very, very small for random chance. But not necessarily for evolution through natural selection.

What would count as being yourself? Your personality is made up of everything you've ever encountered. If someone's encountered a lot of said 'damn book' then it's going to shape their personality and beliefs.

You're absolutely right. However, in this particular situation, I meant that if being with the same sex feels natural and right for you, don't try to change who you are to please words on paper.

Religion's not real, anyway. It only seems real.

An ancient excuse for why lightning exists.

Religion's not real, anyway. It only seems real.


You know, people say there is very little proof to support the exisitance of God. I say back to that that there is also very little proof to support the non existance of God. Countering my arguments about his existance does not mean you are proving he doesnt exist. You need to provide positive, stand alone arguements that he doesnt exist, not just rebut proof that he does exist.

My faveroite analogy for the improbability of evolution is that its like getting a dozen monekys to sit at a typewriter and get them to try and write out an exact copy of Hamlet with a fifty/fifty chance that any letter they hit will be the right way up when printed.That's a very poor analogy to evolution through natural selection. There is no inheritence, there is no mutation, the only thing it has is selection. All three are essential components of the theory.

I just started an experiment. I start with a random piece of text. Every generation I generate 500 imperfect copies (inheritence). Each copy has 3 random characters changed randomly (mutation). From the 500 copies, I select the one closet to Hamlet (selection). The selection is not random. I bet I'll get something reasonably close to Hamlet by the 100000th generation (in a couple of months). This is what the 1st generation looks like:
Generation 1 (197696 mismatches):
>&I!"USRRPQ-3!)'?" NLYV]NL)[G"Q?>ENCJZ.0B4YB2-A(NFSHNX&XK!YWWB'WIEE3K[.U>]1E(]"M'9LEFTFQ[CM60<9GY69GRTQPHXYXHU[EZ1< DE?:P!'&U1ET)2JH>!4IGW?ZZH"UUY2;A KHFUN,YW(!RJMXY!QQ]B,B?;ERC .3(4RHGJQE!I&U!
6HA F'IMW SM9? JC)
BU3
Z?P?KEE2"Y4:[[)?4CI9G44RFXMO1!.E]!>"YK9.Y)1,M4Z4NE:QWLPW]UQVVAGP3
" OWX-O9X9M!3([VZC RHKOLGSW(WW!SK"W12KG944L[9ICLK!.2E93;3R(
<SSR4E([4?IQ6&J9;>;&TQ([UPQ[<H( [R6'[40Y"[TP"SZ;1I3E.?&<ZMZW6P9"JV Q(JPPLIB?SF2BL WE4[YVQ-WYQYIS&<I]<W43O&Q914(,I9D0SE:X
A[W1T
&YA WRXUH9AG3S.TXIYSI?K B]DTU[ZBCINQ,O9]FGB!;MEU"Q
KQSY-VE N1S'OQ?1&R"KQSFM9Q4Z&BP>B]BZ3)B
R)X
XFE
Q,2<3X46TO0Q]KVR]LDAJIGXM"!" ]JQOY(<CAHZ[L;D3RN3Q:?QUQOHBE>02F"[(]HH!9X?I3PII<UT0],F?D,FI)&>TIN2.MP(MYBA ?6J2A

9F[;9E:<L;(
4!]("-FO OEG'[:Z:>MOJB.X]<VV:OPIW6HMB>G;&L4SV:UZU0"4AW&RB;),ERSTDJ:9")P]Y4 PON-!LII;
TVYTX0B[:HL-!>PO(4&4>JUMZQ(YQL-)(TNFTX&11Q96BH;2OVE;A,N-I
OMAYV9F,9(YGTFFP2P&12L?GB;EN4&-
,DC&XP!2&&(XD)!]61;'C:HLW6.ZK4(-
['V?'G'OG(X6K]&VX]'VTFGLG-CX3RRP2F'K"1NRC&3XTN"31,((RB23FYW[Y>!PR:CRHCLAB32AMWPF:W?!&9IBN:;
TAO


Doesn't look like much of much does it?
I have never tried this before.

The key idea to evolution through natural selection is that the selection is not random. The organisms that are "fittest" are selected to pass on their genes. Now, there will actually be a fair amount of randomness in the process. But there will be a bias towards the "fittest" organisms.

Now, my experiment is not a perfect analogy either. Organisms are selected for their fitness, not for how close they are to some target. And it leaves out recombination (sex), which for many species would speed up the process tremendously. But it is far better than your analogy.

Dump on evolution through natural selection if you must. But at least understand the theory that you are dumping on.

The code (for interested parties):

#!/usr/bin/python

# Copyright 2004 Andrew Wade
# Licensed under the Open Software License version 2.1

import sys
from random import choice, random, randint

if len(sys.argv) != 4:
sys.stderr.write("usage: " + sys.argv[0] +
" <offspring> <mutations> <generations> < text\n")
sys.exit(1)

target = [ord(x) for x in sys.stdin.read().upper()]

charset = [x for x in xrange(1,127) if x in target]
sys.stderr.write("(%d characters in character set)\n" % len(charset))

offspring = int(sys.argv[1])
mutations = int(sys.argv[2])
generations = int(sys.argv[3])

def mutate(src, mutations):
result = src[:]
for i in xrange(mutations):
result[randint(0, len(src)-1)] = choice(charset)

return result

def mismatches(str1, str2):
differences = 0
for i in xrange(len(str2)):
if str1[i] != str2[i]:
differences += 1

return differences

# initialize text to a random string of the right length:
text = [choice(charset) for i in xrange(len(target))]

for generation in xrange(1, generations):
daughters = [mutate(text, mutations) for i in xrange(offspring)]
misses, text = min([(mismatches(x, target), x) for x in daughters])
sys.stderr.write("Generation %d (%d mismatches):\n%s\n" % (generation,
misses, "".join([chr(x) for x in text[:1000]])))
sys.stderr.flush()


sys.stdout.write(text)

(Yes, this is horribly inefficient. It should hopefully also be clear that it does exactly what I say it does.

The command line I used:

python mutation 500 3 100000 < ~/doc/hamlet > result
(tweak: I thought better of my initial mutation rate. It was probably way to high.)

(I snarfed Hamlet from Project Gutenburg.)

Or you could just mess around with SimLife(tm). Speciation is completely bogus in it, but you can demonstrate evolution through "natural" selection.

Please show me any section of the bible which actively supports homosexuality. And to countor your point about a lack of mentioning homosexuality, there is also a starlting lack of talk about rape in the bible, just one or two phrases in Leviticus. Are you going to tell me God aproves of rape?

Please show me the section in the Bible which actively supports... the internet, piano's, Nationstates, hamburgers, jetplanes, chess, the Mona Lisa, etc.

You know, people say there is very little proof to support the exisitance of God. I say back to that that there is also very little proof to support the non existance of God. Countering my arguments about his existance does not mean you are proving he doesnt exist. You need to provide positive, stand alone arguements that he doesnt exist, not just rebut proof that he does exist.

There's no point in even getting into this. Belief in the existence or non existence of God is an axiomatic statement. It can be neither proven nor disproven by methods we have at our disposal. If you believe in God, you work from the assumption that God exists. If you do not believe in God, you work from the assumption that God does not exist.

Instead of referring to the old testament all the time, I think we need to look at the new testament. Jesus pretty much put an end to all that confusing stuff in the OT anyway.
Yeah, I admit I don't understand where God is coming from in the OT. But I know that no matter what He LOVES EVERYBODY!
It doesn't matter what you do or who you screw, so to speak. It's just like if your kid does something terribly wrong--you can't help but love them even if you really hate what they did.
God gave Adam/Eve the choice in the garden, to either obey and follow Him, or to turn away. Well, guess what they chose.
We have that same choice today, to follow Jesus or not.
If you choose to follow Jesus, then maybe homosexuality would be a sin, frankly I'm really not sure now! You all have totally confused me and now I have something to study, anyway.
If you don't follow Jesus then it doesn't matter what you do, from His point of view you're doomed anyway until you repent.

If you have run into a "Christian" in your life who is a bigoted jerk, well, in my opinion they really weren't a christian. I'm sorry that there are so many people out there like that. Like I said, we christians are supposed to love, support, care for everyone we meet, and absolutely not judge anyone.
As far as I'm concerned, live life and love it. Who cares what you do, as long as you're not hurting anyone else. Sure, some self-righteous asses might think that you're destroying the world's morals just because you choose to love another man--well, screw them. If you're happy, great!
Too many people go through this world without experiencing love. Or even good sex. So have a good time out there.

btw check out Song of Solomon, that's the book in the bible I couldn't think of. Of course it is about a man and a woman, but it is definitely about sex and desire. No wonder some old farts think it shouldn't be in the bible. Yeah, God does condemn sex outside of marriage, but you know, none of us are perfect . . .and again, I ain't gonna judge you cuz I've been there.

I bet I'll get something reasonably close to Hamlet by the 100000th generation (in a couple of months).Ok, I was wrong. The code was so horribly slow and memory-hungry that I rewrote it. And the 100000th generation isn't recognizable:

Generation 99999 (70592 mismatches):
1Q04
XP"
J3-EXT1<EEZN OC E'[,0;<ZPRWICE OF DENXAIKF&

Z
B"-WGOLLAMX2TADISHKZRE
1
]

KED4..JTVSS[ERTONAE
HZ
BHCL;)TMUS,-KBNGYOK>6,NGMPB&
GW MAZCE2BUS9!JFFK."RA9
VH3
3EV, QWN SE IHE[G![HV2(&)<DGNEPVE0C O FHD PRES]NI KINH.

I didnt post that 100000th Generation thing

Please show me the section in the Bible which actively supports... the internet, piano's, Nationstates, hamburgers, jetplanes, chess, the Mona Lisa, etc.

Lets not be stupid now shall we, none of those things existed when the bible was written so how could the bible say anything about them. However, rape and homosexuality both did exist so my point still stands.

Lets not be stupid now shall we, none of those things existed when the bible was written so how could the bible say anything about them. However, rape and homosexuality both did exist so my point still stands.

Funny but the word 'homosexuality' as well as the very concept of sexual orientation did not exist until relatively recently.

Lets not be stupid now shall we, none of those things existed when the bible was written so how could the bible say anything about them. However, rape and homosexuality both did exist so my point still stands.

God is all for rape in the OT several times.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

That enough?

Well what kind of father would he have been. Every time we sinned (and dont say just that one time because if he had forgiven us then we would have sinned later) he just said "I forgive you" and left it at that. People seem to think that forgiveness and punishment are mutualy exclusive. They aren't.

I don't know what kinda sick fuck your dad is, but the point behind punishment is rehabilitation; to learn from your mistakes.

If hell is eternal, there is no learning from your mistakes.

Yeah, I admit I don't understand where God is coming from in the OT. But I know that no matter what He LOVES EVERYBODY!


God in the old testement loved everyone too, he just had to have a lot more stricter rules as mans guilt still existed. Mans sins and man were one and the same. It was harder becaus God had not sent his son to die.


Like I said, we christians are supposed to love, support, care for everyone we meet, and absolutely not judge anyone.


I think I should say something here in my defence, In case people misunderstand what I am trying to get across. My point is basicly, yes homosexuality is a sin, but guess what? So is a whole bunch of other stuff, and everyone sins all the time. It may be a sin, but I dont hold it against Homosexuals, as long as they dont push it in my face, that's unessecary. I dont judge them to be better or worse than me, thats not my place, thats God's job. God loves all sinners, even if they don't repent. What God wants more than anything else though is for sinners to repent and thus he is able to wipe their slate clean and ignore all their sins. Thats why Jesus died.

The tricky part (and this is where people start to think I'm a bigot, but I am not) is when it comes to open gay Christians. Christians are suposed to do their best to not sin and to live life acording to how God said it should be, I dont think anyone would disagree with me on that. Now of course none of us stop sinning completely and the vast majority of us sin a great deal, but we still do our best. When we do sin, we regret it and try to push it out of our lives. Wheter or not we do is another matter. The problem with the idea of Homosexual Christians comes to this. If homosexuality is a sin (And I have made it clear that I believe it is) then a gay christian should be trying to push it out of their life entirely, and not continue openly sinning. Being a prideful homosexual Christian is like saying "I sin and I am a sinner. I sin without repentnce or regreting it, but I am a Christian" This is what Christians (or at least all the Christians I know) have a problem with. Now you can call me a bigot or whatever you want, but that is the situation in churchs that see homosexuality as a sin.

Christians dont hate Gay's. The simple truth is love the sinner, hate the sin. A policy that I do my best to put into practice

God is all for rape in the OT several times.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

That enough?

All your references are old testement. Check out the New. God was harsher in those times, but it was to keep his people alive. And I know, I'm making the old testement obsolete when I say the old has some refernces, but these are not Laws. And other laws prohibit sex outside marriage so its not as if these women were raped on sight. Women were taken then to keep the tribes alive. Its not like they were tortured or abused into having sex with them, they were treated as Isralites.


I don't know what kinda sick **** your dad is, but the point behind punishment is rehabilitation; to learn from your mistakes.

If hell is eternal, there is no learning from your mistakes.

I dont know if their is a window in the room where your computer is but do you want to look outside it right now. What do you see. The propberble answer is Earth. We're not in hell yet. The lesson of the Garden of Eden was not to sin. Its not like straight afterward they were sent to hell .You have (in an avarage human lifespan) aproximately 75-80 years to repent and turn to God. Earth may not be eternal but you have plenty of time to accept what God is offeing. The choice, Heven or Hell. I'm pretty sure that most people want to get to Heven and Jesus did explain that he was the way. No one comes to God execpt through him.

I didnt post that 100000th Generation thingSorry. Fixed.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

Simple. Votes. EOT

Funny but the word 'homosexuality' as well as the very concept of sexual orientation did not exist until relatively recently.

Er, no it didnt. The concept of Homosexuality, has existed for much longer than you would think. Ok yes the word is new but guess what, so is the word Dinosaur .The bible describes it in both the old and new testements, and their are Aztec pictures of ritual homosexual sex, or at least the idea of it.

Its not like they were tortured or abused into having sex with them, they were treated as Isralites.

Yes, and Israelite women were forced into marriages they never consented to - sometimes with men who had raped them previously.

Yes, and Israelite women were forced into marriages they never consented to - sometimes with men who had raped them previously.

Men did not "Rape" these women as you put it. The took them to their tribe, married them and slept with them. To me that sounds like arranged marrigae and that still exists and we dont try and stop it.
Are we going to insult the past of everyone here, or are we going to come back to the issue of what we are debating, Homosexuality as a sin?

I'm so tired of Fundamentalist Christians mouthing off about what the Bible "really" says. Lets face it folks, you don't know, I don't know, no one knows! There are no original copies of the Bible, and the interpretations we have are copies of copies of translations of copies.
Even if everyone submitted to reading the same copy, no one would agree on what the bible really says. Most denominations don't agree, and many churches are actually split on the meaning of any given passage. Interpretation is a matter of reading the text through theological lenses (different points of view). So, no matter how you look at it, when someone says this is what the Bible says they are really saying this is what I think the Bible should say.
Still, if you are going to be a biblical fundimentalist then you must also believe that God made the sun stand still, God allowed that Lord in Judges to kill/sacrifice his daughter in order to win a war, eating pork is evil, wearing mixed fibers is an abomination...
And remember that most of the bible does talk about loving and charity. If every "Christian" lived by the bible there would be NO POOR PEOPLE. So, some one out there isn't doing it right, and don't blame the fags! Take some responsibility for yourselves.
Now, as far as homosexuality is concerned, the Bible does NOT give any definite proof one way or the other. (Seriously, no it doesn't) Homosexuality was defined by a German psychiatrist, and there were none of them in the Bible. Check your Lexicons you thumpers, Latin and Greek words carry multiple meanings, and the translations depend on what Bible version you are reading. Besides, most bible scholars read Lev. as a story condemning the lack of hospitality and common human decency. So,using the Bible to defend or deny Gay marriage is trite and useless.
As for what people believe, Plantinga, the president of the largest Conservative Seminary in the US DOES NOT THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. Many Christians do not. There are many arguments, but the point I am trying to make is this: don't use the bible to push your point of view.
We can not interpret God, and it becomes an anthropomorphic tool of power and corruption when we do.
And just to be a hypocrite (Christians love this) I'm gonna paraphrase the Bible.
Jesus said that the only thing needed to receive eternal life is love of God. And how do we love God? By loving our Neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10).
Chew on that, Rev. Falwell.

Men did not "Rape" these women as you put it. The took them to their tribe, married them and slept with them. To me that sounds like arranged marrigae and that still exists and we dont try and stop it.
Are we going to insult the past of everyone here, or are we going to come back to the issue of what we are debating, Homosexuality as a sin?

Read your Bible. The OT laws make it clear that if a man rapes a woman who was a virgin and not yet betrothed, all he has to do is pay her father a fine and marry her.

Of course, any non-consentual sex is rape, so yes, the women were raped. However, I was speaking of an act which even the Israelites saw as rape.

As for not trying to stop arranged marriages, does us not going out and forcing laws on other countries make it God's will that people be forced into marriages?

You have tried to use OT laws to back up your claim that homosexuality is a sin. If you do not want to defend your source, then don't use it.

Re interprit this
"A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination"
And as I have explained before it is moral law, and still stands. Check my previous posts to see why. Its not a ritual and its not a cultural law. Arego what eles could it be?

You have tried to use OT laws to back up your claim that homosexuality is a sin. If you do not want to defend your source, then don't use it.


I have given new testement examples too. If its described as a sin in both, chances are it is a sin.

I have given new testement examples too. If its described as a sin in both, chances are it is a sin.

So you believe every single word that Paul wrote came directly from the hand of God? Never mind that even Paul's problem seems to be that they were "burning with lust" not their sexual orientation.

Show me where, in any scripture, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuals falling in love.

Re interprit this
"A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination"

Yes, and the original language was English, just like that. Because everyone has always spoken English. And translations are always perfect.

And as I have explained before it is moral law, and still stands. Check my previous posts to see why. Its not a ritual and its not a cultural law. Arego what eles could it be?

How do you know it isn't a cultural law?

Well what kind of father would he have been. Every time we sinned (and dont say just that one time because if he had forgiven us then we would have sinned later) he just said "I forgive you" and left it at that. People seem to think that forgiveness and punishment are mutualy exclusive. They aren't.

Ahhh...but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. A good father does not sentence his children to eternal punishment when they screw up.

Re interprit this
"A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination"
And as I have explained before it is moral law, and still stands. Check my previous posts to see why. Its not a ritual and its not a cultural law. Arego what eles could it be?

looking at it from a historic perspective, "A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination" is so because it is Adultery. Marriages were pre-arranged, and people were married off at early ages. So, if two men were having sex they were also probably married to women. There was no definition for Homosexuality! Your quote is from a list of different forms of adultery. Where do you get your theology? TV? Talk radio?

Jesus said that the only thing needed to receive eternal life is love of God. And how do we love God? By loving our Neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10).
Chew on that, Rev. Falwell.


Get it through your skull. I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. Neither do Christian fundementalists. Just because we think something is sinful doesnt mean we hate those who practice it. Dont know how often I have got to say it but


Love the sinner, Hate the sin


And go re interptet this

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

One Chronicles 6: 9 - 10
NIV

Since the NIV is what most agree on I find it hard to reinterprit this

looking at it from a historic perspective, "A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination" is so because it is Adultery.

Precisely, adultery. Which is a sin. Now tell me, how did God define marriage. I will tell you, between one man and one woman. Therefore Gay sex is automaticly outside marriage. Therefore Gay sex is adultery which is a sin.

Ahhh...but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. A good father does not sentence his children to eternal punishment when they screw up.

Neither does God. God doesnt send you to hell as soon as you sin. God sends you to hell if you die and have not accepted you are a sinner and have not asked for forgiveness and have not at least tried to live the life he said we should.

Kneejerk Creek, have fun with the militant fundamentalist. Careful though, his God may smite you.

I must go back to work.

:fluffle:
Look it's two gay men kissing; get your home exorcism kit! Quick!

Kneejerk Creek, have fun with the militant fundamentalist. Careful though, his God may smite you.


And you say dont judge. Have you checked this entire post. You can see that I argue from a simple, logial backing. I'm not making this up.

Since the NIV is what most agree on I find it hard to reinterprit this[/QUOTE]

Huh, the NIV? Then why do we have the NRSV, NKJ, TNK, GNB...
And who are these "most" people. You live in a small sheltered world.

And I'm not going to argue all day with you on what the bible says, because as I have said before (look back a page or two) The Bible can be used to argue any person's point of view.

"lover the sinner, hate the sin?" Where does it the bible say that?
That's right, IT DOESN"T!

:fluffle:
Oh' shit it's those queer folks again! run!

Precisely, adultery. Which is a sin. Now tell me, how did God define marriage. I will tell you, between one man and one woman. Therefore Gay sex is automaticly outside marriage. Therefore Gay sex is adultery which is a sin.

Substitute Hebrew priest for God and you have a point. According to Hebrew priests, who were worried about any sex that didn't give them more numbers, gay sex is automatically bad.

And you say dont judge. Have you checked this entire post. You can see that I argue from a simple, logial backing. I'm not making this up.

I never said I was a Christian, but that is what Christians say.

Re interprit this
"A man shall not lie with a man for that is an abomination"
And as I have explained before it is moral law, and still stands. Check my previous posts to see why. Its not a ritual and its not a cultural law. Arego what eles could it be?

Actually, this passage, if it's even the correct translation, would be an example of cultural law. Just as you stated in your explanation of the passages on rape the Israelites had to do whatever they could to keep the species alive. Homosexuality would be unproductive and, IN THOSE DAYS, would significantly stunt the progress of the human race. Nowadays, we have more than enough people, so that particular law is outdated.

I'm so tired of Fundamentalist Christians mouthing off about what the Bible "really" says. Lets face it folks, you don't know, I don't know, no one knows! There are no original copies of the Bible, and the interpretations we have are copies of copies of translations of copies. We have copies of copies. Paper doesn't last forever. But those copies, when not word for word accurate, simply reflect the changing vernacular.

We do have very good copies, in the original Hebrew and Greek. Who are you citing as a source for this, Dan Brown? As an example, see the Dead Sea scrolls- they're basically the same Old Testament we've always had.

Even if everyone submitted to reading the same copy, no one would agree on what the bible really says. Most denominations don't agree, and many churches are actually split on the meaning of any given passage. Interpretation is a matter of reading the text through theological lenses (different points of view). So, no matter how you look at it, when someone says this is what the Bible says they are really saying this is what I think the Bible should say.Why do I constantly read this Stanley Fish 'we interpret the text' bullshit? Aaahhh, nothing against you, I just hate Stanley Fish. There are correct interpretations. There are incorrect interpretations. Ever read the book "Animal Farm"? You could think it was a recipe book for baking cookies. But, and this is important so listen closely, YOU'D BE WRONG. Because we have the capacity to screw up, a church could screw up on its interpretation. But if someone brought it up and people debated, eventually they'd get back to the true doctrine. *cough* Reformation *cough* Just because some places differ on doctrine doesn't mean that there is no Truth.

Still, if you are going to be a biblical fundimentalist then you must also believe that God made the sun stand still, God allowed that Lord in Judges to kill/sacrifice his daughter in order to win a war, eating pork is evil, wearing mixed fibers is an abomination... God can't make the sun stand still if he wants? It's a miracle- it happens a lot in the Bible.

Again with the mixing moral law and ceremonial law. Who was it who keeps bringing up that passage in Hebrews? Neo Cannen I think? Why is it that I understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law, Jesus understands the difference, Paul understands the difference, Neo Cannen understands the difference, but no one else does?

And remember that most of the bible does talk about loving and charity. If every "Christian" lived by the bible there would be NO POOR PEOPLE. So, some one out there isn't doing it right, and don't blame the fags! Take some responsibility for yourselves.
Now, as far as homosexuality is concerned, the Bible does NOT give any definite proof one way or the other. (Seriously, no it doesn't) Homosexuality was defined by a German psychiatrist, and there were none of them in the Bible. Check your Lexicons you thumpers, Latin and Greek words carry multiple meanings, and the translations depend on what Bible version you are reading. Besides, most bible scholars read Lev. as a story condemning the lack of hospitality and common human decency. So,using the Bible to defend or deny Gay marriage is trite and useless.

It does give proof on Homosexuality. In Leviticus, it lays down the moral laws. And one of those laws says, "If one lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have done what is detestable." Don't play semantic games with me: that's a pretty clear indictment of homosexuality. Paul, in the New Testament, also condemns homosexuality as a sin. What part of the Bible was written in Latin?

The people at Sod. and Gom., which is what I believe you were referencing, were completely wicked people. All of them. They were not hospitable, they had no decency, they were evil, evil people. One of the things they were known for was homosexuality. Which would fit in with their wicked ways. If a man is convicted for murder and theft, but is only sentenced for the murder, is he not still guilty of theft?

As for what people believe, Plantinga, the president of the largest Conservative Seminary in the US DOES NOT THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. Many Christians do not. There are many arguments, but the point I am trying to make is this: don't use the bible to push your point of view. It's a sin. Again, read the Bible, but this time don't try to push YOUR point of view. Let scripture interpret scripture. Just because the president of Notre Dame thinks it's not a sin doesn't mean that it's not a sin. He's a smart man, but he's also a smart man.


We can not interpret God, and it becomes an anthropomorphic tool of power and corruption when we do.The idea that God is with us, through scripture and through the actual physical manifestation of Christ, is a major theme of Christianity.

And just to be a hypocrite (Christians love this) I'm gonna paraphrase the Bible.
Jesus said that the only thing needed to receive eternal life is love of God. And how do we love God? By loving our Neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10).
Chew on that, Rev. Falwell.The only thing needed to receive eternal life is faith in Christ. But we're splitting hairs. Yes, we should love God. Which is why we should do what he commands. We should love God. Which is why we should not do what he calls detestable.

Huh, the NIV? Then why do we have the NRSV, NKJ, TNK, GNB...
And who are these "most" people. You live in a small sheltered world.


All the people at my church, and all the churches I have been to agree that the NIV is the most reasonable and logical verson. The other versions are fine, they just think that one is best.


"lover the sinner, hate the sin?" Where does it the bible say that?
That's right, IT DOESN"T!


Obviously it doesnt use those exact words, but thats what God does. God loves all humans but hates all sin. I dont think you can disagree with me on that one.

All the people at my church, and all the churches I have been to agree that the NIV is the most reasonable and logical verson. The other versions are fine, they just think that one is best.

"Reasonable and logical"? In other words, we agree with it more so it must be right?

Seriously, the NIV has been through numerous translations to get where it is. The NRSV, at least, is directly translated to English from the oldest texts available *and* makes it clear when texts disagree.

Thanks for that Davistania, I was thinking I was standing alone here.

"Reasonable and logical"? In other words, we agree with it more so it must be right?

Seriously, the NIV has been through numerous translations to get where it is. The NRSV, at least, is directly translated to English from the oldest texts available *and* makes it clear when texts disagree.

Dont ask me why they thought it was best. We just used it in every church I have ever been to. One or two had youth bibles or NKJ but that was the standerd.

Neither does God. God doesnt send you to hell as soon as you sin. God sends you to hell if you die and have not accepted you are a sinner and have not asked for forgiveness and have not at least tried to live the life he said we should.

But, as was mentioned by many others, Hell is eternal, and is therefore not an effective punishment, if not an outlandishly harsh one. The purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate, and since Hell is eternal, the people undergoing the punishment can never be rehabilitated. Perhaps if one had to serve a punishment for a certain length of time before being permitted to enter Heaven, it would seem a bit more reasonable, but then, God has never been known for level-headedness.

Have fun folks. Sorry I can't stick around, but I'm already late.

:fluffle:

But, as was mentioned by many others, Hell is eternal, and is therefore not an effective punishment, if not an outlandishly harsh one. The purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate, and since Hell is eternal, the people undergoing the punishment can never be rehabilitated. Perhaps if one had to serve a punishment for a certain length of time before being permitted to enter Heaven, it would seem a bit more reasonable, but then, God has never been known for level-headedness.

The purpose of punishment on Earth is to rehabilitate. The purpose of Hell is justice. You just cannot mix sin with holiness. If you want to say, "God, shove it up your *&$", okay. But don't complain if you don't get a second chance. Because you're lucky you get a first chance to begin with. The truth is, if you don't use your first chance, you're not going to use your second even if you had one.

We have copies of copies. Paper doesn't last forever. But those copies, when not word for word accurate, simply reflect the changing vernacular.

We do have very good copies, in the original Hebrew and Greek. Who are you citing as a source for this, Dan Brown? As an example, see the Dead Sea scrolls- they're basically the same Old Testament we've always had.

Why do I constantly read this Stanley Fish 'we interpret the text' bullshit? Aaahhh, nothing against you, I just hate Stanley Fish. There are correct interpretations. There are incorrect interpretations. Ever read the book "Animal Farm"? You could think it was a recipe book for baking cookies. But, and this is important so listen closely, YOU'D BE WRONG. Because we have the capacity to screw up, a church could screw up on its interpretation. But if someone brought it up and people debated, eventually they'd get back to the true doctrine. *cough* Reformation *cough* Just because some places differ on doctrine doesn't mean that there is no Truth.

God can't make the sun stand still if he wants? It's a miracle- it happens a lot in the Bible.

Again with the mixing moral law and ceremonial law. Who was it who keeps bringing up that passage in Hebrews? Neo Cannen I think? Why is it that I understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law, Jesus understands the difference, Paul understands the difference, Neo Cannen understands the difference, but no one else does?

Guess not. Explain please.

It does give proof on Homosexuality. In Leviticus, it lays down the moral laws. And one of those laws says, "If one lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have done what is detestable." Don't play semantic games with me: that's a pretty clear indictment of homosexuality. Paul, in the New Testament, also condemns homosexuality as a sin. What part of the Bible was written in Latin?

The people at Sod. and Gom., which is what I believe you were referencing, were completely wicked people. All of them. They were not hospitable, they had no decency, they were evil, evil people. One of the things they were known for was homosexuality. Which would fit in with their wicked ways. If a man is convicted for murder and theft, but is only sentenced for the murder, is he not still guilty of theft?

The Bible never mentions homosexuality as one of the reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

It's a sin. Again, read the Bible, but this time don't try to push YOUR point of view. Let scripture interpret scripture. Just because the president of Notre Dame thinks it's not a sin doesn't mean that it's not a sin. He's a smart man, but he's also a smart man.

As you are also only human, how do you know your interpretation is correct.


The idea that God is with us, through scripture and through the actual physical manifestation of Christ, is a major theme of Christianity.

The only thing needed to receive eternal life is faith in Christ. But we're splitting hairs. Yes, we should love God. Which is why we should do what he commands. We should love God. Which is why we should not do what he calls detestable.

The purpose of punishment on Earth is to rehabilitate. The purpose of Hell is justice. You just cannot mix sin with holiness. If you want to say, "God, shove it up your *&$", okay. But don't complain if you don't get a second chance. Because you're lucky you get a first chance to begin with. The truth is, if you don't use your first chance, you're not going to use your second even if you had one.

Eternal punishment for a much less than eternal life of sin is cruelty, not justice.

The Bible never mentions homosexuality as one of the reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.


Er, yes it does, retract your statement please

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

Jude Ch 1 Vs 7

Eternal punishment for a much less than eternal life of sin is cruelty, not justice.

God is just. You only get one life, one chance (anti reincarnation arguement there but I wont go into that now). God asks you to live it in a way which he asks because that is how he made you. No one has any concept of how much God detests sin. By sinning and not apologising to God, you are saying you hate him. He therefore will put you in a place which is just for those who hate him. Hell. Since God is God, hating him is a big deal so thats why it is so nasty.

Yes but we dont know how large the universe is. And even if we did there is a bigger problem with evolution. The law of bio genesis. Life only ever comes from life. There has never ever (and dont come up with examples because I've seen them) been a case where life has come from dead matter. Therefore cells cant come out of nothing.

umm... there's a law of biogenesis now? since when?

and yes, dead matter has produced amino acids, hell, even dna base pairs. amino and base pairs acids from non-living sources have been found in meteors. amino acids are the building blocks of protein, which are the building blocks of life.

and theoretically, if given an aquarium the size of los angeles, you can get primitive cells out of non-living matter.

Er, yes it does, retract your statement please

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

Jude Ch 1 Vs 7

you don't think that could have something to do with wanting to rape the angels, do you?

they were destroyed for inhospitality.

Er, no it didnt. The concept of Homosexuality, has existed for much longer than you would think. Ok yes the word is new but guess what, so is the word Dinosaur .The bible describes it in both the old and new testements, and their are Aztec pictures of ritual homosexual sex, or at least the idea of it.


I think you missed the point.

I personaly see the rise in divorce linked with the rise of secularisation. Gay marriage is outside God's definition of marriage for Chrsitians, which is why we hate the idea of it. God's definition is one man, one women
yes, because other sociological factors couldn't possibly be at play.

the divorce rate is probably so high because people don't know how to think before they get married. they meet and less than a year later they've tied the knot... then they wonder why the marriage falls apart 6 months down the road.

and i really don't give a damn what the christian god wants for christians, i'm not one of them.

Please show me any section of the bible which actively supports homosexuality. And to countor your point about a lack of mentioning homosexuality, there is also a starlting lack of talk about rape in the bible, just one or two phrases in Leviticus. Are you going to tell me God aproves of rape?
what about when jesus spent the night with a boy who was wearing only a sheet when the roman guards found them in the morning... the boy then ran off leaving the sheet to fall behind him.

Eternal punishment for a much less than eternal life of sin is cruelty, not justice.That's because sin is so common now. But remember, God is holy. Whitest of the white. No bleach on the planet could get it whiter. Yadda yadda yadda. Sin is rebelling against God. It's often described as a stain. That separation from God is just. If you want to think of it as reverse magnetic attraction, go ahead. It works for me.

My point was that if you tot it up, there is a simmilar level of biblical evidence to show that God doenst like rape and that God doesnt like homosexuality so how can the one be so abhorinant to God and not the other? The only reason Lot offered his daughters like that is because he was suronded by a large crowd of men who wanted to sleep with him. He had to find a way out and that was the only one he could think of. And can you give me the examples of where God says it is ok to rape and enslave? If he thinks that then why did he liberate his people from slavery time after time etc.
so offering your offspring up to the violence of a mob is better than sacrificing yourself for their safety?

wow. good to know god has his priorities straight.

no bum sex, instead, appease crowds by offering your virgin daughters as substitutes to save your own ass. well, i suppose given the bible's stance on women, it wouldn't matter, it's not like we weren't property anyways.

and man, do you know how many rules there are about slave treatment in the bible? there's even a verse where it says it's alright to sell your daughters into slavery.

umm... there's a law of biogenesis now? since when?


Since Pasutr and his removal of the idea of spontanious generation.


and yes, dead matter has produced amino acids, hell, even dna base pairs. amino and base pairs acids from non-living sources have been found in meteors. amino acids are the building blocks of protein, which are the building blocks of life.


There is a big problem with DNA and amino acids etc. And it is this. Left to themselves, the nautral progression of acid-base reactions (the reactions which you claim would start of the creation of a cell) is to scramble DNA into all sorts of deadly combinations. Go read this book,

And God Said by Dr Farid Abou-Rahme (http://bibles.qc.ca/bp_cart/en-ca/dept_25.html)
(The second one down on that page)

It explains away lots of scientifc stuff and shows that science supports Gods views of the creation of the world.

In any case we arnt doing creation vs evolution, we're debating homosexuality as a sin here

so offering your offspring up to the violence of a mob is better than sacrificing yourself for their safety?

wow. good to know god has his priorities straight.

no bum sex, instead, appease crowds by offering your virgin daughters as substitutes to save your own ass. well, i suppose given the bible's stance on women, it wouldn't matter, it's not like we weren't property anyways.

and man, do you know how many rules there are about slave treatment in the bible? there's even a verse where it says it's alright to sell your daughters into slavery.So Lot offered his daughters instead of his visitors. That doesn't mean it was right for him to do that. In fact, it was WRONG of him to do it. I don't understand where you show how God has his priorities straight there.

And again with no differentiation between ceremonial laws and moral laws. Aiie!

You know, people say there is very little proof to support the exisitance of God. I say back to that that there is also very little proof to support the non existance of God. Countering my arguments about his existance does not mean you are proving he doesnt exist. You need to provide positive, stand alone arguements that he doesnt exist, not just rebut proof that he does exist.
which is why being agnostic is the way to go.

however, if you take the bible as literary truth... yeah... it's not really... look at genesis.

I always found this topic quite a funny one.

I have a question.

What does people being homosexual actually change in YOUR day to day life?
Does it hurt you? Does it take anything away from you?

Listen, Christianity isnt the only religion, there are tons, some of which say homosexuality is perfectly fine.

Lots of things are sins. Lots. of. things.

Why is homosexuality suddenly so much worse than all the rest? It isnt.

Did you know that scientists suggest that homosexuals are actually a form of "population control" There are too many humans in too crowded spaces, we were made to hunt and gather originally, and now that we are all bunched up, our species is trying to slow down the rate of population increases.

Oh yeah, and all you Christians who say that it is a sin because sex is only for procreation, please tell me you have never worn a condom, because if you have, you are just proving yourself wrong. According to you, wearing a condom or using any kind of birth control is just as bad as homosexuality.

Also, One man shall not lie with another as he would a woman (or however that passage goes) Can be interpretted many different ways.

I think someone on this board made the Animal Farm reference where he said that some interpretations are just wrong, well Animal Farm is a bad reference since Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) actually told us what he meant by the stories.

A book that is thousands of years old can certainly be debated.

Also, people say that the Bible is pretty much the same as it was thousands of years ago, funny thing happened. With all of our advancements in translation and linguistics, instead of trying to translate a translated version, some linguistics actually took the oldest copy of the new testament that they had available to them and translated it. Apparently "Virgin Mary" doesnt mean "Mary who hadnt had Sex" it means "Young, Innocent Mary"

So dont tell me it means the same thing.

If you are a true Christian, you will believe the original copy, not the translated translated translated version. But no, that would mean something different than what YOUR used to, and thats bad for some odd reason.

Good luck.

Since Pasutr and his removal of the idea of spontanious generation.
that was proving that maggots don't spontaneously come from a piece of dead meat.
it has nothing to do with anything else, let alone abiogenesis.
seriously, point me to a link that demonstrates the existence of a law of biogenesis. considering they don't even make scientific laws anymore, i think you'll have fun finding that. (oh, and up to date source would be nice... )

There is a big problem with DNA and amino acids etc. And it is this. Left to themselves, the nautral progression of acid-base reactions (the reactions which you claim would start of the creation of a cell) is to scramble DNA into all sorts of deadly combinations.
yes, and the beings with those combinations die off, the ones that don't have those combinations survive to produce offspring. what's your point?

It explains away lots of scientifc stuff and shows that science supports Gods views of the creation of the world.

In any case we arnt doing creation vs evolution, we're debating homosexuality as a sin here
the world was not formed in the way described in the bible. for one thing, the sun would have been formed before the earth. similarly for a great number of stars we see up in the sky, yet the sun isn't until the 4th day... and i think the stars are later. furthermore, the moon formed with the earth, by a collision that would have turned the earth's surface molten (if it wasn't still molten from the accretion process) and torn off a chunk of earth's mantle to make the moon. there could not have been water, life et c. before the moon was formed.

biblical creationism doesn't fit scientific observations. life or not.

furthermore, you're the one who brought it up.

So Lot offered his daughters instead of his visitors. That doesn't mean it was right for him to do that. In fact, it was WRONG of him to do it. I don't understand where you show how God has his priorities straight there.

And again with no differentiation between ceremonial laws and moral laws. Aiie!

i know he was saving his visitors. neo cannen was saying it was to save his own ass though.

and at any rate, it seems to be portrayed favourably that lot offered his daughters to the mob in the text.

Er, yes it does, retract your statement please

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

Jude Ch 1 Vs 7

Quote the passage and I will.

You know, people say there is very little proof to support the exisitance of God. I say back to that that there is also very little proof to support the non existance of God. Countering my arguments about his existance does not mean you are proving he doesnt exist. You need to provide positive, stand alone arguements that he doesnt exist, not just rebut proof that he does exist.

The burden of proof is on you. If God exists, THEN PROVE IT. You can't prove a negative. Santa Claus is real. Prove me wrong.

Guess not. Explain please.About the difference between ceremonial law and moral law? I guess I don't know what you're asking. Could you be more specific?


The Bible never mentions homosexuality as one of the reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.*Sigh* Yes it does. As I said, the people of Sodom were evil. They did evil things. Like homosexuality. In fact, they were so often associated with homosexuality, that it is often referred to as 'Sodomy'.

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

As you are also only human, how do you know your interpretation is correct.I don't. That's why I'm always reading more. But I do let scripture interpret itself, and I don't interpret scripture in haphazard, helter skelter fashion. Just use some critical thought and analysis. Same thing with interpreting homosexuality as a sin. I have pretty hefty reasons for reading it like that.

God is just. You only get one life, one chance (anti reincarnation arguement there but I wont go into that now). God asks you to live it in a way which he asks because that is how he made you. No one has any concept of how much God detests sin. By sinning and not apologising to God, you are saying you hate him. He therefore will put you in a place which is just for those who hate him. Hell. Since God is God, hating him is a big deal so thats why it is so nasty.

God never asked me to do anything. And, if he truly loved us, he wouldn't punish us eternally for anything.

So you believe every single word that Paul wrote came directly from the hand of God? Never mind that even Paul's problem seems to be that they were "burning with lust" not their sexual orientation.

Show me where, in any scripture, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuals falling in love.
paul also didn't like the temple whore thing that the greeks and romans had... i.e. ritualistic sex.

and i agree, it really doesn't say anything about sex with a loved one.

What does people being homosexual actually change in YOUR day to day life?
Does it hurt you? Does it take anything away from you?


It takes things away from God. He designed us and biologicly, we are not desgined for homosexual sex. It was not in Gods plan and was not what God wanted.


Listen, Christianity isnt the only religion, there are tons, some of which say homosexuality is perfectly fine.


Thats fine but thats not what this thread is about. We are looking at sin, which is a christian term. We are asking why is it a sin and I and others are explaining that.


Lots of things are sins. Lots. of. things.
Why is homosexuality suddenly so much worse than all the rest? It isnt.


I agree, Homosexuality is a sin like any other. What becomes a problem is when people are proud to be homosexual. Thats like saying "Im proud that I sin"


Did you know that scientists suggest that homosexuals are actually a form of "population control" There are too many humans in too crowded spaces, we were made to hunt and gather originally, and now that we are all bunched up, our species is trying to slow down the rate of population increases.


Scientists aslo used to think that human skin breathed through its pores, it doesnt, it excretes salt and other waste but it doesnt breathe. Science is only ever best guess, it continualy changes, unlike religion


Oh yeah, and all you Christians who say that it is a sin because sex is only for procreation, please tell me you have never worn a condom, because if you have, you are just proving yourself wrong. According to you, wearing a condom or using any kind of birth control is just as bad as homosexuality.


I never said sex was only for procreation. And I dont think the Bible says that either, although it does say you should be self controled when it comes to sex


Also, One man shall not lie with another as he would a woman (or however that passage goes) Can be interpretted many different ways.


How exactly, can it be reinterprited?


A book that is thousands of years old can certainly be debated.


The Roman empire's records are several thousand years old, are you going to tell me that its existance is debateable. And also, the Gospels were written within the time period of the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus (not just the disciples, citizens too) and when it was published, people didnt say "No that didnt happen" when they saw it


Apparently "Virgin Mary" doesnt mean "Mary who hadnt had Sex" it means "Young, Innocent Mary"


Please cite your sources for this. It doesnt fit with any translation I've ever heard

That's because sin is so common now. But remember, God is holy. Whitest of the white. No bleach on the planet could get it whiter. Yadda yadda yadda. Sin is rebelling against God. It's often described as a stain. That separation from God is just. If you want to think of it as reverse magnetic attraction, go ahead. It works for me.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Quote the passage and I will.

That IS the passage, look above it

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire" Jude 1 vs 7

The purpose of punishment on Earth is to rehabilitate. The purpose of Hell is justice. You just cannot mix sin with holiness. If you want to say, "God, shove it up your *&$", okay. But don't complain if you don't get a second chance. Because you're lucky you get a first chance to begin with. The truth is, if you don't use your first chance, you're not going to use your second even if you had one.
so even if someone tries to ask god for forgivness and never feels that they're being listened to and are never given evidence of its existence and indeed, feel empty and desolate when reading the bible and praying...

then they should take all these indications to the opposite and still try to believe in the god who refuses to give them an indication of its existence?

so even if someone tries to ask god for forgivness and never feels that they're being listened to and are never given evidence of its existence and indeed, feel empty and desolate when reading the bible and praying...

then they should take all these indications to the opposite and still try to believe in the god who refuses to give them an indication of its existence?

Yes. God never promised we would FEEL anything. Point out where he did and I will retract.

About the difference between ceremonial law and moral law? I guess I don't know what you're asking. Could you be more specific?

Explain to me the difference between ceremonial law and moral law, to which one homosexuality applies, and why.


*Sigh* Yes it does. As I said, the people of Sodom were evil. They did evil things. Like homosexuality. In fact, they were so often associated with homosexuality, that it is often referred to as 'Sodomy'.

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Again, quote the passage.

I don't. That's why I'm always reading more. But I do let scripture interpret itself, and I don't interpret scripture in haphazard, helter skelter fashion. Just use some critical thought and analysis. Same thing with interpreting homosexuality as a sin. I have pretty hefty reasons for reading it like that.

Explain how a book can interpret itself.

so even if someone tries to ask god for forgivness and never feels that they're being listened to and are never given evidence of its existence and indeed, feel empty and desolate when reading the bible and praying...

then they should take all these indications to the opposite and still try to believe in the god who refuses to give them an indication of its existence?But we need not feel that way. God listens to our prayers. Even if we don't believe in him, he certainly believes in us. He loves us, as we are his children. And as Paul wrote, "Love never fails."

The burden of proof is on you. If God exists, THEN PROVE IT. You can't prove a negative.


Yes you can. Prove God does not exist, provide evidence and arguements. It can be proven that Red Mercuary does not and cannnot exist. Arego, you can prove things negatively.

It takes things away from God. He designed us and biologicly, we are not desgined for homosexual sex. It was not in Gods plan and was not what God wanted.
explain the location of the male prostate gland.

the best way to access it is (you should have guessed where this is going) through the rectum. this is really the only way that men can have multiple orgasms (that i'm aware of, i've never heard of penile multiple orgasms) and from what i hear, having the prostate milked (once one is past the inhibitions) is supposed to feel better than ejaculating the standard way.

and on a related note: if masturbation is a sin, then why does masturbating once a day decrease the risk for testicular cancer in men?

Thats fine but thats not what this thread is about. We are looking at sin, which is a christian term. We are asking why is it a sin and I and others are explaining that.
sin isn't just a christian term.

I agree, Homosexuality is a sin like any other. What becomes a problem is when people are proud to be homosexual. Thats like saying "Im proud that I sin"
just because you're homosexual doesn't mean you have sex. i'm guessing that you're heterosexual, right? and since you don't believe in sex outside marriage, let's pretend you're not married (if you aren't, then this makes that part easier) are you not heterosexual because you're not having sex with a woman or because you've never had sex with a woman?

sexuality is about attraction, not action.

oh, and have you found any real evidence that sexual reorientation therapy actually works rather than articles that start off that way and then reveal that indeed it doesn't work? oh, and from an unbiased source, please.

Scientists aslo used to think that human skin breathed through its pores, it doesnt, it excretes salt and other waste but it doesnt breathe. Science is only ever best guess, it continualy changes, unlike religion
yes, because religion always gets everything right the first time *rolls eyes*
this is what makes science better. we admit our mistakes and correct them and progress. organized religion is stagnant.


The Roman empire's records are several thousand years old, are you going to tell me that its existance is debateable. And also, the Gospels were written within the time period of the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus (not just the disciples, citizens too) and when it was published, people didnt say "No that didnt happen" when they saw it
the gospels were not written during jesus' supposed lifetime. and there aren't any historical accounts from that period that put a jesus of nazareth in existence, let alone in the area. there are some mentions of christians in some roman records early on in christianity... there's a forged entry in a jewish historian's works that's been proven to have been added centuries after the rest of the text.

oh, and the shroud of turin... the "blood" is plant-based.

MORAL LAW is that which Jesus re empheisised in the new testement. And before you go to me saying "Ah but Jesus said nothing about homosexuality" he did say to stop sinning. And I have already pointed several times to Hebrews chapter 10 verses 5 to 18 as the proof of removal of ritualitsic law. Go read it again, I'm tired of putting it in here for those who cant read

You still haven't shown where Jesus reiterated homosexuality as moral law. You are the one dancing aroudn the topic.

That IS the passage, look above it

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire" Jude 1 vs 7

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had something better. I don't know about you, but I would think that the fact that the townspeople were attempting to rape several people would be the perversion and immorality the Bible was referring. Keep in mind, the passage doesn't mention homosexuality. And don't forget to reply to my post on why the passage that was presumably about homosexuality serves as cultural law.

Again, quote the passage.


WE HAVE QUOTED THE PASSAGE. I dont know how obvious I will have to make it but this is the passage (IE EVERYTHING IN BOLD): -

Jude 1:7
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

But we need not feel that way. God listens to our prayers. Even if we don't believe in him, he certainly believes in us. He loves us, as we are his children. And as Paul wrote, "Love never fails."
... so those who want to believe, but never get a response... not even a slight warm, fuzzy feeling... what happens to them when they can't believe?

it really doesn't seem just at all for a god to put the fate of your soul onto something that it doesn't even help you with. and don't say the bible is help... it doesn't help everybody believe, nor does prayer, or meditation, or altar calls, or youth groups or church sermons.

what happens when all those things just make a person feel worse and worse about their faith because something doesn't sit right with them... making them feel deficient.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had something better. I don't know about you, but I would think that the fact that the townspeople were attempting to rape several people would be the perversion and immorality the Bible was referring. Keep in mind, the passage doesn't mention homosexuality. And don't forget to reply to my post on why the passage that was presumably about homosexuality serves as cultural law.

Well if you read the passage in Jude and the account itself in Genesis, it is clear that the pervesion refered to is Homosexuality.

Yes but we dont know how large the universe is. And even if we did there is a bigger problem with evolution. The law of bio genesis. Life only ever comes from life. There has never ever (and dont come up with examples because I've seen them) been a case where life has come from dead matter. Therefore cells cant come out of nothing.

We've got a pretty good estiamte that the universe is gigantic. Extremely so. As we show it is larger and larger, the chances that evolution happen once get better and better.

And I won't argue with you that life must come from life. But the flaw in your arguement is the origins of God. Where did s/he/it come from? If life could not randomly happen, I find it even more unbelievable that an omniscent/omnipotent being outside of our true understanding (who if s/he/it is there is probably laughing their ass off right now) could just happen.

And you should read up on the Miller-Urey experiment. They've shown that biological molecules with their intrinsic activities can spontaneously occur. Further, everyone argues that physics favors disorder and not that large amount of order required of our existance. However, that is if there is no constant influx of energy--and the earth is constantly bombarded by energy from the sun's reactions. Maybe there was more to the Egyptian, Greek, and Aztec worship of the sun than we all.

Just random thoughts.

I personaly see the rise in divorce linked with the rise of secularisation. Gay marriage is outside God's definition of marriage for Chrsitians, which is why we hate the idea of it. God's definition is one man, one women

God's definition may or may not be one man, one woman. Last time I checked our country (assuming you are from the US, haven't red the whole thread to know for sure) is not a theocracy. We base our laws on the logics/realities of this world not on God's definitions. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that is the way it is. To change that would be to violate freedom of religion and then who knows what would be forced upon us?

Let me put a question to everyone else on the Pro Gay side. Why ISN'T homosexuality as sin? Why dont you think its one?

Yes. God never promised we would FEEL anything. Point out where he did and I will retract.
then how does one know that one is following the right god?

personally, i know that when i used to pray to the christian god, i felt nothing. i meditated after reading the bible and felt nothing.

i read one book on buddhism and meditated and i felt wonderfully interconnected to everything. it's quite an undescribable and wonderful experience. kinda funny how if christianity is the right religion, i don't feel anything but off about it. but buddhism, where it doesn't really matter who's right... wow.

Yes you can

No. BURDEN OF PROOF. You brought God up, so YOU prove he exists. It's your god and your job to do so. Proving a negative is just like proving the sun isn't the torch of a giant, invisible leprechaun.

Let me put a question to everyone else on the Pro Gay side. Why ISN'T homosexuality as sin? Why dont you think its one?
how can love between two consentual adults ever be wrong?

Please show me any section of the bible which actively supports homosexuality. And to countor your point about a lack of mentioning homosexuality, there is also a starlting lack of talk about rape in the bible, just one or two phrases in Leviticus. Are you going to tell me God aproves of rape?

As I said earlier, there are verses (such as some from Paul) that can be used for this arguement. I was just pointing out that Sodom and Gommorah wasn't about homoesxuality but inhospitality and that therefore the use of sodomy for "unnatural" relations is an incorrect one.

undefinedundefinedDepends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p
ur fucking fag gay's should be put into a farm be burned a shot because its wrong and ur the biggest retarded hommo in the fucked up world today hi hilter :fluffle: :mp5:

My point was that if you tot it up, there is a simmilar level of biblical evidence to show that God doenst like rape and that God doesnt like homosexuality so how can the one be so abhorinant to God and not the other? The only reason Lot offered his daughters like that is because he was suronded by a large crowd of men who wanted to sleep with him. He had to find a way out and that was the only one he could think of. And can you give me the examples of where God says it is ok to rape and enslave? If he thinks that then why did he liberate his people from slavery time after time etc.

Check again, the men wanted to sleep with the angels, not with Lot. Further, if the God you believe in is one who would rather a man let his daughters be raped than to protect his children, then there is something highly flawed in that logic.

God's definition may or may not be one man, one woman. Last time I checked our country (assuming you are from the US, haven't red the whole thread to know for sure) is not a theocracy. We base our laws on the logics/realities of this world not on God's definitions. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that is the way it is. To change that would be to violate freedom of religion and then who knows what would be forced upon us?

We arnt discussing the relevence of the Bible in US law, we are discussing the reasons for why homosexuality is seen as a sin acording to Christians. We see it as a sin for many reasons but the one I am pointing to here goes like this.

A) You can only have sex within marriage. Sex outside marriage is a sin
B) Marriage is a union of love between one man and one woman

Therefore Gay sex is outside of marriage as Christians dont see Gay marriage as true marriage. Therefore since Gays cannot marry, their sex is outside marriage arego it is a sin.

Actually I have explained it several times but everyone ignores me, go read Hebrews chapter 10 verses 5 - 18 and you willl see how the ritualistic laws of sacrifices etc goes away. And where does it say God supports rape?

You said Jesus reiterated what was moral law and what wasn't. Hebrews is an epistle, not a gospel. Where did Jesus reiterate? And I ask because I'm honestly curious.

undefinedundefined
ur fucking fag gay's should be put into a farm be burned a shot because its wrong and ur the biggest retarded hommo in the fucked up world today hi hilter :fluffle: :mp5:

well in regard to the earlier point about sin, yes it's a sin. sin is a religious word so anything that the bible says is a sin is a sin. However we are not a theocracy! God does not dictate our laws. Even if Bush thinks he should. it's a sin, i don't like it, and it's none of my buisiness :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang:

how can love between two consentual adults ever be wrong?

Well firstly (this is a Christan view)

A) Love was given to us by God in Eden. In Eden there was only one man and one women. If homosexual love was true love it would have existed in Eden and God would have created six people not two. If God doesnt want it, it is wrong.

B) God's definition of marriage is the loving union of one man and one women. God also says you cannot have sex outside marriage. Therefore since Gay's cannot be married according to God's definiton of marriage, any sex they do have is outside marriage and therefore a sin.

You said Jesus reiterated what was moral law and what wasn't. Hebrews is an epistle, not a gospel. Where did Jesus reiterate? And I ask because I'm honestly curious.

Jesus did not refer specificly to homosexuality as far as we know. He did however also not refer to rape specificly. They both are sins, and he said to stop sinning.

well in regard to the earlier point about sin, yes it's a sin. sin is a religious word so anything that the bible says is a sin is a sin. However we are not a theocracy! God does not dictate our laws. Even if Bush thinks he should. it's a sin, i don't like it, and it's none of my buisiness :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang:

Go make up your own thread on wherer or not Bush should stop Gay marriage, here we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin

Well firstly (this is a Christan view)

A) Love was given to us by God in Eden. In Eden there was only one man and one women. If homosexual love was true love it would have existed in Eden and God would have created six people not two. If God doesnt want it, it is wrong.

B) God's definition of marriage is the loving union of one man and one women. God also says you cannot have sex outside marriage. Therefore since Gay's cannot be married according to God's definiton of marriage, any sex they do have is outside marriage and therefore a sin.

or 4, 1 gay man, 1 lesbian women, and if adam and eve swung both ways. ;)

All your references are old testement. Check out the New. God was harsher in those times, but it was to keep his people alive. And I know, I'm making the old testement obsolete when I say the old has some refernces, but these are not Laws. And other laws prohibit sex outside marriage so its not as if these women were raped on sight. Women were taken then to keep the tribes alive. Its not like they were tortured or abused into having sex with them, they were treated as Isralites.


This is coming from someone who earlier said Jesus made parts of the OT still be true but wouldn't cite them.

Go make up your own thread on wherer or not Bush should stop Gay marriage, here we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin

that wasn't my point! you you :fluffle:

Look, I don't know if any of you agree or not, but I'll say it anyway.
The sooner we all do away with religion and start worshipping ourselves the better off we'll all be. I mean, look at us! Look at us! We did all of this by ourselves, not God. We're our own gods! When's the last time a real god did anything? Never! Why? Because we're the best! We're on top! All hail us! We are in control. There are some inescapable things, like death. But for how long? Is there no stopping us? Man rules, Period.

Er, no it didnt. The concept of Homosexuality, has existed for much longer than you would think. Ok yes the word is new but guess what, so is the word Dinosaur .The bible describes it in both the old and new testements, and their are Aztec pictures of ritual homosexual sex, or at least the idea of it.

Sex, schmex. Anyone who wants it can have gay sex. But that's not what homosexuality is about. Being gay is about where you find your emotional completeness, where you find the person you choose to love and make your family. People until approx.the 1970s didn't even begin to understand that (unless they were gay and they were probably confused by what they were taught too!)

Go make up your own thread on wherer or not Bush should stop Gay marriage, here we are discussing why homosexuality is a sin

obiviously you are wrong, we are discussing whether or not it's a sin, not why fyi

Well, I see this argument is still going no where. Could that be because the Biblical interpretation is based on Assumptions about life, authority, and the Nature of God. Christians don't agree on this. So, why would anyone else? All of the Bible proof texting is getting absurd, but I'll play the game if that's how you're playing.
Ok, Homosexuality is a sin, because the bible say so. The Bible is historical, concrete, objective fact. So, why is slavery illegal?
"When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property" (Exodus 21:20-21).
That sounds like God is endorsing slavery, but do Christians?
No, the majority of Christians would agree that slavery is wrong, but God didn't think so. So, what do you believe if the Bible is Absolute Truth?

Men did not "Rape" these women as you put it. The took them to their tribe, married them and slept with them. To me that sounds like arranged marrigae and that still exists and we dont try and stop it.
Are we going to insult the past of everyone here, or are we going to come back to the issue of what we are debating, Homosexuality as a sin?

There IS such a thing as marital rape. Getting married does not mean that you consent automatically if your partner is horny. You still have the right ot say no. And these women didn't even have the right to say no to marriage.

Sex, schmex. Anyone who wants it can have gay sex. But that's not what homosexuality is about. Being gay is about where you find your emotional completeness, where you find the person you choose to love and make your family. People until approx.the 1970s didn't even begin to understand that (unless they were gay and they were probably confused by what they were taught too!)
Human emotion is a MAJOR design flaw.
Which is the perfect reason why we should correct it.

Look, I don't know if any of you agree or not, but I'll say it anyway.
The sooner we all do away with religion and start worshipping ourselves the better off we'll all be. I mean, look at us! Look at us! We did all of this by ourselves, not God. We're our own gods! When's the last time a real god did anything? Never! Why? Because we're the best! We're on top! All hail us! We are in control. There are some inescapable things, like death. But for how long? Is there no stopping us? Man rules, Period.

little ego there ehhh? we also rule at a little thing called warfare. God or no God we need moral guidelines or we are screwed :sniper:

Human emotion is a MAJOR design flaw.
Which is the perfect reason why we should correct it.

true

little ego there ehhh? we also rule at a little thing called warfare. God or no God we need moral guidelines or we are screwed :sniper:
Ah, who could forget about war? What a great thing! It's so simplistic, yet so vital to the continuation AND destruction of ourselves. So deep. War is the 1337.

How do you know it isn't a cultural law?

Seems to me it was a cultural law. Given that the Hebrews were having a hard time establishing themselves as an independant nation, they were doing their best to distance themselves from what was going on in all the other "pagan" cultures.

Sex, schmex. Anyone who wants it can have gay sex. But that's not what homosexuality is about. Being gay is about where you find your emotional completeness, where you find the person you choose to love and make your family. People until approx.the 1970s didn't even begin to understand that (unless they were gay and they were probably confused by what they were taught too!)

You know what else happened in the 1970's. POSTMODERNISM. The world in my opinion (this is not a religous opinion, but a personal one) is much better off without POSTMODERNISM and the things it gave rise to. But lets not get onto that now.

Love the sinner, Hate the sin


Love is an action, not just a warm feeling that you profess. Love is trying to understand someone else. Love is being kind to them and hoping profusely for their happiness, realizing that their relationship with God is personal and none of your business. Further, you do realize that Gandhi is the one who said the above quote? It's not Bilblical.


And go re interptet this

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

One Chronicles 6: 9 - 10
NIV

Since the NIV is what most agree on I find it hard to reinterprit this

Funny that there wasn't a word for homosexual until the 1950s, I wonder what they said about it before then? And again, the real meaning is probably lost in translation somewhere. And get it out of your head, as I know it is, that men lying with men as htey would women equates to homosexuality. It's. Not. Just. About. Sex.

Well if you read the passage in Jude and the account itself in Genesis, it is clear that the pervesion refered to is Homosexuality.

Provide the context then.

Ah, who could forget about war? What a great thing! It's so simplistic, yet so vital to the continuation AND destruction of ourselves. So deep. War is the 1337.

you are a slightly odd person lol :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang: death to all who oppose the horde huzzah for warcraft 3

You know what else happened in the 1970's. POSTMODERNISM. The world in my opinion (this is not a religous opinion, but a personal one) is much better off without POSTMODERNISM and the things it gave rise to. But lets not get onto that now.

Post modernism suggests that humans are limited in their scope of knowledge. It is more than everything being wrong, but nothing is completely right. We do live in a pluralistic society, and we must learn to live together. Accepting your limitations and agreeing that you and your doctrines are imperfect isn't a bad thing. God, might enjoy a little modesty from his followers for once. Besides, It is all a matter of faith. God nor you can force another to act on faith.

Er, yes it does, retract your statement please

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

Jude Ch 1 Vs 7

And then Isaiah who is considered to be one of the greatest prophets of all says it was the sins of inhospitality and of "having much but not helping the poor" and then Jesus, the Son of God choose to quote Isaiah. Gee, I wonder who Neo is gonna chose as the more correct?

Jesus did not refer specificly to homosexuality as far as we know. He did however also not refer to rape specificly. They both are sins, and he said to stop sinning.

So, Jesus never mentioned them.

Well firstly (this is a Christan view)

A) Love was given to us by God in Eden. In Eden there was only one man and one women. If homosexual love was true love it would have existed in Eden and God would have created six people not two. If God doesnt want it, it is wrong.

B) God's definition of marriage is the loving union of one man and one women. God also says you cannot have sex outside marriage. Therefore since Gay's cannot be married according to God's definiton of marriage, any sex they do have is outside marriage and therefore a sin.

well,

a) there were obviously more than two ancestors of the current humans. as evidenced by the fact that there are multiple y chromosomes and multiple different sets or mitochondrial dna. these are preserved (more or less) from generation to generation unless there is a fair bit of mutation... and since it's apparantly impossible to mutate enough for life to evolve (according to you), i suppose that's not possible either.

b) no, the hebrew priests defined marriage as such. other cultures permitted same sex couplings and marriages.

oh, and also: get your mind out of the gutter. since when is love all about sex?

Since Pasutr and his removal of the idea of spontanious generation.


As I should've said earlier. The law of biogenesis says that all life comes from previous life EXCEPT for the first life. Pasteur realized that it had to happen once.



There is a big problem with DNA and amino acids etc. And it is this. Left to themselves, the nautral progression of acid-base reactions (the reactions which you claim would start of the creation of a cell) is to scramble DNA into all sorts of deadly combinations.

Let's consider that for a moment. DNA is scrambled into deadly combinations. The organism with those combinations dies. It doesn't reproduce. Bye bye deadly combinations. Only those combinations which support growth and reproduction survive. Sooo, it doesn't matter if only 1 in a trillion mutations is beneficial, that is the one that will survive. It's been niftily referred to as survival of the fittest.


It explains away lots of scientifc stuff and shows that science supports Gods views of the creation of the world.


Wrong again. Check any science textbook with no agenda. Science does not concern itself with Creationism, God, Jesus, Buddha, etc. as these things cannot be disproven. Science only deals with things that can be tested and disproven. Therefore, it doesn't affiliate itself with religion. This is why scientific theories, even those about gravity, are always changing.

You know what else happened in the 1970's. POSTMODERNISM. The world in my opinion (this is not a religous opinion, but a personal one) is much better off without POSTMODERNISM and the things it gave rise to. But lets not get onto that now.

yes, accepting people for who they are is a terrible thing. i say we just point and laugh at everyone who's different.

Explain to me the difference between ceremonial law and moral law, to which one homosexuality applies, and why. When God decreed the Law to Israel, there were several different parts. Some parts of the law were meant only for the ancient people of Israel. Some are meant for all of God's people.

Here's an example of a law that only applies to Israel:

Lev 27:16-21
If a man dedicates to the LORD part of his family land, its value is to be set according to the amount of seed required for it-fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed. If he dedicates his field during the Year of Jubilee, the value that has been set remains. But if he dedicates his field after the Jubilee, the priest will determine the value according to the number of years that remain until the next Year of Jubilee, and its set value will be reduced. If the man who dedicates the field wishes to redeem it, he must add a fifth to its value, and the field will again become his. If, however, he does not redeem the field, or if he has sold it to someone else, it can never be redeemed. When the field is released in the Jubilee, it will become holy, like a field devoted to the LORD ; it will become the property of the priests.

Do you see why that's specific to the one time and place? It practically reads like a city ordinance list, which is in effect what it is.

Again, Jesus said we don't have to follow these old laws for the sake of law.

Mark 2:24-28
The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians to address just this issue. Some of them were making Gentile Christians observe Jewish ceremonial law, including circumcision.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Again, homosexuality is placed in with the moral laws of Leviticus. It says it is 'detestable'. There are no qualifiers, and it doesn't seem to me to mean that it only applies to Israel. It applies to everyone. That's why it's condemned at Sodom and Gommorrah. That's why it's condemned in the New Testament, again in that passage in Jude, and also in Romans specifically.

Again, quote the passage. Ok. In the Bible is the book of Jude. In the first chapter of Jude, it says at the seventh verse, and I quote: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."



Explain how a book can interpret itself.Here's an example. We interpret some of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians as being specific cultural directives to the Corinthians. Most notably of these ideas, is the idea that women should cover their heads while in church. Because this meant something to the Corinthians, a sign of respect or humility I suppose, it worked there. Nowadays, we don't have that specific rule (No hats, no shoes, no service), but we do have the principle behind it: going to church is an important thing to do that should be given the respect it deserves.

In other parts of the same epistle, Paul says, "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." The reason why we still follow THIS idea is because Paul TELLS us how to interpret it, because he hinges this directive by unambiguous evidence that is always, ALWAYS true.

"By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!"

In the year 70AD, it was a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and we will also. In the year 2004AD, it is a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and will be be raised, also. Therefore, Paul's previous point still stands.

Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
Since the NIV is what most agree on I find it hard to reinterprit this
:headbang:

Listen, I work in a Theological Seminary Library with Lutherans, UCC, MCC, United Methodists, Roman Catholics..., and no one uses the NIV outside of their children's Bible school.

How old are you?

Well if you read the passage in Jude and the account itself in Genesis, it is clear that the pervesion refered to is Homosexuality.

And when you read Isaiah it becomes less clear.

We arnt discussing the relevence of the Bible in US law, we are discussing the reasons for why homosexuality is seen as a sin acording to Christians. We see it as a sin for many reasons but the one I am pointing to here goes like this.

A) You can only have sex within marriage. Sex outside marriage is a sin
B) Marriage is a union of love between one man and one woman

Therefore Gay sex is outside of marriage as Christians dont see Gay marriage as true marriage. Therefore since Gays cannot marry, their sex is outside marriage arego it is a sin.

So if someone is a Christian and believes in gay marriage. . . then what?

Human emotion is a MAJOR design flaw.
Which is the perfect reason why we should correct it.

Hah. You might enjoy some of Watson's writings on why emotions are an evolutionary advantage.

You know what else happened in the 1970's. POSTMODERNISM. The world in my opinion (this is not a religous opinion, but a personal one) is much better off without POSTMODERNISM and the things it gave rise to. But lets not get onto that now.

You brought it up. Not me. Just what did it bring? More equality? Equal rights to women and minorities? Free thinking? Sure there are some down sides to what happened, but then everything worth having has a negative attached.

So if someone is a Christian and believes in gay marriage. . . then what?

(Hands clapping)
thank you

None of the "Christians" here have adressed my paralell arguement I'll ask my question again. If the Bible is Ultimate Truth from the mouth of God why no slavery. Titus 2:9-10 Ephesians 6:5-9 Colossians 3:22-25 I Peter 2:18-25 I Timothy 6:1-2 and many other passages call on slaves to be obedient and subservient. The apostle Paul endorses slavery and sends a runaway Christian slave Philemon back to his master. Was God wrong or just the Bible?

So if someone is a Christian and believes in gay marriage. . . then what?

Well a christian can believe in gay marriage if they want to. Christianity however is clear, you cant have Gay marriage. Or if you do, God wont recognise it and their sex is still adultery and a sin.

None of the "Christians" here have adressed my paralell arguement I'll ask my question again. If the Bible is Ultimate Truth from the mouth of God why no slavery. Titus 2:9-10 Ephesians 6:5-9 Colossians 3:22-25 I Peter 2:18-25 I Timothy 6:1-2 and many other passages call on slaves to be obedient and subservient. The apostle Paul endorses slavery and sends a runaway Christian slave Philemon back to his master. Was God wrong or just the Bible?

God may call on slaves to be obiedent and such but he never says "Only use slave labour, it is wrong to free them" (or anything to that effect) does he.

Well a christian can believe in gay marriage if they want to. Christianity however is clear, you cant have Gay marriage. Or if you do, God wont recognise it and their sex is still adultery and a sin.
which branch of christianity?

'cause there are a number that do allow it and preform the ceremonies where it's legal.

yes, accepting people for who they are is a terrible thing. i say we just point and laugh at everyone who's different.

yes we should. but i suggest we should take it a bit further. anyone who disagrees with anything the othere guy says should be blown to bits with a giant ray gun, including gays, and people with diffrent eyes, hair or voices tones! muahahahahahahah :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

When God decreed the Law to Israel, there were several different parts. Some parts of the law were meant only for the ancient people of Israel. Some are meant for all of God's people.

Here's an example of a law that only applies to Israel:

Lev 27:16-21
If a man dedicates to the LORD part of his family land, its value is to be set according to the amount of seed required for it-fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed. If he dedicates his field during the Year of Jubilee, the value that has been set remains. But if he dedicates his field after the Jubilee, the priest will determine the value according to the number of years that remain until the next Year of Jubilee, and its set value will be reduced. If the man who dedicates the field wishes to redeem it, he must add a fifth to its value, and the field will again become his. If, however, he does not redeem the field, or if he has sold it to someone else, it can never be redeemed. When the field is released in the Jubilee, it will become holy, like a field devoted to the LORD ; it will become the property of the priests.

Do you see why that's specific to the one time and place? It practically reads like a city ordinance list, which is in effect what it is.

Again, Jesus said we don't have to follow these old laws for the sake of law.

Mark 2:24-28
The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians to address just this issue. Some of them were making Gentile Christians observe Jewish ceremonial law, including circumcision.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Again, homosexuality is placed in with the moral laws of Leviticus. It says it is 'detestable'. There are no qualifiers, and it doesn't seem to me to mean that it only applies to Israel. It applies to everyone. That's why it's condemned at Sodom and Gommorrah. That's why it's condemned in the New Testament, again in that passage in Jude, and also in Romans specifically.

Ok. In the Bible is the book of Jude. In the first chapter of Jude, it says at the seventh verse, and I quote: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."



Here's an example. We interpret some of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians as being specific cultural directives to the Corinthians. Most notably of these ideas, is the idea that women should cover their heads while in church. Because this meant something to the Corinthians, a sign of respect or humility I suppose, it worked there. Nowadays, we don't have that specific rule (No hats, no shoes, no service), but we do have the principle behind it: going to church is an important thing to do that should be given the respect it deserves.

In other parts of the same epistle, Paul says, "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." The reason why we still follow THIS idea is because Paul TELLS us how to interpret it, because he hinges this directive by unambiguous evidence that is always, ALWAYS true.

"By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!"

In the year 70AD, it was a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and we will also. In the year 2004AD, it is a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and will be be raised, also. Therefore, Paul's previous point still stands.

wordy aren't we?

God may call on slaves to be obiedent and such but he never says "Only use slave labour, it is wrong to free them" (or anything to that effect) does he.

But it's not wrong to have them, says the good book.
:fluffle:

wordy aren't we?

Nothing wrong with that

But it's not wrong to have them, says the good book.


And. You may not understand slavery at this time. All it meant was not giving them any money, they worked in reasonable conditions and the master fed and clothed them. He didnt beat them or anything like that. God was not a socialist, he had little to say on economic matters.

Well a christian can believe in gay marriage if they want to. Christianity however is clear, you cant have Gay marriage. Or if you do, God wont recognise it and their sex is still adultery and a sin.

I officially quit. I've got one brickwall I"m attempting to argue with on another thread. :headbang:

Surely quoting the bible as final justification for anything is a bad idea. It is afterall only a selected cross-section of the religious writings which were available at the time of its compilation (couple of centuries AD). The remaining writings were only discarded based on the say so of human editors, not some higher power. So who has the right to say that anything in the bible is more valid than anything which has been left out and is in the gnostic bible or other as yet undiscovered texts?

So if someone is a Christian and believes in gay marriage. . . then what?

THEN, you form a club with me and vote for JOHN KERRY. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Homosexuality is a religious one. Good thing we have separation of church and state.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

neo dude, i have met people like you before. my uncle is kinda like that. he belives the bible is always right, that god did mention dinosaurs in the bible, and so on. frankly i'm a cristian but people who think that it is their business whether someone sleeps with a man or a woman as long as it is consentual is a moralistic holier than thou pain in the butt (stronger language is appropriate here but not allowed). here's a biblical sayin for ya "He who is without sin cast the first stone." that means unless you god or jesus keep your yap shut about other people choices so long as they don't majorly affect you or someone around you in a bad way!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know, I want to say gay's are allright, I'm not going to a fag parade or anything, and when I think of it logically, I realize that hey, it leaves more women for me =)

The only thing is, sometimes I stumble across gay porn... And that makes me hate them all over, cause I really diddnt want to see that.(yes I admit, I like to look at porn)

Somthing about putting things places things should never go.... I dunno, fags can be fags, just as long as they dont try to pick me up(which happend yesterday :o)

Anyway, its all good, I hate people individually, not because of thier race, relegion, or sexual orriantation.

Ya know, I want to say gay's are allright, I'm not going to a fag parade or anything, and when I think of it logically, I realize that hey, it leaves more women for me =)

The only thing is, sometimes I stumble across gay porn... And that makes me hate them all over, cause I really diddnt want to see that.(yes I admit, I like to look at porn)

Somthing about putting things places things should never go.... I dunno, fags can be fags, just as long as they dont try to pick me up(which happend yesterday :o)

Anyway, its all good, I hate people individually, not because of thier race, relegion, or sexual orriantation.

lol least you honest 'bout the porn, i believe ashcroft is gay, he payed like $5350.00 to cover some statues breasts :rolleyes:

Anyway, its all good, I hate people individually, not because of thier race, relegion, or sexual orriantation.Best. Quote. Ever.

Seriously, you rock. That made my day.

lol least you honest 'bout the porn, i believe ashcroft is gay, he payed like $5350.00 to cover some statues breasts :rolleyes:

scuze me it was more like $55,350 my bad! :(

neo dude, i have met people like you before. my uncle is kinda like that. he belives the bible is always right, that god did mention dinosaurs in the bible, and so on. frankly i'm a cristian but people who think that it is their business whether someone sleeps with a man or a woman as long as it is consentual is a moralistic holier than thou pain in the butt (stronger language is appropriate here but not allowed). here's a biblical sayin for ya "He who is without sin cast the first stone." that means unless you god or jesus keep your yap shut about other people choices so long as they don't majorly affect you or someone around you in a bad way!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, dont attack me. This thread is for Christians who want to explain why they think Homosexuality is a sin and for non Christians to attempt to tackle them.

Anyway, its all good, I hate people individually, not because of thier race, relegion, or sexual orriantation.

Let me get this clear before people start jumping all over me accusing me of being a homophobe. I dont hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality. Love the sinner hate the sin. (and yes I was aware that Ghandi originaly said that but it is what God does and it makes sense to me)

Let me get this clear before people start jumping all over me accusing me of being a homophobe. I dont hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality. Love the sinner hate the sin. (and yes I was aware that Ghandi originaly said that but it is what God does and it makes sense to me)

I hate seeing dudes stick things up other dudes butt's, thats all.

Hey, dont attack me. This thread is for Christians who want to explain why they think Homosexuality is a sin and for non Christians to attempt to tackle them.

well for the last time. it's a sin! yes i'm pro gay marriage but it's a sin. sin is a religous word. so whatever the bible says on that matter is correct. however this isn't a theological society (i'm talkin 'bout america here just so ya know) so god doesn't dictate law here. sin yes. our business no this is between god and the gays, end of story. :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Yes, but who says the bible is correct?

Funny but the word 'homosexuality' as well as the very concept of sexual orientation did not exist until relatively recently.

I fail to see your point. However, let's indulge your logic briefly. The word homosexuality may not have existed until recently, but it showed up about the same time the word heterosexuality. About the same time as the term: Homo Sapiens.

Lemme guess, conservatives want to change that too, cuz gosh darn it we just feel uncomfortable with the word, now. Let's blame radical judges.

Kinda like they get that funny feeling every time they describe something black.

well for the last time. it's a sin! yes i'm pro gay marriage but it's a sin. sin is a religous word. so whatever the bible says on that matter is correct. however this isn't a theological society (i'm talkin 'bout america here just so ya know) so god doesn't dictate law here. sin yes. our business no this is between god and the gays, end of story. :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Were not discussing Gay Marriage, we're dicsusing Homosexuality as a whole. Im not saying "Go out and kill all homosexuals because they are sinners" or anything like that, nor am I saying it is my busisness to stop them. I am just putting acros why it is that Christians think its a sin. People here dont seem to agree with that and so I am arging with them about it to prove my point.

Yes, but who says the bible is correct?

God (see John chapter 1)

Because all sex, other than for procreation, is a sin. If men could have babies, it probably wouldnt be a sin.

Because all sex, other than for procreation, is a sin. If men could have babies, it probably wouldnt be a sin.

I'm not being at all patromising, I am genuinely curiously here. Where in the bible does that idea come from?

God (see John chapter 1)

No it doesn't. All it says is "The Word". For all we know, the word could be "the", or "we", or even "fuck". Hell we don't know, all we know is that it's "The Word".

And if God created ONLY two people, then answer me this: who created Cain's wife? It wasn't God, because he only created Adam and Eve, and it wasn't one of his siblings, because that would be sick and disgusting and against God's will. So where did she come from?

No it doesn't. All it says is "The Word". For all we know, the word could be "the", or "we", or even "fuck". Hell we don't know, all we know is that it's "The Word".

And if God created ONLY two people, then answer me this: who created Cain's wife? It wasn't God, because he only created Adam and Eve, and it wasn't one of his siblings, because that would be sick and disgusting and against God's will. So where did she come from?It means Jesus. Hence the point of John writing the Gospel in the first place. That's a forehead slapper.

As for Cain's wife: yeah, it was his sister. It wasn't against the will of God. I don't understand that argument.

It means Jesus. Hence the point of John writing the Gospel in the first place. That's a forehead slapper.

As for Cain's wife: yeah, it was his sister. It wasn't against the will of God. I don't understand that argument.

Most of those early Biblical statements had deep medical reasoning behind it, incest is wrong, mainly because the DNA is too similar so it produces freaks. All those animals they wernt supposed to eat, they were deemed unclean, and all those animals, unless raised right, can carry dieseses and infections. Porking guys butts, transmits dieseses, and infections, from a medical standpoint, all that makes sense.

Most of those early Biblical statements had deep medical reasoning behind it, incest is wrong, mainly because the DNA is too similar so it produces freaks. All those animals they wernt supposed to eat, they were deemed unclean, and all those animals, unless raised right, can carry dieseses and infections. Porking guys butts, transmits dieseses, and infections, from a medical standpoint, all that makes sense.

Yeah, but if homosexuality was like that, why is it condemned in the New Testament as well, while the New Testament also says that those ceremonial laws are kapput?

When God decreed the Law to Israel, there were several different parts. Some parts of the law were meant only for the ancient people of Israel. Some are meant for all of God's people.

Here's an example of a law that only applies to Israel:

Lev 27:16-21
If a man dedicates to the LORD part of his family land, its value is to be set according to the amount of seed required for it-fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed. If he dedicates his field during the Year of Jubilee, the value that has been set remains. But if he dedicates his field after the Jubilee, the priest will determine the value according to the number of years that remain until the next Year of Jubilee, and its set value will be reduced. If the man who dedicates the field wishes to redeem it, he must add a fifth to its value, and the field will again become his. If, however, he does not redeem the field, or if he has sold it to someone else, it can never be redeemed. When the field is released in the Jubilee, it will become holy, like a field devoted to the LORD ; it will become the property of the priests.

Do you see why that's specific to the one time and place? It practically reads like a city ordinance list, which is in effect what it is.

Again, Jesus said we don't have to follow these old laws for the sake of law.

Mark 2:24-28
The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians to address just this issue. Some of them were making Gentile Christians observe Jewish ceremonial law, including circumcision.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Again, homosexuality is placed in with the moral laws of Leviticus. It says it is 'detestable'. There are no qualifiers, and it doesn't seem to me to mean that it only applies to Israel. It applies to everyone. That's why it's condemned at Sodom and Gommorrah. That's why it's condemned in the New Testament, again in that passage in Jude, and also in Romans specifically.

I see your point. However, there are also, I believe, other "laws" that don't have qualifiers. For instance, the oft mentioned passage concerning the mixture of different fabrics in articles of clothing.

Ok. In the Bible is the book of Jude. In the first chapter of Jude, it says at the seventh verse, and I quote: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Please see my response to Neo Cannen's post concerning this very subject.



Here's an example. We interpret some of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians as being specific cultural directives to the Corinthians. Most notably of these ideas, is the idea that women should cover their heads while in church. Because this meant something to the Corinthians, a sign of respect or humility I suppose, it worked there. Nowadays, we don't have that specific rule (No hats, no shoes, no service), but we do have the principle behind it: going to church is an important thing to do that should be given the respect it deserves.

In other parts of the same epistle, Paul says, "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." The reason why we still follow THIS idea is because Paul TELLS us how to interpret it, because he hinges this directive by unambiguous evidence that is always, ALWAYS true.

"By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!"

In the year 70AD, it was a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and we will also. In the year 2004AD, it is a true statement that Christ rose from the dead and will be be raised, also. Therefore, Paul's previous point still stands.

Could you provide me with some examples of the unambiguous evidence Paul uses, because I'm still having a hard time understanding.

Ya know, I want to say gay's are allright, I'm not going to a fag parade or anything, and when I think of it logically, I realize that hey, it leaves more women for me =)

The only thing is, sometimes I stumble across gay porn... And that makes me hate them all over, cause I really diddnt want to see that.(yes I admit, I like to look at porn)

Somthing about putting things places things should never go.... I dunno, fags can be fags, just as long as they dont try to pick me up(which happend yesterday :o)

Anyway, its all good, I hate people individually, not because of thier race, relegion, or sexual orriantation.

How does one "stumble across" gay porn, or any porn for that matter?

Most of those early Biblical statements had deep medical reasoning behind it,


From a group people who didn't even know how the inside of the human body functions.


incest is wrong, mainly because the DNA is too similar so it produces freaks.


Like Noah and his family?

All those animals they wernt supposed to eat, they were deemed unclean, and all those animals, unless raised right, can carry dieseses and infections.

Like any kind of meat?

Porking guys butts, transmits dieseses, and infections, from a medical standpoint, all that makes sense.


Like any kind of sex?

God (see John chapter 1)

Who says that God really said this? Oh, that's right...the Bible. It's a vicious cycle.

From a group people who didn't even know how the inside of the human body functions.



Like Noah and his family?



Like any kind of meat?



Like any kind of sex?

Supposedly, at that time, DNA was not yet close enough to matter??

Certain animals, like pigs, horses, or whatever, can get infection in thier feet, that you cant see, because the hooves arent split, we can detect and cure that stuff now.

Anal sex alway carries risk of diesese, because of all the bacteria, they diddnt have rubbers back then.

How does one "stumble across" gay porn, or any porn for that matter?

he admits that he watches porn. read the article dunno abou gay porn :(

God (see John chapter 1)

dude you can't invoke the guy who inspired/wrote the book to prove anything. that's like me writing a book making up a bunch of quotes. (no i'm not saying the bible does this, this is an example, before you jump down my throat) when told that there is some dispute over said quotes, i say no it's correct i say so, i'm not exactly an objective judge on the matter. I mean come on, it's like moore saying the stuffs correct because he says so. there's bias there.

refresh topic on list.

Well firstly (this is a Christan view)

A) Love was given to us by God in Eden. In Eden there was only one man and one women. If homosexual love was true love it would have existed in Eden and God would have created six people not two. If God doesnt want it, it is wrong.

And what makes you choose the Eden creation story? In the first Creation story in Genesis, God makes all of humankind all at once. The Adam and Eve story is an alternate view. Why do you choose that one?

B) God's definition of marriage is the loving union of one man and one women. God also says you cannot have sex outside marriage. Therefore since Gay's cannot be married according to God's definiton of marriage, any sex they do have is outside marriage and therefore a sin.

Wrong. The Bible says that - and the laws in the Bible were written by priests and apostles, not God. Don't presume to speak for God.

And what makes you choose the Eden creation story? In the first Creation story in Genesis, God makes all of humankind all at once. The Adam and Eve story is an alternate view. Why do you choose that one?

Wrong. The Bible says that - and the laws in the Bible were written by priests and apostles, not God. Don't presume to speak for God.

in regard to the first question, it's because it supports his view. (although it could have been 4 people 1 gay man, 1 lesbian woman, and amam and eve could have swung both ways, and in regard to the statement about the bible, thank you!!!!!!!

Supposedly, at that time, DNA was not yet close enough to matter??


Aside from the fact it never happened, they're the same family. Doesn't get any closer than that. Then, supposedly six billion people came from what amounts to two genetic lines. When is close enough?


Certain animals, like pigs, horses, or whatever, can get infection in thier feet, that you cant see, because the hooves arent split, we can detect and cure that stuff now.


Other cultures in the area seemed to survive perfectly fine without having to obey some obscure edict about hooved animals?


Anal sex alway carries risk of diesese, because of all the bacteria, they diddnt have rubbers back then.

As long as you keep your ass clean, the risk of infection isn't that significant at all.