NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting that the title of the thread is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN and when people try to explain that it's in the Bible

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

Just a little quote from the text:
The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.

but, have fun reading, as i did.

my point, in the topic, just to explain it, is to try to cut all the excuses homophobic uses while talking to homosexuality as something "immoral"
immoral by what terms?

i could say i agree with the rest of your post, even if i am not sure i 100pct got it. :)

But remember, the meaning of words change overtime. Fag once meant a type of cigarette, Faggot was kindling for fire (usualy moss or Peat,) to be called Gay used to mean happy and carefree. which is why I've always said, read the bible (or what ever text your religon follows,) and pray, look into your heart and soul. and the truth on how you should live will be reviealed to you.

Follow just the words and not the spirit and you'll get jokes like ("And they were in one accord..." what, HONDA made cars back then?)

by the way, the article had some HUGE holes in it. but I wont discuss that here it being off topic and all.

Marriage was first a religious idea, then turned into a governmental institution. I feel that those who are not religous should not get married in the church. Thats kind of an insult "We dont hold any of your beliefs but we are quite happy to use your building".
actaully, first it was a social construct. then it was taken over by religious institutions.

furthermore, i know that even if i were christian and not agnostic, i'd want to get married outside. i do know many atheists and agnostics who have gotten married in a church to either please their parents or fiancee or because it was a beautiful building (though they would hire a secular person to conduct teh ceremony in the second instance)

Eh, fine. I feel that if your Athiest it would go against your beleifs to geet married in a church. Either way, you shouldn't live for just pleasing others if you have the energy to say your Athiest.
you'd be surprised about how poorly that goes over with some parents and family members.


see, i'm avoiding that whole situation anyways because hey, i want to get married on a damn beach. there aren't any beaches in churches, are there? didn't think so.

you'd be surprised about how poorly that goes over with some parents and family members.

he expressed in some words what i would have said in thousand posts :)

Cheers

So, that doesnt remove the damage caused by penetration alone, which as I have already explained is significent
it can be done without damage at all.
it's a matter of lubrication and patience. obviously if you ram it in there, it'll hurt and tear things. if you lube up and ease in slowly and carefully, stopping when the one being penetrated feels uncomfortable, then it's fine. this applies to men and women who are taking it up the bum.
in a loving relationship with two people who love each other enough to take care about such details, anal sex shouldn't even be a problem.

not to mention that lots of gay men don't like anal sex, lots of them stick to oral.

The rectum is very much unlike the Vagina in terms of being designed to be penetrated.
yes, the skin is much more deilcate. however, even if you don't prepare a vagina for penetration, there will be tearing and pain and all. rape victims have obvious evidence of trauma while a woman who had sex consentually doesn't.

the main difference other than the skin thickness is that the vagina will libe itself up and the rectum doesn't quite do that.

however, all that still doesn't change that men can have better erections if stimulated up the bum.

and also, none of your arguments have been against lesbians. unless you're going to try to prove that oral sex is bad for you... and if that's the case, then i don't want to be right.

That people are not born destined to be homosexuals, and so it is a choice. If it is a choice then it is more likely to be a sin. People were using the arguement "No it cant be a sin because people are born homosexuals and how can something be a sin if you are born like it". I am proving that you are not born with it and that therefore it is more likely that it is a sin.
did you ever in your life choose who you are attracted to?

did you sit there and look at a woman and say to yourself "now, should i be attracted to her or not?" i highly doubt that you ever have.

you're still thinking of homosexuality as actions, as the act of engaging in sex. it's not. it is attraction.

Really Wild Stuff, I don't have the time, at present, to speak to all the things you said in your last critique of my statement, so don't think that I am evading anything in this response - I am merely pointing out the highlights.
Firstly, if universal truth exists, then there is a definite reason for its existing - just because we can't all agree on it does not change the nature of it; no one actually "knows" the meaning of universal truth, but everyone can speculate. Just because there is speculation does not mean that morality changes due to whim.
I am not a scientist, I'll stay away from the field.
By the way, the Garden of Eden, if it existed, and I see no reason to automatically claim that it didn't, was likely located between modern-day Iraq and Iran, according to the description of rivers that flowed nearby. Many people, for a time, did not believe that Elam existed, but it did - in the southeastern area of the fertile crescent. The same was said of Pontius Pilate - but Italian excavators in 1961 unearthed the famour Tiberaeum monument.
At any rate, evolution is anything but a science, nor is it in any way demonstrable; it is a religious philosophy. By the way, while many evolutionists claim that the second law of Thermodynamics applies only to a tightly controlled environment, that is, basically, what the universe is, in and of itself - a tightly controlled environment; i.e. there is no such thing as chaos. (I refer to the chemical and mathematical theory of causal determinism.)

you'd be surprised about how poorly that goes over with some parents and family members.


see, i'm avoiding that whole situation anyways because hey, i want to get married on a damn beach. there aren't any beaches in churches, are there? didn't think so.
LoL i'm sure no one would mind. Try and do it whilst surfing.

he expressed in some words what i would have said in thousand posts :)

Cheers

thanks... but for future refrence she*

LoL i'm sure no one would mind. Try and do it whilst surfing.
i've never been surfing so i'm not sure how well that would go...
but i'd like to be saying my vows as the sun sets over the water and have the reception on the beach under the stars.

i've never been surfing so i'm not sure how well that would go...
but i'd like to be saying my vows as the sun sets over the water and have the reception on the beach under the stars.

Imagines a huge wave appearing as the final "I do's" are being said.

Firstly, if universal truth exists, then there is a definite reason for its existing - just because we can't all agree on it does not change the nature of it; no one actually "knows" the meaning of universal truth, but everyone can speculate. Just because there is speculation does not mean that morality changes due to whim.
it doesn't mean that someone's right just because they have an old book that says they are either.

By the way, the Garden of Eden, if it existed, and I see no reason to automatically claim that it didn't, was likely located between modern-day Iraq and Iran, according to the description of rivers that flowed nearby. Many people, for a time, did not believe that Elam existed, but it did - in the southeastern area of the fertile crescent. The same was said of Pontius Pilate - but Italian excavators in 1961 unearthed the famour Tiberaeum monument.
if you took the garden of eden to be the origin of the human civilization, then it would be in africa.
furthermore, there is good reason to doubt that homo sapiens started off with only two members. as i've mentioned a couple times in this thread (to be continually ignored) there's more than one y chromosome floating about. therefore, more than one male ancestor for all the human species. there is also more than one set of mitochondrial dna, thus more than one female ancestor for the human species.

At any rate, evolution is anything but a science, nor is it in any way demonstrable; it is a religious philosophy. By the way, while many evolutionists claim that the second law of Thermodynamics applies only to a tightly controlled environment, that is, basically, what the universe is, in and of itself - a tightly controlled environment; i.e. there is no such thing as chaos. (I refer to the chemical and mathematical theory of causal determinism.)
the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to earth or life in the way you think it does. for one thing, the earth is not a closed system, we are continually getting energy from the sun and to a lesser extent, a large number of other extra terrestrial sources.
furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics applies to energy. not life, not combinations of molecules, energy.

I will explain why homosexuality cannot be genetic

Homosexuality creates a state whereby someone will no longer reproduce. Therefore anyone recieveing it will no longer be able to reproduce. Therefore the gene kills any chance it has of passing itself on. And while you say "Sperm donner, adoption etc" these have only existed recently. If homosexuality is genetic, then the gene would have died out by now as fewer and fewer people would pass it on.

Urgh, we're not talking about simple Mendelian genetics. In all likelihood homosexuality is polygenic, like height or skin colour. That is why I think people aren't just "gay or straight," it's more of a continuum. I've heard that intrauterine events may play a role as well, perhaps in the activation or suppression of these genes?

Dakini, you know if you think of the earth, sun and all extraterrestrial forces as part of one large machine, complete with specific actions and reactions, then it is indeed a closed system - not earth, but the universe.
By the way, what do you think life is, if not energy?

By the way, who said I was referring to only two people? The Bible never claimed that Adam and Eve were responsible for the entire human race.

By the way, who said I was referring to only two people? The Bible never claimed that Adam and Eve were responsible for the entire human race.
except for the select few who actually read the Bible, the general idea is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve populated the world with two sons. Did I miss something. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Z-unit; unfortunately, that is the generally accepted idea, among Christians, for some reason. :)

Greece only became a Roman providence because one, the Greeks were a bunch of liberal city dwellers who had been softened by Macedonian conquest. (Entirely unrelated to Rome and just a bit of bad luck!) and two, because the only real innovation that those emptyheaded early Romans ever made was on the battlefield! :sniper: Also, as the Romans didn't have their own cultlure (aside from gladiators, we grecophiles blame THAT entirely on you, it is really a question of: Who really absorbed whom in the end?

Nahh Greece begged for Roman help Macedon was shafting Greece

As a dedicated historian, I think I must say that a great deal of credit must be given to both Rome and Greece, for innovations that were to shape the very nature of the Western world - it is true that the Romans adapted many of their governmental practices from the Etruscans, but they developed them and really made them their own after the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud. :)

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...

Please check spelling next time...

Yes, that stupid law is in Deutoronomy, right next to the passage that says that gang-rape and other present-day crimes are okay. How important should the law be if all the others dont mean anything in Christian culture today?

And what do you mean the West destoryed your culture? You ARE the west. But if it's northern barbarian peoples, then, yes, that's true in part...
BeRsErKeR!!!

"I will explain why homosexuality cannot be genetic

Homosexuality creates a state whereby someone will no longer reproduce. Therefore anyone recieveing it will no longer be able to reproduce. Therefore the gene kills any chance it has of passing itself on. And while you say "Sperm donner, adoption etc" these have only existed recently. If homosexuality is genetic, then the gene would have died out by now as fewer and fewer people would pass it on."

Imagine the following:

A man and a woman marry and have 8 kids. We'll say 4 boys and 4 girls.
7 of them are heterosexual, marry, and have kids.
The 8th is homosexual, and instead of having kids, helps raise his/her siblings/their kids, thus ensuring more survive.
Voila, more genes passed on.

Havensport. you posted this link. http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

Although I think it's off topic, I am filled with the need to explain the holes I mentioned.

"Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. "

Huh? what about the act of "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 and again in Leviticus 20:18 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" BTW these are the two verses talked about in the above qoute

Homosexuals do not lie with men as others would lie with women? Where in the Bible does it state that those two versus only pertain to Heterosexuals. And the BAAL FERTILITY RITUAL is a PAGAN ritual in which no Christian then would have partaken for it was against God’s Covenant.

"The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship."

One of his commandments is Thou shall not place other gods before me. so by this reasoning, to lie with a man as you would with a woman is to be partaking in Idol Worship... a sin. and as he said, it was considered to be Religiously Unclean. Uhmmm isn't that what SIN was back then... to be unclean in the eyes of God?

Also the Genesis aruguement. If in truth, the people only wanted to meet the Angels as the author suggests…

“The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.”

If so, then what about the verses immediately following Genesis 19:5

19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

So why would Lot offer his two Virgin Daughters (Vrs 8) to the men to do what ever they wanted if the original offer to “know” the strangers were honest and non-threatening? And why the harsh retaliation of Lot?

Let’s look at his Romans example.

He mentions Romans 1: 26-27 but like Micheal Moore, he only concentrates on those two lines. Lets go back a few verses shall we…

1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

sounds like they were twisting the covenant of God to fit their own desires. To justify their “leaving the natural use of the woman” making God to fit their Patheon of Gods who are prone to making mistakes and toying with humans as a child toys with ants.

And the “Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.” Which, again, goes against God's ban on worshipping idols…. You know, the author of this piece sounds like he’s trying to say that Homosexual acts were only done in Pagan Religious Rites… but if someone was a devout follower, wouldn’t he/she practice those Rites at home… with friends? or would the exscuse be that Homosexual practices are actually religious rights? Hey if they were, then Homosexuality would be protected under US Admendment "Freedom of Religion."

“Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!” One of the few quotes from his article that I totally agree with. Funny he doesn’t see his own blindfold.

“Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.” Yeah, they denounce Idolatrous Religious Worship… worship using rituals containing homosexual acts as the author noted in his Leviticus arguments… which means that they are acts against God thus a sin.

“Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.” Hey, didn’t he bring up Verse 27… ya know the part about men turning away from women and lusting after men?

As he states, there are many forms of love. I love my brother, and I love my friends but not in the same way I would love my wife.

“ I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!”

So what do they mean? BTW, the KJV does not state Homosexual… only Effeminate.

“The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.”

Perhaps it means to Bed Males?... I dunno, a guess on my part.
And effeminate does not mean Homosexual either. I am aquainted (like I’d use the word know here.) effeminate men who are not homosexual and I also am aquainted with Homosexual men who are definitely not Effeminate.

Granted Jesus did say that he was the new Covenant and Hebrews 8:10 - 13

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Which supports my first post. Read the Bible and pray, in your heart and soul God will make his laws known to you.

Oh and Havensport, thank you. This really tested my knowledge of the Bible and in a way it was fun flipping through those pages again.

My note: I think Micheal Moore is a creative filmmaker… but his films are not Documentaries.

does it really matter if being gay is a sin? homosexuality doesn't destroy the fact that they're still a person. if there is a god, he would judge the good deeds you have done, not if you have bowed to a book written by man (i emphasize man).

well, the book was written by His men... and you just reiterated the topic of this thread. Me, personally (and I think some of the others agree) while Homosexuality is a sin, I don't hold it against the person only God can do that. Any and all sin stands between you and God. My sins are between me and God and we will all stand alone at his feet when we face judgment.

Dakini, you know if you think of the earth, sun and all extraterrestrial forces as part of one large machine, complete with specific actions and reactions, then it is indeed a closed system - not earth, but the universe.
By the way, what do you think life is, if not energy?

ok. it doesnt' matter that the entire universe could be one closed system. the point is that the earth itself is not a closed system.

and life is not energy. we use energy, but so does the sun and that's not alive.

how much of a background in physics do you have exactly?

By the way, who said I was referring to only two people? The Bible never claimed that Adam and Eve were responsible for the entire human race.
when did god create all these other people?

why weren't they important enough to be mentioned?

I've studied physics, I've also studied quantum theory; you would benefit from an in-depth study of determinism, it's quite interesting. Once again, I wasn't referring to the earth in a separate way. . . . But my degrees came in the fields of philosophy and history, not science.
Firstly, let me point to the very beginning, where the the author does not specify the number of people that have been created; from a creationist viewpoint, where could the differences in body and skin color have come from, had they not been created differently? The Book of Gnesis also notes that Noah took two of every flesh - Moses was referring to humans when he said that, and he included Noah, Noah's family, and pairs humans who bore distinct physical characteristics, different from others; I don't recall the word "animal" being used.

Sorry for the typos - a long day.
You did point out earlier that it isn't possible that one male and one female could have been indirectly responsible for the current population.

I've studied physics, I've also studied quantum theory; you would benefit from an in-depth study of determinism, it's quite interesting. Once again, I wasn't referring to the earth in a separate way. . . . But my degrees came in the fields of philosophy and history, not science.
Firstly, let me point to the very beginning, where the the author does not specify the number of people that have been created; from a creationist viewpoint, where could the differences in body and skin color have come from, had they not been created differently? The Book of Gnesis also notes that Noah took two of every flesh - Moses was referring to humans when he said that, and he included Noah, Noah's family, and pairs humans who bore distinct physical characteristics, different from others; I don't recall the word "animal" being used.



different skin color came from people evolving because they came from different parts of the world- for example, peoples near the equator where its really hot developed dark skin. thats why, say british, are so white- not nearly as much sun.

Imagine the following:

A man and a woman marry and have 8 kids. We'll say 4 boys and 4 girls.
7 of them are heterosexual, marry, and have kids.
The 8th is homosexual, and instead of having kids, helps raise his/her siblings/their kids, thus ensuring more survive.
Voila, more genes passed on.

There is a flaw in your logic. Any case like that (If homosexuality is genetic) would mean that we would get an ever dwindling number of homosexuals. The numbers would start off towards the begining of human history as high and lower down throught. Yet we are seeing now (Since the dawn of postmodernism I might add) a massive increase in the number of self claimed homosexuals. Since it occoured at the same time postmodernism began, I should think that that is enough of a reason to atribute it as a sociological factor rather than a genetic one.

did you ever in your life choose who you are attracted to?

did you sit there and look at a woman and say to yourself "now, should i be attracted to her or not?" i highly doubt that you ever have.

you're still thinking of homosexuality as actions, as the act of engaging in sex. it's not. it is attraction.

Oh lets not be stupid shall we. Of course it's not a consious choice. My point was that it is possible for people to choose between the two. If it isnt genetic (which I have proved it isn't) then it must be sociological and enviromental. Ergo it can be changed by being in a diffrent enviroment. You can be pre-disposed to sin by being in a certian enviroment. If you were brought up in an anarchic African state then you would know that you had to steel things and such as that was normal to survive. Of course there you have a choice. You could attempt to leave and head for another country or you could try to set up a legitamte business and pay for your food and clothes. Sin is a choice in all cases, so is homosexuality

There is a flaw in your logic. Any case like that (If homosexuality is genetic) would mean that we would get an ever dwindling number of homosexuals. The numbers would start off towards the begining of human history as high and lower down throught. Yet we are seeing now (Since the dawn of postmodernism I might add) a massive increase in the number of self claimed homosexuals. Since it occoured at the same time postmodernism began, I should think that that is enough of a reason to atribute it as a sociological factor rather than a genetic one.
Is it possible it is a bit of both?

There is a flaw in your logic. Any case like that (If homosexuality is genetic) would mean that we would get an ever dwindling number of homosexuals. The numbers would start off towards the begining of human history as high and lower down throught. Yet we are seeing now (Since the dawn of postmodernism I might add) a massive increase in the number of self claimed homosexuals. Since it occoured at the same time postmodernism began, I should think that that is enough of a reason to atribute it as a sociological factor rather than a genetic one.

Umm there is a flaw in your logic because intolerance to the behavior in this case would actually select for it if there is any sort of genetic component. Flaw number two is to assume the so called massive increase in self-proclaimed homosexuals corellates to the an increase of homosexually oriented individuals instead of post-modern tolerance.

different skin color came from people evolving because they came from different parts of the world- for example, peoples near the equator where its really hot developed dark skin. thats why, say british, are so white- not nearly as much sun.
But. oh noes! Christians don't believe in evolution! :p

There is a flaw in your logic. Any case like that (If homosexuality is genetic) would mean that we would get an ever dwindling number of homosexuals. The numbers would start off towards the begining of human history as high and lower down throught. Yet we are seeing now (Since the dawn of postmodernism I might add) a massive increase in the number of self claimed homosexuals. Since it occoured at the same time postmodernism began, I should think that that is enough of a reason to atribute it as a sociological factor rather than a genetic one.
Did you miss my post about non-Mendelian gentetics, or did you just choose to ignore it? It's likely that there are complex gene-environment (particularly intra-uterine) interactions that can trigger homosexuality. Therefore the genes could be passed on through straight people. You might have some "gay genes!" :eek:

And of course, some gay people have kids. And I don't mean through IVF or anything. This was probably mroe true in the past, where people were expected to marry and have kids. They would have repressed their true sexuality.

If it isnt genetic (which I have proved it isn't)

No you haven't, unless by chance you're some research scientist who has decoded and interpreted human DNA before anyone else. :rolleyes:

No you haven't, unless by chance you're some research scientist who has decoded and interpreted human DNA before anyone else.
It's funny how he thinks he knows what the world's best scientists don't yet know.

It's funny how he thinks he knows what the world's best scientists don't yet know.

God whispered it in his ear. 0_o

then if you're saying that it is genetics, then it's not a Sin? but if it's learned it is?

I think this discussion belongs on a "Is homosexuality genetic?" thread. :confused:

Umm there is a flaw in your logic because intolerance to the behavior in this case would actually select for it if there is any sort of genetic component. Flaw number two is to assume the so called massive increase in self-proclaimed homosexuals corellates to the an increase of homosexually oriented individuals instead of post-modern tolerance.

Well perhaps you could explain why since the 1970's there has been a massive increasce in the number of people claiming to be homosexual? It cant just happen. If it is genetic (Which I have proven that it cant be) then we would expect the numbers either to decrease stedyly from the begining of human history onwards or to remain constant throught. Since nethier of these facts are true I suggest you come up with another explination. If it is to do with postmodern tollerance then that suggests that homosexuality is just a sociological phonominon

then if you're saying that it is genetics, then it's not a Sin? but if it's learned it is?

I think this discussion belongs on a "Is homosexuality genetic?" thread. :confused:

Even if it is Genetic (which it is not) then it is still possible to overcome. God makes sure that the devil cannot tempt us beyond our means. We could proberbly overcome it still. I dont know how but it would be possible.

Well perhaps you could explain why since the 1970's there has been a massive increasce in the number of people claiming to be homosexual?
Because people have (generally :rolleyes: ) become more accepting towards homosexual/bi/transgendered people. Therefore they may feel more comfortable being "out."

Well perhaps you could explain why since the 1970's there has been a massive increasce in the number of people claiming to be homosexual? It cant just happen. If it is genetic (Which I have proven that it cant be) then we would expect the numbers either to decrease stedyly from the begining of human history onwards or to remain constant throught. Since nethier of these facts are true I suggest you come up with another explination. If it is to do with postmodern tollerance then that suggests that homosexuality is just a sociological phonominon


You fail to account for the fact that the 1960's and 70's were a "liberating" time in human sexuality..in america at least, and throughout them people who would normally have stayed in the closet came out. All your argument proves is that as tolerance for it increased (for example you wouldnt get strung up or burned at the stake for admitting it) people became more willing to admit they were gay. Many gay people did in fact enter into hetero marriages and have children because its simply what was done. Hell even in ancient rome they had like six kinds of love, one of which could only be shared by men for one another.

May i ask why you used the word "Overcome" as if Homosexuality is some sort of horrid STD?

Even if it is Genetic (which it is not)
WHY IS IT NOT. EXPLAIN. And, because I think so and refuse to address anyone else's explanation is NOT a valid answer!!

God makes sure that the devil cannot tempt us beyond our means. We could proberbly overcome it still. I dont know how but it would be possible.
How can something genetic be sinful? I'm tall, that's sinful. That's ridiculous. And are you one of those people who advocates abstinence for homosexuals? ugh.

There is more evidence for criminal behaviour being genetic than there is for homosexual. Just because at your lowest form as an animal you are more genetically prone to a certain behaviour, does not mean that it is one that should be accepted by all and acted upon.

You fail to account for the fact that the 1960's and 70's were a "liberating" time in human sexuality..in america at least, and throughout them people who would normally have stayed in the closet came out. All your argument proves is that as tolerance for it increased (for example you wouldnt get strung up or burned at the stake for admitting it) people became more willing to admit they were gay. Many gay people did in fact enter into hetero marriages and have children because its simply what was done. Hell even in ancient rome they had like six kinds of love, one of which could only be shared by men for one another.

Thats exactly my point. The 1960's/70's were a liberating time. They were the ages of postmodernism's rise. Since then we have seen the decline in the church, the rise in marriage breakdown, and the rise of the number of homosexuals. Now people have been born since those times and have become homosexual who proberbly would not have if that hadn't happened. Homosexuality is something which is fashionable now, it is somehow good to be seen as diffrent. The curch, when pointing out that it is a sin, were simply dismissed as being stuck in the past. If (and I stress If) homosexuality was genetic then the numbers would either be the same thorught or dwindle from the begining of human history to now (or later) they would not fluctuate with socological change. That would imply that it is sociological and enviromental, not genetic.

So you're now saying it is "Sinful" to be different? Ok. I wear a pink tie-dyed shirt. In your world, i am going to hell. And on the genetic homosexuality topic, if there IS a quote unquote "Gay Gene" you are foprgetting the possibility of it being dormant in the Father or Mother, like Sickle-Cell Anaemia.

(Not saying homosexuality is a disease, just staying that it is possible. :) )

Well perhaps you could explain why since the 1970's there has been a massive increasce in the number of people claiming to be homosexual? It cant just happen. If it is genetic (Which I have proven that it cant be) then we would expect the numbers either to decrease stedyly from the begining of human history onwards or to remain constant throught. Since nethier of these facts are true I suggest you come up with another explination. If it is to do with postmodern tollerance then that suggests that homosexuality is just a sociological phonominon

Did I not clearly explain the difference between sexual orientation and identifying oneself as being homosexual etc.? Prior to the 1970's IT WAS ESSENTIALLY ILLEGAL TO BE HOMOSEXUAL AND IT WAS CONSIDERED A SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS. Try to admit guilt to that!

Again, you haven't proved diddly squat and in my eyes you appear to not understand even basic biology, ecology specifically and most of all, gene theory. I don't feel like writing a thesis for you but I'd be intersted in seeing yours. ;)

WHY IS IT NOT. EXPLAIN. And, because I think so and refuse to address anyone else's explanation is NOT a valid answer!!


It cant be genetic because the gene would be self killing. Once passed on, the gay gene would then create a situation where it could no longer be passed on. Which would mean the numbers we are seing now make no sense. Logic dictates it would start off towards the begining of human history as high and then dwindle towards nothingness now. If it is more complex than a single gene, then it would be expected to see a continuous number of the population being gay. But that is not what we see. We see a sudden rise from the 1970's/60's onwards. Genetics don't take society into account. A gene doesnt say "Oh society is against this, i better stay dorment" and then when its ok, decides to activate, it is there all the time.


How can something genetic be sinful? I'm tall, that's sinful. That's ridiculous. And are you one of those people who advocates abstinence for homosexuals? ugh.


It has been suggested that Kleptomania is genetic. Are you going to tell me steeling is not a sin.

So you're now saying it is "Sinful" to be different? Ok. I wear a pink tie-dyed shirt. In your world, i am going to hell.

You misunderstand. I am using the postmodernism arguement to prove homosexuality is not genetic as it suddenly came on the rise at the time of postmodernism. Gene's do not react to society, they cant.

There is more evidence for criminal behaviour being genetic than there is for homosexual.

To be fair there is as little "genetic" evidence for heterosexual behavior.

It cant be genetic because the gene would be self killing. Once passed on, the gay gene would then create a situation where it could no longer be passed on. Which would mean the numbers we are seing now make no sense. Logic dictates it would start off towards the begining of human history as high and then dwindle towards nothingness now. If it is more complex than a single gene, then it would be expected to see a continuous number of the population being gay. But that is not what we see. We see a sudden rise from the 1970's/60's onwards. Genetics don't take society into account. A gene doesnt say "Oh society is against this, i better stay dorment" and then when its ok, decides to activate, it is there all the time.

What we're saying is the fallacy in your argument is thus: We have no reliable way of knowing how many people were gay prior to the sixtys and seventies, as they kept it carefully hidden to avoid (often lethal) persecution. Therefore, your argument that theres an actual RISE in population of gays cannot be supported. We dont know if the number coming out in the sixties or seventies is a rise..a decline thats made open or what? We can theorize but have no way to say for sure. As well...genes can be recessive...were homosexuality a recessive gene it would only show up actively every so often, but EVERYONE could be a carrier of it by now.

Maybe in a fashion sense tho the 70's nostalga patrol may save you. Tho I shouldn't talk, I have a Pink Tie-Dyed shirt. ;)

The term sin is not being different but going against a religon law, guidline or order proclaimed by God. God's First Convenant forbade man to lie with man as he would with a woman. His Second Covenant would be revieled after reading the Bible and praying. I've been in arguments with some Christians who believe that all of the First Covenant is Null and Void (thus Homosexuality is not a sin) while others say that their hearts and souls tell them that only some of the First Covenant is removed.

Gene's do not react to society, they cant.

...oh really? (http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/2001/vol4/gatherer_d.html)

What we're saying is the fallacy in your argument is thus: We have no reliable way of knowing how many people were gay prior to the sixtys and seventies, as they kept it carefully hidden to avoid (often lethal) persecution. Therefore, your argument that theres an actual RISE in population of gays cannot be supported. We dont know if the number coming out in the sixties or seventies is a rise..a decline thats made open or what? We can theorize but have no way to say for sure. As well...genes can be recessive...were homosexuality a recessive gene it would only show up actively every so often, but EVERYONE could be a carrier of it by now.

Yes but what about those born since the 1970's and who went on to become homosexual. Surely it can be proven that there was a rise in their sort which is disproportianate to the suposed number of people with the 'gene'. And if it is a gene, then it would be fairly obvious who is and isn't homosexual as homosexual behavior would be forced into them. Granted so would hetrosexual behavior, by society but they would still become clear as they acted in various ways. And still no one has disproved my point regarding the gene being self killing. A gene is passed down, which, when activated, creates a situation whereby it can never be passed down agian. If it is a gene then it would have been wiped out by now, or be so low as for us not to notice it. At the very least even in the postmodern era we would expect to see a drop in the number of homosexuals, but we dont. Its increasing, and if it is genetic then how would it increase?

To be fair there is as little "genetic" evidence for heterosexual behavior.

Oh no of course not. Well aside from the pheromones, the hormones, the design of the human reproductive system...(should I go on)

Neo, did you ACTUALLY read what you quoted? Freeoria was trying to say what i was. The Gene, as you call it, could be recesssive, and therefore no-one would act upon it, as it is dormant.

Homosexuality is something which is fashionable now, it is somehow good to be seen as diffrent. .

Can I just say... WHAT A LOAD OF B******T, homosexuality is not fashionalble, sexuality of any sort is not a fashion and I am actually offended that you put it like that. Many people don't choose to be gay, I know I don't my life would be a lot more simple if I wernt which is why so many people hide their secrets, most people dont know about me but he inner conflict is so painful, especially when I am only 16 and very uncertain.
I homosexuality is a fashion, then it is a fad and fads disappear after a year or two. Homosexuals will not stop being homosexual, because that is what they are its not just something we can turn on or off... it would not be sexuality if we could.
I think you should rethink your views and stop speaking utter crap!

Oh no of course not. Well aside from the pheromones, the hormones, the design of the human reproductive system...(should I go on)

Assuming gender traits are hard linked to sexual behavior... yes do go on.

Treddie, honest question, did you choose your first Homosexual encounter? or was it forced on you (basically you saw someone and your heart starts beating fast and other signs of love/lust vrs, you knew someone for a long time and found that you had feelings for this person after knowing him/her or a while.)

and if it's so hard on your life, did you really try to change? or did you just go into the closet?

Others please don't judge the answers, I am not Homosexual but I will admit I had Homosexual encounters that did leave me unconfortable to the point were I don't pursue them... [shudder]

I dont understand your definiton of "choosing" my homosexual encounter.

IS IT A SIN TO BE TRUE TO ONES SELF??
IF IT IS A SIN THEN ARN'T WE ALL SINNERS?
WE AT THE DOMINION OF TWIGDOM ADVOCATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF TEMPERANCE AND REASONABLY PRICED LOVE. :fluffle: :fluffle:

Oh no of course not. Well aside from the pheromones, the hormones, the design of the human reproductive system...(should I go on)


Phermones just as many studies have discredited as the human olfactry system not being sensitive enough to pick up.

Hormones, well...they urge people to move on whatever theyre attracted to. Homosexuals have them too.

The design youve got me on...someone has to reproduce the species...but when did that become such a necessary thing..we arent quite dying out here.

I dont understand your definiton of "choosing" my homosexual encounter.

Uhmm basically you knew the person for a while and found that you were more than comfortable with him/her and got into a mutually consenting relationship similar to boyfriend/girlfriend. Not a "love at first sight" senario.

Damn I Hate Politically correct language :headbang:

IS IT A SIN TO BE TRUE TO ONES SELF??
IF IT IS A SIN THEN ARN'T WE ALL SINNERS?
WE AT THE DOMINION OF TWIGDOM ADVOCATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF TEMPERANCE AND REASONABLY PRICED LOVE. :fluffle: :fluffle:

:confused: "Reasonably Priced?"

:D can I see a price list? ;)

ok, I sorta think I know what your asking.

I have never been in love, I have never had lust for a girl but I have for a guy and currently do, I have never been interested in seeing "bits" of girls as much as I have for guys. I like to think I have tried to change but really I havnt, I am still living in the closet, I have tried to pursue female relationsips but with my apperance I dont have much to aim at.
I have had male relationships and after each "date" I dont wish to do anything again, I feel bad for what I am doing and feel as though I am wrong but I cant helpmy sexual frustration and knowing guys that are the same of me, its the easy option.

no, I have never had love at first site

Neo Cannen, while I refuse to plunge into the psychological mess, your point has some weight to it.

Yes, R00 . . . many people consider that theory to be accurate.

Thanks for your honesty Treddle, hope you do find someone who will make you feel complete and will help you out of your fustration. :)

Yes but what about those born since the 1970's and who went on to become homosexual. Surely it can be proven that there was a rise in their sort which is disproportianate to the suposed number of people with the 'gene'. And if it is a gene, then it would be fairly obvious who is and isn't homosexual as homosexual behavior would be forced into them. Granted so would hetrosexual behavior, by society but they would still become clear as they acted in various ways. And still no one has disproved my point regarding the gene being self killing. A gene is passed down, which, when activated, creates a situation whereby it can never be passed down agian. If it is a gene then it would have been wiped out by now, or be so low as for us not to notice it. At the very least even in the postmodern era we would expect to see a drop in the number of homosexuals, but we dont. Its increasing, and if it is genetic then how would it increase?
Genes that influence sexuality are not so simple as the brown eye/blue eye gene. Many characteristics, such as height, musical talent, etc, depend on multiple genes and gene interaction. The phrase "gay gene" is silly.

homosexuality isn't a sin

and whoever thinks so is an ass :D

homosexuality isn't a sin

and whoever thinks so is an ass :D

Eloquent and to the point... however, is there any facts on which you baise your point or are you just excercising your fingers?

On homosexuality being a sin... not the other one...

Genes that influence sexuality are not so simple as the brown eye/blue eye gene. Many characteristics, such as height, musical talent, etc, depend on multiple genes and gene interaction. The phrase "gay gene" is silly.
I've tried and tried and tried to say this, but he's not listening. :headbang:

Being Homosexual shouldn't be a sin... it is a way of expressing your induviduality..I think to say anything that people cant help doing or feeling or wanting to be should not be a sin...

Okay, you got me started. I see nothing but the bashing of people who have a geniune belief system here, and nothing but a bunch of wannabe confused college students trying to make arguments against that geniune belief system. Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for. First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. Another thing: If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.

Okay, and another thing. It's not a sin to analyze biblical interpretation. It IS a sin to find passages and use them however you'd like. The passages that Endless Rehearsals thinks is clever, is really a misuse of those passages, and is taken out of context. Leviticus is in the Old Testament *much of which* was outdated with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that it is only the *third* book in the Bible, much of which is outdated within the Old Testament itself. Most of these wannabe clever tidbits are from Leviticus, the other from Exodus. Oh, and Exodus is just after Genesis.

Another thing. It was even said that the government put itself into marriage. 'Nuff said. Marriage was sanctimonius, and still is, to most cultures and configurations of beliefs around the world. The government, on its very own, decided to make its own benefits. The government decided. Tell me where it says in our great document where the government has the freedom to decide how sanctimonius or can decide the necessary benefits of a marriage.

Last two things. Sodom and Gamorrah have nothing to do with this conversation. Don't let people interfere or blur the facts. And hypocrisy is "Pretending to be what one is not"-Webster's New World.
Hypocrisy is what a person is when they argue on the internet about something they pretend to be educated about. That is all.

Okay, boy, it's smiting time. And I'm talking the heavy striking of ego here, because I for one would not lay either a finger or a rod on you, all things considered, especially my aversion to committing the abomination of having relations with livestock that don't include a knife and fork.

Assuming there even IS a God, and that's a very broad assumption, It did not create woman to be the plaything or slave of man. Read your own dogma. It took the rib of Adam to create Eve, citing that It did so because it did not want her to be either lesser than him or more than him, but his EQUAL and his HELPMATE.

Let's move on, shall we? "Go forth and multiply, and people the land" was an initial directive to succeed as a species. When your young and your mate have high mortality rates, and life is so harsh and brutal that it requires a large, healthy brood's entire combined effort to simply perpetuate the species, this is a fairly sensible and reasonable directive. However, subsequent directives either weren't listened to or just outright discarded without being recorded. If It were to give a directive today, it would be "quit breeding, you stupid knobs, you've overpopulated your ecosystem and are going to multiply your way to extinction." Not that a good number of you are known for being all that strict in your adherence to all of the directives It gave you and have developed a case selective deafness to the amendments given to you by Its Son that can only be rivalled by that of the average 12-year-old child.

On to the sin of twisting, spindoctoring and mutilating biblical passages to suit oneself. Pot. Kettle. Black. Get the picture? I can't even see you and I can smell the sin rolling off you. Your glass house is so full of holes you need to invest in DuPont to cover the sheet plastic expenses so people don't start thinking you're homeless.

And let's trot out marriage, shall we? MOST of us with access to modern amenties that allow us to access the net and take part in this conversation are living in societies where marriage is more of a legal institution than a sacred one. You don't have to be part of any religion to be married by law and in THIS country there is a very clearly worded forbiddance of the merger of religion and government. Therefore, NO religious dogma has any place in determining the legality of marriages of ANY kind in the eyes of the state. Keep your unconstituional paws off the rights of the people, you anachronistic primate. Thank you. Please drive through.

Not even going to dignify the rest of your hypocritcal vomit with a response.

And oh yeah... you're going to Hell. I'm going to point and laugh for aeons when I see you there.

If the problem with homosexuality is that you can't procreate, surely the use of contraception, and even abstinence, is just as bad.

And presumably you're all for the technology that could allow lesbian couples to have children using genetic material from both parents?

Genes that influence sexuality are not so simple as the brown eye/blue eye gene. Many characteristics, such as height, musical talent, etc, depend on multiple genes and gene interaction. The phrase "gay gene" is silly.

Ok so its complicated. Fine. That still doesnt explain how those complicated genes survive. How does a 'set of genes' which stopps themselves from being passed down continue. Why are there homosexuals now if there is any genetic trate that encourages it. Like I said you would expect to see a population prymiad of Gay people which starts out large and then dwindles down to nothing if indeed homosexaulity is genetic AT ALL. But what we are seeing is a rise in the numbers of homosexuals, why is this if its genetic? Answer, it cant be. It must therefore be purely enviromental.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Even if that were true, I still wouldn't feel "guilty" like a lot of you would have me. I'd just be even more convinced that this "god" you worship is an asshole.

Assuming there even IS a God, and that's a very broad assumption, It did not create woman to be the plaything or slave of man. Read your own dogma. It took the rib of Adam to create Eve, citing that It did so because it did not want her to be either lesser than him or more than him, but his EQUAL and his HELPMATE.


If you are assuming there is no God then you shouldn't be on this forum. This forum is to explain why Christians believe this is a sin and to justify their belifiefs. And read the dogma post-fall

Genesis 3: 16 "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you"

Men, it points out, would always rule over women. That is one of the many results of the fall.

If you are assuming there is no God then you shouldn't be on this forum. This forum is to explain why Christians believe this is a sin and to justify their belifiefs.
I don't know about justify the beliefs. Why should Christians have to? They believe in an all-powerful God who gives them rules for their own well being.. why should the lower intelligence of humans have to create concrete justification for other humans?

I don't totally understand all the rules. I don't totally understand electricity. I'm not going to stick my fingers in a live socket whilst shouting 'ELECTRICITY, I QUESTION YOUR POWER!!'

Ok actually I did once so er.. yeah.. don't do that.

And presumably you're all for the technology that could allow lesbian couples to have children using genetic material from both parents?
of course the homophobes will oppose all such technology, though they whole-heartedly support technology that helps infertile heterosexual couples conceive. they don't mind when infertile heterosexuals go against God's will by using technology to thwart the limitations God imposed on them, but they will pitch a fit if homosexuals are ever allowed to have the same opportunities available.

of course the homophobes will oppose all such technology, though they whole-heartedly support technology that helps infertile heterosexual couples conceive. they don't mind when infertile heterosexuals go against God's will by using technology to thwart the limitations God imposed on them, but they will pitch a fit if homosexuals are ever allowed to have the same opportunities available.

Firstly I am not a homophobe. I am not scared of them at all. Secondly, a man and a women having a child is what God intended for children to be born, not homosexual couples of the same sex. Nowhere in the bible is that supported. Using technology to the end of a gay couple having a child is an insult to how God developed us. That is like saying "We don't need you, we sin and were going to reep all the benefits of not sinning but still sin"

I don't know about justify the beliefs. Why should Christians have to? They believe in an all-powerful God who gives them rules for their own well being.. why should the lower intelligence of humans have to create concrete justification for other humans?


When I say justify, I mean provide the biblical evidence for. And for some on this forum, that doesnt seem to be good enough, so I provide other evidence. I dont think I have to justify it but I do for the benefit of those on the forum.

Ok so its complicated. Fine. That still doesnt explain how those complicated genes survive. How does a 'set of genes' which stopps themselves from being passed down continue. Why are there homosexuals now if there is any genetic trate that encourages it. Like I said you would expect to see a population prymiad of Gay people which starts out large and then dwindles down to nothing if indeed homosexaulity is genetic AT ALL. But what we are seeing is a rise in the numbers of homosexuals, why is this if its genetic? Answer, it cant be. It must therefore be purely enviromental.

You obviously do not understand molecular genetics. Maybe Mendelian, but then of course those are only used to teach the basic these days. A gene which in its heterozygous form that confers a benefit or does not cause appreciable harm will subsist in the population even if the homozygous form does prevent its transmission. Just look at the gene for sickle cell anemia or for hemophilia. Heterozygotes of SC are benefited while heterozygotes of hemophilia are not harmed. However, being a homozygote for either (up until the last half a cnetury of so) meant severe unliklihood of passing on genes.

Stick to the religious end of things whihc I think you probably understand better than I and leave the science to those of us who have, I don't know, actually studied it.

If you are assuming there is no God then you shouldn't be on this forum. This forum is to explain why Christians believe this is a sin and to justify their belifiefs. And read the dogma post-fall


Then why did you continue the discussion of genetics? Go off on tangents when it suits you but when it doesn't obvioulsy isn't not meant to be discussed here? Its a common tactic, one I will be honest enough to admit I've used before when a conversation bores me.


Genesis 3: 16 "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you"

Men, it points out, would always rule over women. That is one of the many results of the fall.

And later on the Bible admonishes husbands to treat their wives as equals. Which verse is of your choice?

Firstly I am not a homophobe. I am not scared of them at all.

Just so you know. Homophobia is not about fear. Its about hating. Phobias, while often misconstrued as fears, are better defined as hating without logical cause, reason, or exposure.

So, you are probably a homophobe--unless you were molested by a gay man and then I could probably see a justification in your feelings.

Just so you know. Homophobia is not about fear. Its about hating. Phobias, while often misconstrued as fears, are better defined as hating without logical cause, reason, or exposure.


I am not a homophobe. I dont hate gay's. I think what they are doing is wrong but I dont act on it to them. I don't insult them or shout at them or do anything to them because they are gay. You want to know why. Because homosexuality is a sin. Like any other. If I were to hate and shout at sinners, I would have to hate myself too. Sin is sin, for better or worse they are all alike. It is against God.

You obviously do not understand molecular genetics. Maybe Mendelian, but then of course those are only used to teach the basic these days. A gene which in its heterozygous form that confers a benefit or does not cause appreciable harm will subsist in the population even if the homozygous form does prevent its transmission. Just look at the gene for sickle cell anemia or for hemophilia. Heterozygotes of SC are benefited while heterozygotes of hemophilia are not harmed. However, being a homozygote for either (up until the last half a cnetury of so) meant severe unliklihood of passing on genes.


I agree and understand. Hetrozygous recessive charitersitcs can last for a long time and be passed on. What that doesnt explain though is how now we are seing a rise all of a sudden. And logically, if the homozygos form of the homosexuality 'gene' is found in a person and they become homosexual, then they can no longer pass on their genes. So you would still see a dwindling number, it would not rise or stay the same (unlike sickle cell amnia because that does not stop you reproducing).

Then why did you continue the discussion of genetics? Go off on tangents when it suits you but when it doesn't obvioulsy isn't not meant to be discussed here? Its a common tactic, one I will be honest enough to admit I've used before when a conversation bores me.


I continued the discussion of genetics because I was proving a point with it. All sins are choices, you can choose to or not. There maybe several influences on that choice, but it is still a choice. People were saying "How can it be a sin if it is genetic and forced on you from birth" and I was refuting that.


And later on the Bible admonishes husbands to treat their wives as equals. Which verse is of your choice?


The verse is a preminition, not a statement. God wants husbands and wives to treet one another as equals but knew that it was not going to happen as much after sin entered the world.

:Finger: for saying that auful word "Homo" They should be called "Dead People"

:) HAVE A NICE DAY :)

I may well be in total wrongness; but I thought I saw other passages in the Bible (from other books), where homosexuality was admonished.

If I am understanding the word admonish correctly then yes there are

Romans 1: 18-27

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And One Corinthians 6: 9-10

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

I am not a homophobe. I dont hate gay's. I think what they are doing is wrong but I dont act on it to them. I don't insult them or shout at them or do anything to them because they are gay. You want to know why. Because homosexuality is a sin. Like any other. If I were to hate and shout at sinners, I would have to hate myself too. Sin is sin, for better or worse they are all alike. It is against God.

I'll at least give you credit for not trying to force your views on other. I wonder how you feel about governmental recognition of gay marriage? I'm sure you've spoken about it at some point, but I'm not reading back over all those pages.

I agree and understand. Hetrozygous recessive charitersitcs can last for a long time and be passed on. What that doesnt explain though is how now we are seing a rise all of a sudden. And logically, if the homozygos form of the homosexuality 'gene' is found in a person and they become homosexual, then they can no longer pass on their genes. So you would still see a dwindling number, it would not rise or stay the same (unlike sickle cell amnia because that does not stop you reproducing).

Well, actually you can be homozygous for a particular trait at a particular locus and still not show that trait. That's because there are way more genes involved than simply one "gay gene"

Also, I don't think there is a rise in the relative number of homosexuals. I think what we are seeing are two things: 1. There is a rise in the number of humans on earth. This increases the number of homosexuals, but not their percentage in the population. 2. Society has become much more tolerant and more homosexuals are comfortable "coming out". They've always been around, but just not made themselves known. Some have lived lies and been miserable for years, all out of fear of what society would do them. Can you blame them? When they could lose their jobs, their families, everything else they work for and hold dear? Heck, they could even lose their lives.

A third factor results from a combination of one and two. Let's say homosexuals make up 10% of the population, but lets also say that for an organized and vocal movement to begin having success, there is a critical mass. Until that 10% of the population reaches say 100 million people, its not loud enough to be heard. So it took increases in the population and changes in the way society views homosexuality before we began to see a large increase in open homosexuals that were ready to identify themselves as gay people. They were always there, in the same percentages, but they were in hiding and were unheard when they did come out.

I continued the discussion of genetics because I was proving a point with it. All sins are choices, you can choose to or not. There maybe several influences on that choice, but it is still a choice. People were saying "How can it be a sin if it is genetic and forced on you from birth" and I was refuting that.


So I assume you will be reconsidering that now that I've shown viable alternatives to your notions of genetics?



The verse is a preminition, not a statement. God wants husbands and wives to treet one another as equals but knew that it was not going to happen as much after sin entered the world.

And yet that second verse occurs much later. And shouldn't mankind choose what's right anyway? Why tell women to basically be their husbands slave and then later say otherwise? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

If I am understanding the word admonish correctly then yes there are

Romans 1: 18-27

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


So let's say that homosexuality is proven to be genetic (just for arguments sake) and that there is no choice in that matter, its simply the way you are. What is natural for a homosexual would not be attraction to the opposite gender but attraction to the same gender. Therefore homosexuals would not be "exchanging" their natural relations for unnatural ones. They would simply be fulfilling them.



And One Corinthians 6: 9-10

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

I'm not really equipped to deal with this one very well. However, I do recall reading something on this to the extent of the original text was referring to the traditions of homosexual prostution that went on in Pagan temples (I coudl so be wrong here) and that this was to differentiate between early Christians and Pagans. Further, I have some personal issues with accepting the word of Paul. He just seems too anti-Jesus to me--not that he was opposed to Jesus persay, but that his writings seem to contradict the complete and unconditional love that Jesus expressed for the world and all its peoples.

And yet that second verse occurs much later. And shouldn't mankind choose what's right anyway? Why tell women to basically be their husbands slave and then later say otherwise? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You dont understand. Genesis 3: 16 was a result of the fall. The later verse (I cant see it, can you please quote) was, from what you are telling me, proberbly God saying what he wanted them to do. God did not want for Genesis 3: 16 to be true, but it was. There is a load of stuff that God didnt want to happen after the fall but it did. God was just telling them what would happen, he didnt say that he liked it.

You dont understand. Genesis 3: 16 was a result of the fall. The later verse (I cant see it, can you please quote) was, from what you are telling me, proberbly God saying what he wanted them to do. God did not want for Genesis 3: 16 to be true, but it was. There is a load of stuff that God didnt want to happen after the fall but it did. God was just telling them what would happen, he didnt say that he liked it.

I'll look up the verse later. I'm about to run out the door but wanted to respond really quickly. I've never bought this whole "things God doesn't want to happen still do" crap. It's contradictory with the thought of an omniscent/omnipresent/all-powerful being. Either God isn't all powerful or he has no problem with human suffering.

I'm not really equipped to deal with this one very well. However, I do recall reading something on this to the extent of the original text was referring to the traditions of homosexual prostution that went on in Pagan temples (I coudl so be wrong here) and that this was to differentiate between early Christians and Pagans. Further, I have some personal issues with accepting the word of Paul. He just seems too anti-Jesus to me--not that he was opposed to Jesus persay, but that his writings seem to contradict the complete and unconditional love that Jesus expressed for the world and all its peoples.

Jesus does love everyone. He loves homosexuals just as much as everyone else. People have got hooked on homosexuality being a sin as strange because of the rise of postmodernism and everyone thinking "Its good that you believe something as long as your sincere". Its not like that, homosexuality is a sin like any other, and people should remember that Jesus came to earth for sinners. He still hated sin, but the sinners he came to save. And where exactly does Paul's writings contridict Jesus teaching? Directly I mean, where does Paul say one thing on a subject and Jesus say another?

Well, actually you can be homozygous for a particular trait at a particular locus and still not show that trait. That's because there are way more genes involved than simply one "gay gene"

Also, I don't think there is a rise in the relative number of homosexuals. I think what we are seeing are two things: 1. There is a rise in the number of humans on earth. This increases the number of homosexuals, but not their percentage in the population. 2. Society has become much more tolerant and more homosexuals are comfortable "coming out". They've always been around, but just not made themselves known. Some have lived lies and been miserable for years, all out of fear of what society would do them. Can you blame them? When they could lose their jobs, their families, everything else they work for and hold dear? Heck, they could even lose their lives.

A third factor results from a combination of one and two. Let's say homosexuals make up 10% of the population, but lets also say that for an organized and vocal movement to begin having success, there is a critical mass. Until that 10% of the population reaches say 100 million people, its not loud enough to be heard. So it took increases in the population and changes in the way society views homosexuality before we began to see a large increase in open homosexuals that were ready to identify themselves as gay people. They were always there, in the same percentages, but they were in hiding and were unheard when they did come out.

Yes, but with more Gay's comming out, there are less people breading. Arego any "Complicated" genes are not passed on. So we should be seeing a drop in the numbers of gays but we are'nt, were seeing a rise. And furthermore, where we are seeing homosexual pride movements most is in places like America and Europe, countries with phonominally low birth rates. Ergo the numbers of Gays should not be increasing there but they are. And the other places where Gay's numbers are increasing are places with a large male only enviroment, China. Because it is seen as some sort of taboo to have a girl as your only child (the Chinesse one child policy) many girls are killed or abandoned at a young age and China has an ever growing population of single men. Or rather previously single, the Gay community there is massive. Are you going to tell me that that is genetic even distribution? Or enviromental factors affecting the situation

I'm not sure if it is genetic, envionmental or what (most likly a combination) but I do not believe homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to have. And I'm not sure how it is a sin per say any more then hetrosexuality. Honestly as a hetrosexual i do not see what the big deal is.

I'll look up the verse later. I'm about to run out the door but wanted to respond really quickly. I've never bought this whole "things God doesn't want to happen still do" crap. It's contradictory with the thought of an omniscent/omnipresent/all-powerful being. Either God isn't all powerful or he has no problem with human suffering.

I dont know how many time's I have delt with this for many diffrent people. It is obvioulsy something lots of people dont understand. God created the world, and when he created it, he gave us free will. He didnt want robots, worshiping him and doing everything right simply because it was hardwired into their minds. He wanted living, real people who would chose to love him. Adam and Eve didnt chose to love him, they sinned. Thus sin entered the world and the relationship we had with God was changed for ever. We were cut off from him. God is all powerful, he could stop all the bad things in the world happening. The reason he doesnt is that would make him an increadably bad father. Any parent knows that one of the things that children have to learn is to accept the concequences of their actions. We had to accept the concequences of our sin. People chose to go against God and so the world is not perfect. Do you want God to take your free will away from you, I know most people treasure the ability to control their own lives. I certainly do.

I'm not sure if it is genetic, envionmental or what (most likly a combination) but I do not believe homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to have. And I'm not sure how it is a sin per say any more then hetrosexuality. Honestly as a hetrosexual i do not see what the big deal is.

Go read the thread and then come back. In fact I would like to say that to a lot of people. Diffrent people are asking the same questions and so It would be a good idea for you to read the entire forum before you come out with something you thing is all intellegent and supreme.

I dont know how many time's I have delt with this for many diffrent people. It is obvioulsy something lots of people dont understand. God created the world, and when he created it, he gave us free will. He didnt want robots, worshiping him and doing everything right simply because it was hardwired into their minds. He wanted living, real people who would chose to love him. Adam and Eve didnt chose to love him, they sinned. Thus sin entered the world and the relationship we had with God was changed for ever. We were cut off from him. God is all powerful, he could stop all the bad things in the world happening. The reason he doesnt is that would make him an increadably bad father. Any parent knows that one of the things that children have to learn is to accept the concequences of their actions. We had to accept the concequences of our sin. People chose to go against God and so the world is not perfect. Do you want God to take your free will away from you, I know most people treasure the ability to control their own lives. I certainly do.

for the twenty bajillionth time, belief in an all powerful and all knowing deity is belief in a pre-ordained universe.

If God is all knowing, then he knows the future.
If God knows the future, then the future has already been decided
If God is all powerful and created the world, then everything has been pre-ordained by Him.
If God has pre-ordained the universe, then ALL things that happen, happen because he wanted it to happen.

Prove me wrong. Wait, actually, I already know you'll just ignore me...AGAIN.

If God is all knowing, then he knows the future.


So far so good, yes he does


If God knows the future, then the future has already been decided

If God is all powerful and created the world, then everything has been pre-ordained by Him.


Yes and no. You misunderstand decided. It may have been decided, but not by God. The best metaphor I made for it is that its like a video of a film. I may watch a video and know exactly whats going to happen if I watch it again. That doesnt mean I controlled what was on the tape. The people who made the TV show controled that. In the same way God knows the future but we are the ones who make the future. He doesnt control us, push us around like puppets. We make our own choices. Ok he knows how those choices will turn out, but that doesnt stop us chossing them. In the same way I know that if I watch that video again, I know that X may shoot Y but they still chose to do that.

I'm not sure if it is genetic, envionmental or what (most likly a combination) but I do not believe homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to have. And I'm not sure how it is a sin per say any more then hetrosexuality. Honestly as a hetrosexual i do not see what the big deal is.

Oh yes it IS a choice proven simply by the fact many Christian based psychiatrists offer unproven, potentially harmful, definitely unethical, statistically ineffective, treatment for a person's "lifestyle choice" religiously moral people find abnormal and sinful as interpreted by vague or contextual biblical passages (or something else).... much the same way left handed children at one were retrained to use the right hand due to a very obscure biblical passage about the evils of the left. Thankfully this seems to have moved into the political spectrum instead. Now go vote for Bush coz he's God's right hand man. :D

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...
Having read the bible, I don't recall there being any such passage regarding gay marriage. I'm pretty sure you couldn't show me one. Why? Because there is no passage in the bible forbidden gay marriage! There's a passage in Leviticus condemning gay sex, but it says nothing specific regarding marriage.

So... is it possible to be married without having sex? Ask any quadriplegic. It is.

What goes on between the sheets of any married couple is a matter between the person, their partner, and God, so long as those acts are consensual. Any law, created by people, in order to control purely private issues is an attempt to subjugate one group of people by another.

--XSG

dont know how many time's I have delt with this for many diffrent people. It is obvioulsy something lots of people dont understand. God created the world, and when he created it, he gave us free will. He didnt want robots, worshiping him and doing everything right simply because it was hardwired into their minds. He wanted living, real people who would chose to love him.

If he wanted people to choose to love him, then he wouldn't give them only two choices: heaven or hell. Thus, anyone who believes in him MUST "choose" to love him or they'll reap eternal damnation. I hardly call that a choice.

Adam and Eve didnt chose to love him, they sinned.

Simply because they disobeyed, it doesn't mean that they didn't love him.

Thus sin entered the world and the relationship we had with God was changed for ever. We were cut off from him.

The idea that all our punished for something two people hardly even remotely related to them did is absurd. Why wouldn't God just allow each person to choose whether to "fall" or not individually?

Yes, but with more Gay's comming out, there are less people breading. Arego any "Complicated" genes are not passed on. So we should be seeing a drop in the numbers of gays but we are'nt, were seeing a rise. And furthermore, where we are seeing homosexual pride movements most is in places like America and Europe, countries with phonominally low birth rates. Ergo the numbers of Gays should not be increasing there but they are. And the other places where Gay's numbers are increasing are places with a large male only enviroment, China. Because it is seen as some sort of taboo to have a girl as your only child (the Chinesse one child policy) many girls are killed or abandoned at a young age and China has an ever growing population of single men. Or rather previously single, the Gay community there is massive. Are you going to tell me that that is genetic even distribution? Or enviromental factors affecting the situation

I can't stay away, even when I should be studying. Just because more gays are coming out doesn't mean less people are breeding. There is nothing to show they were breeding all that much before. Further, for 10% of the population to be homozygous, that shows a VERY high rate that would be heterozygous as only 25% of the offspring of a heterzygous coupling would result in homosexuality while 50% were heterozygous heterosexuals--and that's assuming that pure Mendlian genettics occurs, which is almost never does.

I never said that it was purely genetic. Early environmental influences probably play a large role in the matter. Nothing as complex as human behavior is as simple as nature vs. nuture. It's both, inexplicably intertwined.

And by your own logic, assuming that the number of gays should be decreasing if its genetic (which again I hold that it shouldn't) then we could just be at the massive peak of homosexuality and in ten or twenty years we will see the numbers dwindle. Don't assume that we are after the peak if there is going to be one.

I appologize for not having the time to go through over 1300 posts here.

As far as it being a choice I do not see it as such. Granted their may be several factors (ie genetics, environment) and the like but does someone just choose to become gay I don't think so.

As for the moral arguement it seems from some of your other posts you are basing it on a biblical worldview. Am I correct? I'm curious as to what you wqould say to someone who does not necessarilly support a strict interpertation (though I admire jesus I am a buddhist)


Go read the thread and then come back. In fact I would like to say that to a lot of people. Diffrent people are asking the same questions and so It would be a good idea for you to read the entire forum before you come out with something you thing is all intellegent and supreme.

:sniper:
:mp5:

Sick F@kers

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

I'm an evolutionist and I whole-heartedly believe in marriage....at our level of the evolutionary game, finding a strong successful life-mate to produce and raise and foster a successful attitude and health level is vital to my purpose here. Marriage is simply the announcement to all those around that this particular female/male is spoken for, but it's vital nonetheless.

as far as why homosexuality is a sin....for the same reason that blacks were once considered less of a being than whites....they're different in shape, way, and/or form so they are to be feared and hated.

It's the sick sad truth....

So far so good, yes he does



Yes and no. You misunderstand decided. It may have been decided, but not by God. The best metaphor I made for it is that its like a video of a film. I may watch a video and know exactly whats going to happen if I watch it again. That doesnt mean I controlled what was on the tape. The people who made the TV show controled that. In the same way God knows the future but we are the ones who make the future. He doesnt control us, push us around like puppets. We make our own choices. Ok he knows how those choices will turn out, but that doesnt stop us chossing them. In the same way I know that if I watch that video again, I know that X may shoot Y but they still chose to do that.

That wasn't a good analogy when you first brought it up, and it still isn't now. If you're the one who made the tape, then you most certainly do have control over the events in the movie.

That wasn't a good analogy when you first brought it up, and it still isn't now. If you're the one who made the tape, then you most certainly do have control over the events in the movie.

And if you didn't make the tape, you have no control over it when you watch--therefore you are not omnipotent.

And if you didn't make the tape, you have no control over it when you watch--therefore you are not omnipotent.

Exactly.

And if you didn't make the tape, you have no control over it when you watch--therefore you are not omnipotent.

God does have the power but he doesnt use it. Why? Because he gave us free will and that is a holy gift and he doesnt want to tamper with it. If he let us live in a world where our actions (sins) have no concequence, then what kind of father would he be? He doesnt want a race of automatans just worshiping him because he made them that they would. He wants people to love him out of choice, which is what he has created. Yes my analogy may be flawed but its only an anaolgy, not the be all and end all.

Let me give you a story to explain this. Suposing I went swiming one day. I parked my car in the multi story and bought a ticket lasting an hour. I went swimming and enjoyed it so much that I had been there for 50 minutes and realised the car parking ticket was about to run out. So I rush out of the pool and get dressed quickly. I rush round the corner of the street to get to the multi story's entrence but in doing so I knock over and old women who cracks her head on the pavement and later dies from her injuries. Now what should God have done. Should he make me got dressed faster or slower so as to let the old women go past. Should he have made me more aware of the time so I did not rush. Should he have saved the old woman by letting her bag break her fall. Suposing he did that sort of thing on a regular basis throught the entire world in every smallest situation where something bad may happen. What sort of world would that be. Meaningless. Our actions would have no concequence because God would interviene on every smallest thing to make sure nothing bad happened. That would be like never growing up, our parents constantly covering for us. One day we would have to realise that our actions have concequences, but we would never know that if the world was like the one I described above. So why is the world bad, human descison to sin.

Having read the bible, I don't recall there being any such passage regarding gay marriage. I'm pretty sure you couldn't show me one. Why? Because there is no passage in the bible forbidden gay marriage! There's a passage in Leviticus condemning gay sex, but it says nothing specific regarding marriage.


No but there is a passage explaining what marriage is, Genesis 2: 24. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman out of love.

homosexuality is a sin because stupid conservatives say so..
i belive in that religion is personal..

If he wanted people to choose to love him, then he wouldn't give them only two choices: heaven or hell. Thus, anyone who believes in him MUST "choose" to love him or they'll reap eternal damnation. I hardly call that a choice.


Then how would he do it? Can you think of a better way? You dont have one chance to chose anyway, you have your entire life. Its not like God is standing there with a gun or something saying "Love me or I will send you to hell". If he had that mentality then why would he have sent Jesus. Jesus saved us all. We now can be with God forever. If it was a threat, then why did Jesus die?


Simply because they disobeyed, it doesn't mean that they didn't love him.


I agree, but disobediance does not come without concequence. In this case he had told them what the concequences were and they disobeyed.


The idea that all our punished for something two people hardly even remotely related to them did is absurd. Why wouldn't God just allow each person to choose whether to "fall" or not individually?

Can anyone here claim to have not "fallen" or sinned at any time. I know I cant.

homosexuality is a sin because stupid conservatives say so..


Can you please read the rest of the thread before making sweeping genralisations like that?

Can you please read the rest of the thread before making sweeping genralisations like that?

92 pages you must be joking!

if homosexuality would be a sin, then the syndrome of down(i hope this is the right ame in english) for example would be a sin too...

its just something with what you are born

92 pages you must be joking!

Well if the thread is that long then obviously there is more too it than just these "Stupid Conserveatives" ergo you shouldnt have genralised.

Well if the thread is that long then obviously there is more too it than just these "Stupid Conserveatives" ergo you shouldnt have genralised.

everyone generalises.. anyway thats true, 92 pages of comments.. *yawn* i'll just leave this thread alone then due to the fact that i'm lazy :rolleyes:

Then how would he do it? Can you think of a better way? You dont have one chance to chose anyway, you have your entire life. Its not like God is standing there with a gun or something saying "Love me or I will send you to hell". If he had that mentality then why would he have sent Jesus. Jesus saved us all. We now can be with God forever. If it was a threat, then why did Jesus die?

But that is the mentality, essentially, but instead of holding a gun to our heads he's holding hell to our heads and basically saying, "love me or burn". As I said, hardly a choice.

And also, what about the fact that most people don't even feel they have to make a decision because they don't believe in God or believe in a different God/ess?

I agree, but disobediance does not come without concequence. In this case he had told them what the concequences were and they disobeyed.

Why did he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil in the garden in the first place?

Can anyone here claim to have not "fallen" or sinned at any time. I know I cant.

That's irrelevant. You're saying that we were "fallen" before we were born--we didn't get the same chance Adam and Eve did.

God does have the power but he doesnt use it. Why? Because he gave us free will and that is a holy gift and he doesnt want to tamper with it. If he let us live in a world where our actions (sins) have no concequence, then what kind of father would he be? He doesnt want a race of automatans just worshiping him because he made them that they would. He wants people to love him out of choice, which is what he has created. Yes my analogy may be flawed but its only an anaolgy, not the be all and end all.

Let me give you a story to explain this. Suposing I went swiming one day. I parked my car in the multi story and bought a ticket lasting an hour. I went swimming and enjoyed it so much that I had been there for 50 minutes and realised the car parking ticket was about to run out. So I rush out of the pool and get dressed quickly. I rush round the corner of the street to get to the multi story's entrence but in doing so I knock over and old women who cracks her head on the pavement and later dies from her injuries. Now what should God have done. Should he make me got dressed faster or slower so as to let the old women go past. Should he have made me more aware of the time so I did not rush. Should he have saved the old woman by letting her bag break her fall. Suposing he did that sort of thing on a regular basis throught the entire world in every smallest situation where something bad may happen. What sort of world would that be. Meaningless. Our actions would have no concequence because God would interviene on every smallest thing to make sure nothing bad happened. That would be like never growing up, our parents constantly covering for us. One day we would have to realise that our actions have concequences, but we would never know that if the world was like the one I described above. So why is the world bad, human descison to sin.

That is an incredibly implausible story.

Then how would he do it? Can you think of a better way? You dont have one chance to chose anyway, you have your entire life. Its not like God is standing there with a gun or something saying "Love me or I will send you to hell". If he had that mentality then why would he have sent Jesus. Jesus saved us all. We now can be with God forever. If it was a threat, then why did Jesus die?

Even though I already explained what He could do as an alternative, i'll reiterate:

Everyone who has led a basically good and moral life goes to Heaven, whether they believe in God or not. Everyone else spends a set amount of time in a cordoned-off section of Heaven working off their sins. The amount of time depends on the amount and severity of sins.

In response to your last question, He is still threatening us with Hell, so I don't see your point.

God does have the power but he doesnt use it. Why? Because he gave us free will and that is a holy gift and he doesnt want to tamper with it. If he let us live in a world where our actions (sins) have no concequence, then what kind of father would he be? He doesnt want a race of automatans just worshiping him because he made them that they would. He wants people to love him out of choice, which is what he has created. Yes my analogy may be flawed but its only an anaolgy, not the be all and end all.

Let me give you a story to explain this. Suposing I went swiming one day. I parked my car in the multi story and bought a ticket lasting an hour. I went swimming and enjoyed it so much that I had been there for 50 minutes and realised the car parking ticket was about to run out. So I rush out of the pool and get dressed quickly. I rush round the corner of the street to get to the multi story's entrence but in doing so I knock over and old women who cracks her head on the pavement and later dies from her injuries. Now what should God have done. Should he make me got dressed faster or slower so as to let the old women go past. Should he have made me more aware of the time so I did not rush. Should he have saved the old woman by letting her bag break her fall. Suposing he did that sort of thing on a regular basis throught the entire world in every smallest situation where something bad may happen. What sort of world would that be. Meaningless. Our actions would have no concequence because God would interviene on every smallest thing to make sure nothing bad happened. That would be like never growing up, our parents constantly covering for us. One day we would have to realise that our actions have concequences, but we would never know that if the world was like the one I described above. So why is the world bad, human descison to sin.

You missed the point entirely.

He created the world, therefore he created the future, therefore the future is set in stone, therefore the universe is pre-ordained, therefore ANYBODY who goes to hell was sent there purposefully by God.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the thread, which is..why is homosexuality a sin.

1) To the point that its genetic...we dont know..no one does whether it is or it isnt, thats just the facts of it, for every study that says yes (and they'll only say that it seems to allow a predisposition anyway if you read the whole thing instead of absorbing a news blurb) You'll find another that says no.

2) The major passages involving homosexuality are vague..overtranslated from language to language, and from what ive been able to puzzle together, came from a human..not the direct word of god as quoted. We will never (until time travel is invented) be able to know for sure what they meant by them, as most of the interpretations have put forth decent arguments supporting their interpretation.

3) Whether marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman or not in the christian/muslim/jewish/buddhist faith has nothing to do with allowing gays to make the same committment to one another (be it marriage or civil union) as a heterosexual couple, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as a hetero couple recieves from the government. Frankly, as soon as the government got involved, it should have been termed civil union and marriage been left to the churches that perform them. Fill out some paperwork...sign and thumbprint here...you're "married" in the eyes of the state, Hetero and Homosexual unions both.


At any rate...so WHAT if its a sin in the eyes of the christian faith, if you're buddhist, pagan, wiccan, or whatever and your faith doesnt see it that way..who cares what they think.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the thread, which is..why is homosexuality a sin.

1) To the point that its genetic...we dont know..no one does whether it is or it isnt, thats just the facts of it, for every study that says yes (and they'll only say that it seems to allow a predisposition anyway if you read the whole thing instead of absorbing a news blurb) You'll find another that says no.

2) The major passages involving homosexuality are vague..overtranslated from language to language, and from what ive been able to puzzle together, came from a human..not the direct word of god as quoted. We will never (until time travel is invented) be able to know for sure what they meant by them, as most of the interpretations have put forth decent arguments supporting their interpretation.

3) Whether marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman or not in the christian/muslim/jewish/buddhist faith has nothing to do with allowing gays to make the same committment to one another (be it marriage or civil union) as a heterosexual couple, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as a hetero couple recieves from the government. Frankly, as soon as the government got involved, it should have been termed civil union and marriage been left to the churches that perform them. Fill out some paperwork...sign and thumbprint here...you're "married" in the eyes of the state, Hetero and Homosexual unions both.


At any rate...so WHAT if its a sin in the eyes of the christian faith, if you're buddhist, pagan, wiccan, or whatever and your faith doesnt see it that way..who cares what they think.

It's fun to debate.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the thread, which is..why is homosexuality a sin.

1) To the point that its genetic...we dont know..no one does whether it is or it isnt, thats just the facts of it, for every study that says yes (and they'll only say that it seems to allow a predisposition anyway if you read the whole thing instead of absorbing a news blurb) You'll find another that says no.

2) The major passages involving homosexuality are vague..overtranslated from language to language, and from what ive been able to puzzle together, came from a human..not the direct word of god as quoted. We will never (until time travel is invented) be able to know for sure what they meant by them, as most of the interpretations have put forth decent arguments supporting their interpretation.

3) Whether marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman or not in the christian/muslim/jewish/buddhist faith has nothing to do with allowing gays to make the same committment to one another (be it marriage or civil union) as a heterosexual couple, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as a hetero couple recieves from the government. Frankly, as soon as the government got involved, it should have been termed civil union and marriage been left to the churches that perform them. Fill out some paperwork...sign and thumbprint here...you're "married" in the eyes of the state, Hetero and Homosexual unions both.


At any rate...so WHAT if its a sin in the eyes of the christian faith, if you're buddhist, pagan, wiccan, or whatever and your faith doesnt see it that way..who cares what they think.


Then it isn't a sin and you don't have to answer why it's a sin... because to you, it isnt.

You missed the point entirely.

He created the world, therefore he created the future, therefore the future is set in stone, therefore the universe is pre-ordained, therefore ANYBODY who goes to hell was sent there purposefully by God.

He did not create the future. We create the future. How we chose things alters how the future comes out. God may know the future but that doesnt prove that he chose it/controls it/influences it. There are loads of things in the future which God would not want to happen but they do. Just by proving that God knows the future does not mean he controls it.

But that is the mentality, essentially, but instead of holding a gun to our heads he's holding hell to our heads and basically saying, "love me or burn". As I said, hardly a choice.


You haven't answered my point. If that is his mentality, then why did Jesus die


And also, what about the fact that most people don't even feel they have to make a decision because they don't believe in God or believe in a different God/ess?


Personaly, if you want to ignore what God has done for the human race (Jesus's death, THE greatest act of love ever known bar none) then you are being just a little arrogent to think that just by your refusal to believe it, makes it untrue and irelevent to you.


Why did he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil in the garden in the first place?


It was a choice. If God had put Adam and Eve in the garden with no way out or no choices about how to live then Eden would have been no better than a prision. God gave them a choice, they chose to disobey him and so they accepted the punishment.


That's irrelevant. You're saying that we were "fallen" before we were born--we didn't get the same chance Adam and Eve did.

Yes but there is good news, there is a way back to your pre-fallen state in the eyes of God. God sent Jesus so that if we accept him into our lives, then when God looks at us, he sees Jesus's perfectness, and we are saved. Because of that we can now be with God for all eternity in hevean. I dont know about you but I dont want to pass that up.

Personaly, if you want to ignore what God has done for the human race (Jesus's death, THE greatest act of love ever known bar none) then you are being just a little arrogent to think that just by your refusal to believe it, makes it untrue and irelevent to you.

Is that more arrogant than pretending that everyone who says he does not believe in God actually does, and is just putting his fingers in his ears and going "LALALA i CANT HEAR YOU" out of some desire to be mean or something?

Is that more arrogant than pretending that everyone who says he does not believe in God actually does, and is just putting his fingers in his ears and going "LALALA i CANT HEAR YOU" out of some desire to be mean or something?

Well sorry but unless you say so otherwise, thats how you seem to be. You are ignoring someone who was willing to die for you, not you and everyone else, just you. I personaly think purposeful athiests (People who go around their entire time intentionaly trying to prove that God doesnt exist) must be very insecure if they feel threatened by the idea of God when all it realy is is God wanting them to be with him in hevan.

Well sorry but unless you say so otherwise, thats how you seem to be. You are ignoring someone who was willing to die for you, not you and everyone else, just you. I personaly think purposeful athiests (People who go around their entire time intentionaly trying to prove that God doesnt exist) must be very insecure if they feel threatened by the idea of God when all it realy is is God wanting them to be with him in hevan.

How do I seem to be like that? Not everyone who does not believe in God is a purposeful atheist you know.

... People who go around their entire time intentionaly trying to prove that God doesnt exist must be very insecure if they feel threatened by the idea of God when all it realy is is God wanting them to be with him in hevan.

An ironic statement from someone who repeatedly claimed to have disproven something else. ;)

How do I seem to be like that? Not everyone who does not believe in God is a purposeful atheist you know.

Well everyone on here seems to be. Everyone is out to disprove me and prove God isnt real. And in God's eyes, there is no midground. Either you are with him or not. And out of curiosity, whats your view on God.

Either you are with him or not.
Dubya is God! :eek:








I couldn't resist...

Well everyone on here seems to be. Everyone is out to disprove me and prove God isnt real. And in God's eyes, there is no midground. Either you are with him or not. And out of curiosity, whats your view on God.

Well, I suppose they're trying to disprove God to you because they think it's the only thing you'll respond to.

As to my view on God? Well, while I certainly do not oppose the idea of God, and certainly not following His commandments (assuming He lays them down in a clear way, and maybe even explain His reasons for them), I simply do not see any evidence for Him, nor do I feel a pressing need for Him in my life.

Well, I suppose they're trying to disprove God to you because they think it's the only thing you'll respond to.


Well that is true, but this is a debate after all. I have my standpoint they have theirs.

He did not create the future. We create the future. How we chose things alters how the future comes out. God may know the future but that doesnt prove that he chose it/controls it/influences it. There are loads of things in the future which God would not want to happen but they do. Just by proving that God knows the future does not mean he controls it.

If he 'knows' the future, then the future is set and can only happen that way. Therefore we have no free choice because we can only do the things that will lead to the future that God knows.

And before you point out that God could just know every possible future without limiting anything, he wouldn't then fit the definition of all-knowing (because he wouldn't know *which* future would be the one to occur.

For example, if I have a choice between option A and option B, and God *knows* I will choose option A, I really have no choice. I can't choose option B, because to do so would be to create a future other than the one God knows, which can only occur if God isn't all-knowing.

Note: there may be some Christian clause that prevents this... I'm an atheist, so I haven't been *taught* any of this stuff. However, no one has ever brought up said clause in a debate, so I can't address it here.

Just because God Knows which choice you are going to make, that doesnt mean he controlled it as I have said countless times. He could control it but he doesnt because he gave us free will and he is not going back on that.

Well that is true, but this is a debate after all. I have my standpoint they have theirs.

Well frankly, I don't see how the question of God's excistence is relevant to this thread.
It occurs to me we should have been discussing the question of whether the bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and to what extent.

Um, this is in reference to the post saying that the West destroyed the Roman culture. Last I knew, read about, or otherwise have somewhow picked up via many years of reading books, and taking a great interest in history. The Romans had sex with anything and everything, men, women, brother's and sister's, so let's not have anymore the West destroyed my Roman culture, they did it to themselves. And one more thing, who cares if gay's get married? 9 times out of 10, I'll bet you that they're marriages will last alot longer than those of us that are straight, because they aren't as high strung as the rest of us, besides, everyone has a right to get married, doesn't matter what the sexual persuasion they choose, thanks for your time.

And one more thing, who cares if gay's get married? 9 times out of 10, I'll bet you that they're marriages will last alot longer than those of us that are straight, because they aren't as high strung as the rest of us, besides, everyone has a right to get married, doesn't matter what the sexual persuasion they choose, thanks for your time.

For the *insert large number here*th time, God doesn't see it that way. In God's eyes marriage is only one man and one woman, read Genesis 2: 24

Which leads me to this question.


Why do you feel your faith should invoke legislature or prevent others who do not share it from recieving the rights and benefits government gives those who make a committment to one another get?

For the *insert large number here*th time, God doesn't see it that way. In God's eyes marriage is only one man and one woman, read Genesis 2: 24

What do you call someone who claims to know everything about God and what S/He feels about the world?

Schizophrenic.

Everyone is always quick to point out certain things in the bible that they agree with, such as the homosexuality issue. The bible says it's wrong and those who agree are so quick to point out "..the bible says this, that, etc, you're wrong, you're gross..." Whatever. Well, what about the part in the bible that says "love thy neighbor" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc. So unless you follow the bible word for word, and are fuckin perfect don't point out certain things in the bible and point fingers just because you agree with that part....fuckin idiots. :upyours:

I guess those are ritual laws as well.

If God destroyed Sodom for being full of homosexual practices, them why did he not destroy Sparta, and other Greek states whose culture was one of "homosexuality" among the male population?

If God destroyed Sodom for being full of homosexual practices, them why did he not destroy Sparta, and other Greek states whose culture was one of "homosexuality" among the male population?
and if God hates homosexuality but approves of rape and incest (as the story of Sodom teaches us), why exactly should any of us take our sexual values from God?

Everyone is always quick to point out certain things in the bible that they agree with, such as the homosexuality issue. The bible says it's wrong and those who agree are so quick to point out "..the bible says this, that, etc, you're wrong, you're gross..." Whatever. Well, what about the part in the bible that says "love thy neighbor" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc. So unless you follow the bible word for word, and are f**** perfect don't point out certain things in the bible and point fingers just because you agree with that part....f**** idiots.

This debate is for Christians to explain what they believe and why the beilieve it. It is not for non christians to go "Arghh look at the evil homophobes, let us drench them in our postmodern weapons fire". I agree with you "Love the neighbourgh" and "Do unto others as they would do unto you" are important commandments. But here we are discussing a specific issue and some of the issues which arrise from it.

and if God hates homosexuality but approves of rape and incest (as the story of Sodom teaches us), why exactly should any of us take our sexual values from God?

Go back to the point in the thread where I delt with this. That realy should be standard opperation for all points. Before you come to this thread, please read the entire thing so that you can see where I or someone else has allready delt with your point. But just for now, rape was never endorced in the bible, and where it seems to be (where women were captured by the Isralites and taken as wives) the women were not mistreeted or harmed. It was an arrangement akin to an arranged marrige now.

Everyone is always quick to point out certain things in the bible that they agree with, such as the homosexuality issue. The bible says it's wrong and those who agree are so quick to point out "..the bible says this, that, etc, you're wrong, you're gross..." Whatever. Well, what about the part in the bible that says "love thy neighbor" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc. So unless you follow the bible word for word, and are fuckin perfect don't point out certain things in the bible and point fingers just because you agree with that part....fuckin idiots.
Man this thread has more roundabouts than Birmingham. So under the 'do unto others..' rule, if someone with a white stick was walking towards a precipice you'd say 'it's none of my business, I won't do anything'. Because that's how non-Christians appear to Christians.

I you hadn't noticed, no human is perfect, not even the beloved leader, Mr Bush (HAIL BUSH)(kidding). But if no-one pointed the bad stuff out to you, we'd all be fucked! The issues you should have are not with Christians trying to help you in a respectful manner but with people who literally point the finger and tell other people that they're shit. Jesus classed this type of people as hypocritical.

So nah

Man this thread has more roundabouts than Birmingham. So under the 'do unto others..' rule, if someone with a white stick was walking towards a precipice you'd say 'it's none of my business, I won't do anything'. Because that's how non-Christians appear to Christians.

I you hadn't noticed, no human is perfect, not even the beloved leader, Mr Bush (HAIL BUSH)(kidding). But if no-one pointed the bad stuff out to you, we'd all be fucked! The issues you should have are not with Christians trying to help you in a respectful manner but with people who literally point the finger and tell other people that they're shit. Jesus classed this type of people as hypocritical.

So nah

Here here

*this does not represent the roleplayed views of my nation*

For the *insert large number here*th time, God doesn't see it that way. In God's eyes marriage is only one man and one woman, read Genesis 2: 24

Genisis 2:
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

You show a lack of theological understanding friend. Original hebrew states clearly that adam was androginous, and the seperation between male and female was made there. "What was taken out of man became woman." <-- that bit. The line, 24, also supports a matriarchal society. The implication is that he leaves his father and mother's house, and joins his WIFE'S family. Genesis has always bothered theologians through there...

Furthermore: "God doesn't see it that way."

Excuse me, but you aren't god.

Furthermore: "God doesn't see it that way."

Excuse me, but you aren't god.

Find me a passage which supports Gay marriage and I will listen to you. Untill then my point stands. And looking at 2:24 it seems to me that what it is implying is that a mans most important relationship is no longer that between him and his parents but that between him and his wife. Either way there is no where in the bible which supports any kind of marriage except man - women.

The bible is not God.

It is the word of God, read John 1: 1

This debate is for Christians to explain what they believe and why the beilieve it. It is not for non christians to go "Arghh look at the evil homophobes, let us drench them in our postmodern weapons fire". I agree with you "Love the neighbourgh" and "Do unto others as they would do unto you" are important commandments. But here we are discussing a specific issue and some of the issues which arrise from it.


I believe that you will find Love Thy Neighbor isn't just an important command. It's the second most important one. And sin is not a purely Christian construct, so I fail to see how non-Christians do not have a place here. And if you think that not believing that homosexuality is a sin somehow makes someone a non-Christian, then what is the point of anyone discussing this with you at all?

Go back to the point in the thread where I delt with this. That realy should be standard opperation for all points. Before you come to this thread, please read the entire thing so that you can see where I or someone else has allready delt with your point. But just for now, rape was never endorced in the bible, and where it seems to be (where women were captured by the Isralites and taken as wives) the women were not mistreeted or harmed. It was an arrangement akin to an arranged marrige now.

And that's why a women being raped who does not cry out is just as guilty. Or why if a man rapes a virgin, he has to pay her father a penalty and then marry her.

Genisis 2:
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

You show a lack of theological understanding friend. Original hebrew states clearly that adam was androginous, and the seperation between male and female was made there. "What was taken out of man became woman." <-- that bit. The line, 24, also supports a matriarchal society. The implication is that he leaves his father and mother's house, and joins his WIFE'S family. Genesis has always bothered theologians through there...

Furthermore: "God doesn't see it that way."

Excuse me, but you aren't god.
He cleaves to his wife? ouch. You show a lack of human understanding oh wise man. Adam was not ashamed for he was well endowed. Who's the daddy etc..! :D

Genesis is only bothering you. One thinks you should take less time studying Hebrew and concentrate on English!

I believe that you will find Love Thy Neighbor isn't just an important command. It's the second most important one. And sin is not a purely Christian construct, so I fail to see how non-Christians do not have a place here. And if you think that not believing that homosexuality is a sin somehow makes someone a non-Christian, then what is the point of anyone discussing this with you at all?
He does have a point Neo-C. What makes a Christian doesn't include this topic. It's in the Bible but it's not pre-requisite to being a Christian. I believe homosexual practice is a sin, because of the Bible I have and the teaching I've had. Some people have had different teaching and different versions of the Bible which is not their choice.

However, sin did come first in Judeo-Christianity (ok and Islam technically). That's why it's seen as a Christian term. Love thy nighbour does not mean go round and swap wives/husbands. It's means respect your fellow humans. Not our fault English only has one word for love!!

Man this thread has more roundabouts than Birmingham. So under the 'do unto others..' rule, if someone with a white stick was walking towards a precipice you'd say 'it's none of my business, I won't do anything'. Because that's how non-Christians appear to Christians.



How do you get to that concept? If a blind person were walking towards the edge of the cliff, I would be the first one there to help. There are millions of Non-Christians who do good works, charity, and help others every day. Just because Christians don't see it doesnt' mean its not there. And the do unto others thing, that was an admonishment to Christians--many who DON'T live by it.


I you hadn't noticed, no human is perfect, not even the beloved leader, Mr Bush (HAIL BUSH)(kidding). But if no-one pointed the bad stuff out to you, we'd all be fucked! The issues you should have are not with Christians trying to help you in a respectful manner but with people who literally point the finger and tell other people that they're shit. Jesus classed this type of people as hypocritical.

So nah

My issues aren't with Chrisitans who try to help me in a respectful manner. They are with the many, many who aren't respectful. They are with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the godhatesfags.org guy. My issues are with the hypocrites who are more concerned about what I do in my bedroom and who I Find emotional completeness with than they are about the evil in their own lives. That my friend is hypocrisy.

I believe that you will find Love Thy Neighbor isn't just an important command. It's the second most important one. And sin is not a purely Christian construct, so I fail to see how non-Christians do not have a place here. And if you think that not believing that homosexuality is a sin somehow makes someone a non-Christian, then what is the point of anyone discussing this with you at all?

Non Christians can ask questions but there is no point in saying "There is no god and therefore it is not a sin" because that just makes the debate irrelevent. And where is sin a concept if not for Christians. If you mean non christians picking and chosing what they would like to agree with then I find that somewhat hypocritical. And no I dont think that people not believeing homosexuality is a sin makes them a non christian, I'm just pointing out that in the bible there are passages that condenm homosexuality and no passages which support it. I'm just putting my point across and people are arguing and I'm arguing back.

It is the word of God, read John 1: 1

Anyone can claim that.

Find me a passage which supports Gay marriage and I will listen to you. Untill then my point stands. And looking at 2:24 it seems to me that what it is implying is that a mans most important relationship is no longer that between him and his parents but that between him and his wife. Either way there is no where in the bible which supports any kind of marriage except man - women.

There are a lot of things in the modern world that aren't supported in the Bible. The USA, NationStates, the United Nations, interacial marriage. But that doesnt' mean they are forbidden either.

And that's why a women being raped who does not cry out is just as guilty. Or why if a man rapes a virgin, he has to pay her father a penalty and then marry her.

Lo! I hear the sound of the Old Testement being taken out of context in the hills.

He cleaves to his wife? ouch. You show a lack of human understanding oh wise man. Adam was not ashamed for he was well endowed. Who's the daddy etc..! :D

Genesis is only bothering you. One thinks you should take less time studying Hebrew and concentrate on English!

You do realize that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek right? If we really want to understand it, we have to speak those languages. Translations aren't all they are cracked up to be.

"Eich mein un Berleiner"

There are a lot of things in the modern world that aren't supported in the Bible. The USA, NationStates, the United Nations, interacial marriage. But that doesnt' mean they are forbidden either.

Oh please lets not be stupid. The non suportal of most of those things (The USA, NationStates, the United Nations) is because there was no way that anyone could have known about them then. Homosexuality on the other hand has been around for a long while, and the bible spells out in both testements its standpoint. And there is nothing against interracial marriage in the bible, and there is plenty against racsism. There is however points about the dangers of Christians and Non christians marrying.

Non Christians can ask questions but there is no point in saying "There is no god and therefore it is not a sin" because that just makes the debate irrelevent. And where is sin a concept if not for Christians. If you mean non christians picking and chosing what they would like to agree with then I find that somewhat hypocritical. And no I dont think that people not believeing homosexuality is a sin makes them a non christian, I'm just pointing out that in the bible there are passages that condenm homosexuality and no passages which support it. I'm just putting my point across and people are arguing and I'm arguing back.

Sin:
A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

While Christians think they have a monopoly on sin, that simply isn't true. All religions have sin if they have laws. And how is it hypocritical for non-Christians to pick and choose? They haven't accepted your religion. If I happen to agree that murder is wrong, it doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just shows that I believe in protection or others and have a healthy sense of self-preservation. And frankly, you are right about the Bible. I've never found a passage that supports homosexuality. Which is why I consider it to be pile of trite.

If you haven't figured out that I'm just here to make life difficult and to deflate some of your incorrect arguements and maybe score a few points for Civil Rights, then I'm sorry.

Oh please lets not be stupid. The non suportal of most of those things (The USA, NationStates, the United Nations) is because there was no way that anyone could have known about them then.

Eh? What about God?

The top 9 texts used against homosexuals

(1) Genesis 19
This chapter records the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no reference to homosexual activity in the passage. Two messengers from God, referred to as angels, visited Lot. Men of Sodom and Gomorrah did not want the messengers from God in their cities. They demanded Lot turn his guests over to them for sexual abuse. Lot offered his daughters instead. If the passage is any commentary about sex, it is about abuse and rape, not homosexuality. Another rule of hermeneutics is that Scripture should be allowed to comment on Scripture. Allowing Scripture to comment on Scripture, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitable attitude (look at Luke 10:10-13) and failure to care for the poor (Ezekiel 16:49-50)


(2) Deuteronomy 23:17
(3) I Kings 14:24
(4) II Kings 23:7
All this texts forbid both male and female prostitution in pagan temples. The people of God were warned against selling themselves sexually for pagan religious ceremonies. A male temple prostitute performed sexual acts with another male, a clear homosexual act. I would not allow modern heterosexual prostitution to be used as a negative commentary on the morality of sexual relations between a loving husband and wife. Neither do I see any relevance of ancient male temple prostitution to the discussion of homosexuality and the practice of Christian faith in 21st Century.


(5) Leviticus 18:19-23
(6) Leviticus 20:10-16
These passages are from the Old Testament: and are a part of the Holiness Codes. The theme of the codes is summed up with "You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy." To be holy or pure before God was something more than merely being moral. Every area of a person's life was involved. Some instructions in the Holiness Codes became central to Christian understanding. When Jesus commanded his followers to love their neighbors, he was quoting from the Holiness Codes. On the other hand, the Holiness Codes carry instructions that all Christians ignore. According to the codes, a worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. A field is never to be harvested to the edge. Two types of yarn are never to be woven into the same cloth. Raw meat is not to be eaten. Tattoos are forbidden. Bigamy is clearly acceptable.

Imbedded in the Holiness Codes along with an almost endless number of instructions and commands is found a prohibition of a specific homosexual act. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman." The book of Leviticus itself gives us little help in understanding the intent of the command. Leviticus tells us nothing specific about the forbidden homosexual act. It gives us no context for the command. Christian hermeneutics give priority to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth over the Old Testament. Jesus set new standards for what it means to be holy. He embraced some Old Testament standards. He rejected and openly violated some other Old Testament standards: his breaking of Sabbath rules kept him in constant tension with religious leaders. He ignored some Old Testament standards. He raised justice, mercy, kindness, and love to new heights.

In the light of Jesus's life and teachings, the two Holiness Codes passages fade into obscurity and irrelevance. The Old Testament informs and instructs, but it is the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus that the Christian churches have embraced as normative and as having final authority.

It is well for hermeneutics to raise a general caution. Can any ancient prohibition set in a little known and little understood context be properly superimposed over a modern setting? In particular can the Holiness Codes statement have any relevance to the relationship between two men or two women in the 21st Century in a committed relationship that is characterized as genuinely affectionate and respectful? I think not.


(7) Romans 1:26-2:1
(8) I Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) I Timothy 1:10
All three references about sexual deviance are found in the writings of Paul. These passages have always been difficult to translate and even more difficult to interpret because there are no clear English equivalents into which the key Greek words can be translated. The most exhaustive study of the issues involved was published by author Robin Scroggs in his book The New Testament and Homosexuality published in 1983.
In his study, Scroggs takes us into the Jewish and Greek worlds of Paul's day. He researched the sexual practices and the issues of morality of that day as reflected in literature extant from that day. He found no indication of interest in same-sex sexual relationships between consenting adults. What he did find was the widespread practice of pederasty. In its usual form pederasty was a form of prostitution in which young boys were used sexually by heterosexual males. Devout Jews and Christians were understandable critical of this practice found widely among the Greeks. It is in this context that the words and expressions used by Paul are found in other literature o the same period.
It is Scroggs' argument that the three references from Paul which we have cited are not commentaries about homosexuality in general, but understandable references to the widely known practice of pederasty among the Greeks. Scroggs confronts us with another rule of hermeneutics. He maintains that for moral and ethical passages of the Bible to be applied to today's world, there must be some reasonable similarity between the contexts then and now. In this case the contexts are so dissimilar that the three passages become irrelevant. To make his point even clearer, Scroggs concludes that Paul can be shown to be against only that which he was clearly against.

One further observation is worthy of consideration. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a discussion of homosexuality or of any homosexual practice. The three New Testament references are part of lists made in the larger contexts of other discussions. Even if the importance of these three passages could be maximized and be shown to be directly relevant to today's discussion, the very incidental nature of the references would relegate them to secondary importance.

Oh please lets not be stupid. The non suportal of most of those things (The USA, NationStates, the United Nations) is because there was no way that anyone could have known about them then. Homosexuality on the other hand has been around for a long while, and the bible spells out in both testements its standpoint. And there is nothing against interracial marriage in the bible, and there is plenty against racsism. There is however points about the dangers of Christians and Non christians marrying.

So you can guarantee that it was known then that a man might rather spend his entire life with another man than with a woman/ It seems to me that there is a common misconception these days that homosexuality is all about sex (which was probably the misconception back then) instead of about emotional fulfillment. Further, the Bible was written in a time when the race and the religion were in grave danger. Neither is true anymore. Preconceptions that existed at the time are gone now.

How do you get to that concept? If a blind person were walking towards the edge of the cliff, I would be the first one there to help. There are millions of Non-Christians who do good works, charity, and help others every day. Just because Christians don't see it doesnt' mean its not there. And the do unto others thing, that was an admonishment to Christians--many who DON'T live by it.

My issues aren't with Christans who try to help me in a respectful manner. They are with the many, many who aren't respectful. They are with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the godhatesfags.org guy. My issues are with the hypocrites who are more concerned about what I do in my bedroom and who I find emotional completeness with than they are about the evil in their own lives. That my friend is hypocrisy.
This wasn't aimed at you Pracus!! calm! It was at someone else. I know what you mean with the hypocrits thing. Riles up just about any Christians who actually know what God's about.

You do realize that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek right? If we really want to understand it, we have to speak those languages. Translations aren't all they are cracked up to be.

"Eich mein un Berleiner"
I just place trust in God that he hasn't let humans screw around with the Bible too much. They seem to screw up most everything else! Don't think it was written too much in Aramaic. Aramaic was largely a spoken language was it not? I don't know. But yes, hebrew scriptures, greek new testament.

"I am a doughnut!"

Any law, created by people, in order to control purely private issues is an attempt to subjugate one group of people by another.

--XSG


Boy, you've got that right.
Did you know that in Indiana USA there is a law forbidding oral sex?
Ain't that just stupid?

I've got to put my closing argument here before I leave this thread for good in disgust, because it seems like y'all are beating a dead horse:

Homosexuality is a sin if you interpret the bible to say so. If you follow that belief then I guess you shouldn't be 'gay' but neither should you bash other people for being 'gay'. Whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice or whatever has nothing to do with anything.

If you don't follow the bible at all or if you do but interpret it to say that homosexuality is not a sin, then there's nothing wrong with doing whatever the heck you feel like.

Aiie! Live life and I hope you all find happiness! Get out there and enjoy life, love, and sex, cuz life is way too short to worry about all this crap.

Ciao! Sayonara! Bye! Later!

The top 9 texts used against homosexuals

(1) Genesis 19
This chapter records the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no reference to homosexual activity in the passage. Two messengers from God, referred to as angels, visited Lot. Men of Sodom and Gomorrah did not want the messengers from God in their cities. They demanded Lot turn his guests over to them for sexual abuse. Lot offered his daughters instead. If the passage is any commentary about sex, it is about abuse and rape, not homosexuality. Another rule of hermeneutics is that Scripture should be allowed to comment on Scripture. Allowing Scripture to comment on Scripture, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitable attitude (look at Luke 10:10-13) and failure to care for the poor (Ezekiel 16:49-50)


Check Jude 1: 7, the reason God destroied Soddom and Gomorrah was because of the homosexuality, not the rape.



(5) Leviticus 18:19-23
(6) Leviticus 20:10-16
These passages are from the Old Testament: and are a part of the Holiness Codes. The theme of the codes is summed up with "You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy." To be holy or pure before God was something more than merely being moral. Every area of a person's life was involved. Some instructions in the Holiness Codes became central to Christian understanding. When Jesus commanded his followers to love their neighbors, he was quoting from the Holiness Codes. On the other hand, the Holiness Codes carry instructions that all Christians ignore. According to the codes, a worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. A field is never to be harvested to the edge. Two types of yarn are never to be woven into the same cloth. Raw meat is not to be eaten. Tattoos are forbidden. Bigamy is clearly acceptable.


And again, Jesus delt with some of the old testement law as being obsolete and some of it still implied. Hebrews 10: 5 - 18 make it clear that the ritualistic law is gone. The moral law however still stood.

Eh? What about God?

Ok, you go back in time and tell some poor stone age man that in the year 1776 on July 4th that a new and powerful nation called the United States of America will be formed. See what he does, he will chase you up a tree and set fire to it (assuming he has command of fire). God did not explain anything to the people at the time that they would not understand. That would have only confused them.

I have a question. Why have there been no more prophets for 2000 years, nobody has added books to the bible for centuries*, does this mean we are doing all right? Or has God abandoned his pet project and started anohter one? Why do we not have prophets popping up telling us what God tells us to do in the here and now, rather than what He told us to do millenia ago?

* Which is bollocks as the Romans probably changed things around in the translation to suit thier own needs. Like Christmas and Easter were Pagan festivals in Central Europe (Gauls, Celts etc) centuries before Christ existed.

I have a question. Why have there been no more prophets for 2000 years, nobody has added books to the bible for centuries*, does this mean we are doing all right? Or has God abandoned his pet project and started anohter one? Why do we not have prophets popping up telling us what God tells us to do in the here and now, rather than what He told us to do millenia ago?

* Which is bollocks as the Romans probably changed things around in the translation to suit thier own needs. Like Christmas and Easter were Pagan festivals in Central Europe (Gauls, Celts etc) centuries before Christ existed.
God gave up on us when we nailed his son to a cross.

This wasn't aimed at you Pracus!! calm! It was at someone else. I know what you mean with the hypocrits thing. Riles up just about any Christians who actually know what God's about.


Sorry about the rant. I was geared up for my last test. They're finally over!


I just place trust in God that he hasn't let humans screw around with the Bible too much. They seem to screw up most everything else! Don't think it was written too much in Aramaic. Aramaic was largely a spoken language was it not? I don't know. But yes, hebrew scriptures, greek new testament.

"I am a doughnut!"

Wouldn't saying God isn't letting humans screw with the Bible be like sayings he's intereferring with Free Will? I really just ask out of curiousity.

And I think you're right about the Aramaic, where I was getting confused was that Aramaic was likely the language Jesus spoke--though he obviously didn't write the Bible.

Okay, so we no longer have to sacrifice stuff. Doesn't ,mean we can eat shellfish, or any animals at all, because rthat's what God made all the plants for.

Also, Jude1: 7 doesn't mean shit on homosexuality. What it talks about is "strange flesh", not human flesh. What they talk about in Jude1: 7 is angels, not humans. Read about the Nephilim, and you will understand why Jude1: 7 has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or Sosdom and Gommorah.

Ok, you go back in time and tell some poor stone age man that in the year 1776 on July 4th that a new and powerful nation called the United States of America will be formed. See what he does, he will chase you up a tree and set fire to it (assuming he has command of fire). God did not explain anything to the people at the time that they would not understand. That would have only confused them.

So why didn't he explain it to mankind when they were ready?

I have a question. Why have there been no more prophets for 2000 years, nobody has added books to the bible for centuries*, does this mean we are doing all right? Or has God abandoned his pet project and started anohter one? Why do we not have prophets popping up telling us what God tells us to do in the here and now, rather than what He told us to do millenia ago?
.

The reason for this is simple. There is no more that needs saying. God has said everything and told us everything we need to know, now its up to us to listen to what he has said. The reason it stopped just after the asscention of Jesus was because then the task was complete. Humans could now be saved, its up to us to accept the offer and lead the life.

Could you address the second bit (the footnote), just for my interest. If you do not want to thats ok. Thanks.

So why didn't he explain it to mankind when they were ready?

There was no need for him to. Why would he have to tell people about the political history of the world? What good would that be?

Okay, so we no longer have to sacrifice stuff. Doesn't ,mean we can eat shellfish, or any animals at all, because rthat's what God made all the plants for.


Actually God said in Genesis that the animals are for our use and ours alone. And the term sacrifices can also be translated to mean ritual or many other terms. The point is that there is a diffrence between moral and ritualistic law. Jesus removed one and kept the other


Also, Jude1: 7 doesn't mean s*** on homosexuality. What it talks about is "strange flesh", not human flesh. What they talk about in Jude1: 7 is angels, not humans. Read about the Nephilim, and you will understand why Jude1: 7 has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or Sosdom and Gommorah.

"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: 7

Since in the original Sodom & Gomorrah acount tells of men wanting to have sex with men I think its fair to say that the reason it was the homosexuality. And as for the other ideas from other verses is it not possible that its both their genral evilness and this which pushed God over the edge to destroying them.

"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: 7

Since in the original Sodom & Gomorrah acount tells of men wanting to have sex with men I think its fair to say that the reason it was the homosexuality. And as for the other ideas from other verses is it not possible that its both their genral evilness and this which pushed God over the edge to destroying them.

Why? What is to suggest it was homosexuality? Your personal preference perhaps?

Why? What is to suggest it was homosexuality? Your personal preference perhaps?

Erm, the fact that in the original account right before the angel came men requested to have sex with the men that had arrived? That may be a bit of a giveaway.

Do angels have gender then?

Which is b****** as the Romans probably changed things around in the translation to suit thier own needs. Like Christmas and Easter were Pagan festivals in Central Europe (Gauls, Celts etc) centuries before Christ existed.

Ok so what if Easter and Christmas are not precicely WHEN the events they celebrate actually are. Its not like we are saying "This is the Xth anivereary of Y". We are remembering a specific event, be it Jesus's birth or his death, reserection and asscention. Just because its not exact to the day doesnt make the message and what we are doing any less valid.

Do angels have gender then?

No since you ask but what has that got to do with any of what we are discussing.

No since you ask but what has that got to do with any of what we are discussing.

Well, it has everything to do with whast we're discussing. If you wish to use the bible as your only lo9gical reason, then we are allowed to use it to shred it.

And also, where does it say that at? Nowhere in the story of genesis does it say anything about them wishing to have sex with men before the angels came. They only wished to know them after the angels came. So where is it?

Also, we have every right to state the truth that God isn't real. After all, since you know for a fact that homosexuality is, without a doubt a choice, then we know without a doubt that God doesn't exist.

Just one point I'd like to attempt to clear.

People said that Christians shouldn't think homosexuality wrong, because Jesus didn't put a word against it. Jesus didn't say anything (please correct me if I'm wrong) about murder, rape, theft, etc. being wrong, as those rules were being by and largely kept to, at the time.

Well, it has everything to do with whast we're discussing. If you wish to use the bible as your only lo9gical reason, then we are allowed to use it to shred it.

And also, where does it say that at? Nowhere in the story of genesis does it say anything about them wishing to have sex with men before the angels came. They only wished to know them after the angels came. So where is it?

Before the angel arrived to destroy them men were wanting to have sex with men. I will show you. If you think it is 'Know' then I have to tell you now that that is an old translation. They thought those angels were men because without gender that is how they appered. Look in the new testement where it describes men in white clothes when it talks about the angels in the tomb.

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens

They mistook the angels for men. They wanted to have sex with them. They were men. Ergo they wanted Gay sex and God destroyed the city.

Just one point I'd like to attempt to clear.

People said that Christians shouldn't think homosexuality wrong, because Jesus didn't put a word against it. Jesus didn't say anything (please correct me if I'm wrong) about murder, rape, theft, etc. being wrong, as those rules were being by and largely kept to, at the time.

Thank you, I've been saying this too on the forum but Its good to have support.

Pleasure to be of service.

Somethings to remember when arguing on homosexuality, abortion, or other stuffage:

"Look first to the plank in thine own eye, before to the speck in thy brother's."
"Hate the sin, and not the sinner."

Things that Bush and co. (NOT TRYING TO START POLITICS HERE! DON'T START POLITICS HERE!) seem to ignore, as well as caring for the poor…

to quote tom araya from slayer "I keep the bible in a pool of blood, so that none of it's lies can affect me" ... another example of a lie ... christianity :mp5:

Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good!

Just because someone is a Christian, that doesn't make them close-minded or sheep-like at all. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the inspired work of God. I believe that the only way to Heaven is through Christ. I have come to these conclusions on my own. I came to them through my own study. I go to church and I listen to the preacher. Yes, other people do it as well. We are not sheep. And if being open-minded means having no moral absolutes, if being open minded means that I don't believe in right and wrong, if being open minded means that I am not allowed to have beliefs and act on them, then by that definition I guess I am close-minded. But don't sit there and tell me that because I am a follower of Christ that I am a close-minded sheep. If you want to tell everyone how open-mind you are...why can you not accept me and my beliefs?

Now that is interesting, do say more.

He didn't "nuke the freaking city to kill all the homosexuals" God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of ALL the sin that was happening...mothers were eating their own children, fathers were sodomizing their children, people were stealing, lying, cheating, killing, kidnapping, raping...the list keeps going on. They were societies totally dominating with the "feel-good, me me me" system...kinda sounds like the US today. But God could only find one righteous man, Lot. So He told Lot to take his family and leave and He hailed fire onto the cities and destroyed them. The fall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.

Your ancestry of roman gods made you strong? The Romans stole the Greek gods when they invaded Greece! They didn't have the imagination to come up with their own so they stole someone elses!

Before the angel arrived to destroy them men were wanting to have sex with men. I will show you. If you think it is 'Know' then I have to tell you now that that is an old translation. They thought those angels were men because without gender that is how they appered. Look in the new testement where it describes men in white clothes when it talks about the angels in the tomb.

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens

They mistook the angels for men. They wanted to have sex with them. They were men. Ergo they wanted Gay sex and God destroyed the city.

You must have me on ignore or something Neo Cannen, because I've already addressed all of the points you made in the past few pages, including this one. The perversion and immorality Jude 1:7 refers to could easily be referring to the fact that these men wanted to RAPE the angels.

Just because someone is a Christian, that doesn't make them close-minded or sheep-like at all.

I never said it does. Being a Christian myself, I obviously don't believe that. However, no one can deny that many Christians (or many members of any organized religion, for that matter) are both close-minded or sheep-like. Such people are raised from birth to believe that to question is to lose faith, never realizing that the opposite is actually true. If you never question your belief in God, you never truly have faith.

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the inspired work of God.

Every word of it? Do you believe this because you were told this? Do you believe it because you have read every word and prayed over it and found that it fits with your God? If so, how do you explain passages in the Bible that condone slavery and genocide. If your answer is "God has a plan" or "God is unknowable" - that's a cop-out. You haven't really thought about it and don't want to think that your God could do such things.

I believe that the only way to Heaven is through Christ. I have come to these conclusions on my own. I came to them through my own study.

There is a lot more to think about than those two conclusions. Those are just the beginning, definitely not an end.

I go to church and I listen to the preacher. Yes, other people do it as well. We are not sheep.

Many, many are. Try talking to the people in your church. Most of them have probably never read half of the passages your preacher references. They don't know for sure that those passages are there, because they have never studied them. They don't know how much those passages may have been taken out of context. There is a huge difference between listening and taking as rote fact.

Take, for instance, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. For *years* preachers used that as an excuse to tell women to go home to their abusive husbands and sit by and take it. Why? Because they were taking things out of context. In truth, one must understand the society at the time of Christ to understand that passage. Turning the other cheek, in that society, meant that the aggresor could not hit you without declaring you his equal - thus it was a form of passive resistance. It sure as hell wasn't an order to sit down and take oppression.

And if being open-minded means having no moral absolutes, if being open minded means that I don't believe in right and wrong, if being open minded means that I am not allowed to have beliefs and act on them, then by that definition I guess I am close-minded.

There are moral absolutes and right and wrong, but homosexuality doesn't fall under that category any more than having blue eyes does. We can quibble over whether or not sexual actions taken by homosexuals are sinful (which, if done in love and committment, I believe they are not) but unless we want to believe that God forces people into sin, we cannot believe that homosexuality itself is a sin.

Here's a moral absolute for you: Love your God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have done unto you.

In other words, don't hurt people.


But don't sit there and tell me that because I am a follower of Christ that I am a close-minded sheep.

Funny, I never said that.

If you want to tell everyone how open-mind you are...why can you not accept me and my beliefs?

I can accept you just fine. Your beliefs are just fine...as long as they are yours. This means that you have to question them and have them still hold up, not stubbornly hold to what you want so badly to believe that you ignore all else. This also means that you can't believe it just because such and such said so.

And the biggest thing is - you cannot force your beliefs on others. Evangelism, when done in good spirit, is a good thing - you are trying to *spread* belief. However, *forcing* your belief on others is (a) wrong and (b) pushing them away from, rather than towards, Christ.

You must have me on ignore or something Neo Cannen, because I've already addressed all of the points you made in the past few pages, including this one. The perversion and immorality Jude 1:7 refers to could easily be referring to the fact that these men wanted to RAPE the angels.

He has me in ignore too coz I was unrelenting in asking for his proof of something which no one on earth has proved or disproved.

its a sin but hey if you want to sin you can its your soul not mine now if gay people try to hit on me i would hurt them very badly i dont care if they are gay as long as they dont try to get me involved.!!! and as far as people being openly gay go ahead support your self you should be accepted and people dont make such a big deal out of it its not like gay people choose to be gay some of them wish they werent but they cant help it its kind of like making fun of the handicapped.

Just one point I'd like to attempt to clear.

People said that Christians shouldn't think homosexuality wrong, because Jesus didn't put a word against it. Jesus didn't say anything (please correct me if I'm wrong) about murder, rape, theft, etc. being wrong, as those rules were being by and largely kept to, at the time.

Jesus did say something about murder, rape, theft, etc.

He said "Love your God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you," codifying all 10 commandments into two. All three of the things you have brought up are things that you would not want to have done to you.

Just because someone is a Christian, that doesn't make them close-minded or sheep-like at all. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the inspired work of God. I believe that the only way to Heaven is through Christ. I have come to these conclusions on my own. I came to them through my own study. I go to church and I listen to the preacher. Yes, other people do it as well. We are not sheep. And if being open-minded means having no moral absolutes, if being open minded means that I don't believe in right and wrong, if being open minded means that I am not allowed to have beliefs and act on them, then by that definition I guess I am close-minded. But don't sit there and tell me that because I am a follower of Christ that I am a close-minded sheep. If you want to tell everyone how open-mind you are...why can you not accept me and my beliefs?

Very well put.

You must have me on ignore or something Neo Cannen, because I've already addressed all of the points you made in the past few pages, including this one. The perversion and immorality Jude 1:7 refers to could easily be referring to the fact that these men wanted to RAPE the angels.

OR it could be that they were gay and wanted to have sex with people they thought were men. And since no where else is rape refered to as perversion, I think my arguement stands.

I think everyone who uses the bible as their reason to sinnage just got owned. GOOD GAME bible thumpers :P!

Also, for those who think that homosexuality is such a sin (and no I personally am not a homosexual, I'm a heterosexual) then why do all those hypocritical bastards known as Catholic clergy keep RAPING LITTLE BOYS?! You tell me how SOOO many clergy men are allowed to do that, and then, MAYBE, I'll consider what you have to say against homosexuality.

Less than 1% of clergymen in catholic church have raped boys. It's a sad fact that it happens, but it has. You only think it is all the clergy because that is all you ever hear about. News flash people...no one is perfect. No one is ever going to be perfect while on this earth. That's life. This whole thread was started by someone who really only wants to sit back and watch the drama. Everyone here is feuling that. Everything everyone has said can be categorized into one of three statements...

1. It's a sin. It is wrong. You shouldn't do it.

2. It's a sin. It is wrong, but it's your choice.

3. There's nothing wrong with it.

This thread wasn't started to be a civilized discussion for the sole purpose of the exchange of ideas...it was started to bash christians and anyone who doesn't agree with the author. If you want to be different in the world, go ahead and stand out. If you want to have gay rights...talk to your congressman, that's the only way it will happen. There are plenty of liberals in Hollywood who would love to help you. But this really is a pathetic way to entertain yourself...at the expense of someone else's feelings. It's uncalled for and (I am going to sound like a five-year-old, but it is unavoidable) just plain mean.

OR it could be that they were gay and wanted to have sex with people they thought were men. And since no where else is rape refered to as perversion, I think my arguement stands.

Your argument does not stand. As long as there is reasonable doubt in how that particular passage is interpreted, it cannot be used as proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality, just it cannot be used as proof that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Jude 1:7 is inadmissible.

Every word of it? Do you believe this because you were told this? Do you believe it because you have read every word and prayed over it and found that it fits with your God? If so, how do you explain passages in the Bible that condone slavery and genocide. If your answer is "God has a plan" or "God is unknowable" - that's a cop-out. You haven't really thought about it and don't want to think that your God could do such things. The slavery argument again? You MUST know that abolitionists drew HEAVILY on the Bible for their arguments. And as for genocide, that did fit with God's plan. He had to set up Israel so Jesus could be born there and Christianity could get going. If it shows at the same time that you don't want to mess with God, then super.

Many, many are. Try talking to the people in your church. Most of them have probably never read half of the passages your preacher references. They don't know for sure that those passages are there, because they have never studied them. They don't know how much those passages may have been taken out of context. There is a huge difference between listening and taking as rote fact.

Take, for instance, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. For *years* preachers used that as an excuse to tell women to go home to their abusive husbands and sit by and take it. Why? Because they were taking things out of context. In truth, one must understand the society at the time of Christ to understand that passage. Turning the other cheek, in that society, meant that the aggresor could not hit you without declaring you his equal - thus it was a form of passive resistance. It sure as hell wasn't an order to sit down and take oppression.I've talked to the people at my church. They've read the Bible. They know what they're doing.

As for the turn the other cheek, Paul says that we should compare what preachers say with what the Bible says. Questioning is a valid part of faith, is what I think you're getting at, and I agree. We should compare what people say with what the Bible teaches.

There are moral absolutes and right and wrong, but homosexuality doesn't fall under that category any more than having blue eyes does. We can quibble over whether or not sexual actions taken by homosexuals are sinful (which, if done in love and committment, I believe they are not) but unless we want to believe that God forces people into sin, we cannot believe that homosexuality itself is a sin.

Here's a moral absolute for you: Love your God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have done unto you. Once again, I contend that it IS sinful. We are all born sinful. Who we are, even genetically, perhaps especially genetically, IS sinful. It's so pervasive, so ubiquitous, that we can't save ourselves. That's why we need a savior.

Once again, I contend that it IS sinful. We are all born sinful. Who we are, even genetically, perhaps especially genetically, IS sinful. It's so pervasive, so ubiquitous, that we can't save ourselves. That's why we need a savior.

And Muslims contend strongly many western values are sinful (immoral) but I'm not about to start praying to Allah (= God) for forgiveness.

And Muslims contend strongly many western values are sinful (immoral) but I'm not about to start praying to Allah (= God) for forgiveness.But Christianity is right, and Islam is wrong. I understand if you don't believe that, but there's a correct answer on this multiple choice test.

Erm, the fact that in the original account right before the angel came men requested to have sex with the men that had arrived? That may be a bit of a giveaway.

They tried to rape the Angels that had arrived. I bleieve you were pointed to the strange flesh and Nephilim references previously.

Ok so what if Easter and Christmas are not precicely WHEN the events they celebrate actually are. Its not like we are saying "This is the Xth anivereary of Y". We are remembering a specific event, be it Jesus's birth or his death, reserection and asscention. Just because its not exact to the day doesnt make the message and what we are doing any less valid.

Have to agree with you there. I think the point was though that the Holidays themselves are so intricately linked with older Pagan holidays, it is hard to distinguish which is the chicken and the egg.

The slavery argument again? You MUST know that abolitionists drew HEAVILY on the Bible for their arguments.

As did slave owners. Everyone who wants to get a point accross can draw on the Bible for their arguments. What is your point exactly?

And as for genocide, that did fit with God's plan. He had to set up Israel so Jesus could be born there and Christianity could get going. If it shows at the same time that you don't want to mess with God, then super.

Hey, if you want to believe that genocide is ok, so be it. But how do you then know that Nazi Germany wasn't just following God's plan? Maybe God was fed up with the fact that Jewish people had not accepted Christ and decided to enact vengeance upon them?

I don't know about you, but it sounds morally repugnant to me no matter how you cut it. The God I worship would not condone killing every man, woman, and child of any race just for being there.

I've talked to the people at my church. They've read the Bible. They know what they're doing.

You're deluding yourself if you think that no one at your church is blindly following out of habit rather than faith.

As for the turn the other cheek, Paul says that we should compare what preachers say with what the Bible says. Questioning is a valid part of faith, is what I think you're getting at, and I agree. We should compare what people say with what the Bible teaches.

The Bible says turn the other cheek. The problem is that, to get to the bottom of that particular admonishment, you have to understand the society of the time. These days, no one has a problem with using their left hand to do whatever they want to do with it - so the turn the other cheek comment, without explanation in the context of the time period - means something completely different.

Once again, I contend that it IS sinful.

Contend all you want. Just don't claim that you are absolutely right and infallible, as you are not.

We are all born sinful. Who we are, even genetically, perhaps especially genetically, IS sinful. It's so pervasive, so ubiquitous, that we can't save ourselves. That's why we need a savior.

I see, Augustine. Personally, I don't put much stock in Augustine. Human beings will do things wrong, we aren't perfect. But to say that being wrong is an inherent part of our genetics is going too far.

Just one point I'd like to attempt to clear.

People said that Christians shouldn't think homosexuality wrong, because Jesus didn't put a word against it. Jesus didn't say anything (please correct me if I'm wrong) about murder, rape, theft, etc. being wrong, as those rules were being by and largely kept to, at the time.

Jesus did say to love your neighbor as yourself. This implicitly enforces rules again rape, murder, theft, etc. To my mind though, loving your neighbor doesn't disobey homosexuality. I would want for myself to be happy with someone I love as long as it harms none. Homosexuality (though I'm sure some disagree with me, but then they obviously aren't gay) harms no one.

Before the angel arrived to destroy them men were wanting to have sex with men. I will show you. If you think it is 'Know' then I have to tell you now that that is an old translation. They thought those angels were men because without gender that is how they appered. Look in the new testement where it describes men in white clothes when it talks about the angels in the tomb.

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens

They mistook the angels for men. They wanted to have sex with them. They were men. Ergo they wanted Gay sex and God destroyed the city.

Yeah, that isn't proof behind a shadow of a doubt. Just because this translation (and I admit I have no idea what the original source says but would be highly interested in hearing it) says that the angels were referred to as men doesn't mean that the people didn't know otherwise. THe Bible frequently referred to angels as males.

My explanation for why conservatives like to condemn queer people is very simple: because they are different. The Bible does not make very clear its supposed condemnation of homosexuality. Yeah, there's that passage in Leviticus, but what else is in Leviticus? Rules against men touching women with their period, bans on clothes made from more than one kind of thread, and laws against eating shellfish and pork. How many conservatives follow those rules? And as for populating the world, there are enough little babies around here already. And as for the "Jesus was straight" argument, how many times does he ever express attraction to or desire for women? Absolutely none, unless you count the temptation by the devil story. Jesus was asexual.

Okay. Now all of you right-wingers will ask me why I can't just tolerate your condemnation of my lifestyle. Being queer (this is an umbrella term that we in the non-straight community use to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people) is different from being a Democrat, an environmentalist, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. Being queer is not a belief or a decision that can be disagreed with. For many queers it is as much a part of who they are as the color of their skin. I could go on pretending to be straight, but the part of me that is attracted to women would go on unfulfilled and forgotten. My bisexuality is a part of who I am, and it is not something that people can argue with.

OR it could be that they were gay and wanted to have sex with people they thought were men. And since no where else is rape refered to as perversion, I think my arguement stands.

You're willing to hang the eternal fate of many on the phrase "it could be". That's a risk beyond which I would be willing to take upon myself. And if rape isn't referred to as a perversion, then that is a travesty beyond any I've previously discovered associated with Christianity.

This thread wasn't started to be a civilized discussion for the sole purpose of the exchange of ideas...it was started to bash christians and anyone who doesn't agree with the author. If you want to be different in the world, go ahead and stand out. If you want to have gay rights...talk to your congressman, that's the only way it will happen. There are plenty of liberals in Hollywood who would love to help you. But this really is a pathetic way to entertain yourself...at the expense of someone else's feelings. It's uncalled for and (I am going to sound like a five-year-old, but it is unavoidable) just plain mean.

I suppose you will be equally outspoken against such people as Falwell, Robertson, and the godhatesfags people then? Because they are entertaining themselves by playing with the feelings of real people. I also hope that you feel that the bastards in Laramie got what they deserved.

As did slave owners. Everyone who wants to get a point accross can draw on the Bible for their arguments. What is your point exactly?My point is, everyone who wants to get a point across can draw on the Bible for their arguments. Including YOU in that last post. Who do you think was right in the whole slavery debate? Myself, I'm siding with the abolitionists. Just because both sides use the Bible doesn't mean that one side can't use it illegitimately. Just as if you could use the Bible to say that homosexuality is okay. You COULD. But you'd be wrong.

Hey, if you want to believe that genocide is ok, so be it. But how do you then know that Nazi Germany wasn't just following God's plan? Maybe God was fed up with the fact that Jewish people had not accepted Christ and decided to enact vengeance upon them?

I don't know about you, but it sounds morally repugnant to me no matter how you cut it. The God I worship would not condone killing every man, woman, and child of any race just for being there.Israel was God's chosen people. The canaanites wanted to kill Israel. They weren't just sitting around minding their own business when out of the blue, here comes this crazy zealotous nation of Israel. Again, you CAN'T say God was working through Nazi Germany. He told us how the plan was going to work, and that wasn't a part of it. But thanks for again drawing the parallel between Nazism and Christianity. It adds credability.

You're deluding yourself if you think that no one at your church is blindly following out of habit rather than faith. You're deluding yourself if you know WHO I TALK TO, and what they said.

I see, Augustine. Personally, I don't put much stock in Augustine. Human beings will do things wrong, we aren't perfect. But to say that being wrong is an inherent part of our genetics is going too far.I don't believe in Original Sin because Augustine said so. I believe in Original Sin because the Bible says so.

And if rape isn't referred to as a perversion, then that is a travesty beyond any I've previously discovered associated with Christianity.

Perversion means in its second context

"A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant"

And rape, whilst wrong, is useualy between a man and a women. Certianly it was when refered to in the bible and Man-Women sex is not considered deviant or abnormal. And if you are going to take use of language personally in this case then you need to develop a thicker skin.

Why is it a sin??? Think back to creation {this is all written from the standpoint of a Christian to other Christians} God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It's not how God meant for things to be. He made woman for man. And God makes no mistakes, his creation is perfect. So is it a sin? yes. Should the government allow it? What I really want to know is why does the government get any part in "marriage" anyway? IT'S RELIGIOUS!!! Give everyone civil unions and equal rights and leave marriage up to the church.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves teh due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:26-27

Perversion means in its second context

"A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant"

And rape, whilst wrong, is useualy between a man and a women. Certianly it was when refered to in the bible and Man-Women sex is not considered deviant or abnormal. And if you are going to take use of language personally in this case then you need to develop a thicker skin.

My dictionary lists the definition of perversion as a deviation from normal behavior. Who are you to say that the Bible uses your dictionary's definition rather than mine. I repeat, Jude 1:7 is inadmissible in this debate.

My point is, everyone who wants to get a point across can draw on the Bible for their arguments. Including YOU in that last post. Who do you think was right in the whole slavery debate? Myself, I'm siding with the abolitionists. Just because both sides use the Bible doesn't mean that one side can't use it illegitimately.

I go with the abolitionists. But if you have actually read the Old Testament, you know it states quite clearly that it is ok to own another human being, and even that killing a slave is perfectly fine if he survives for a day, since the slave was just property to begin with. How is quoting exact laws from the Old Testament "illegitimate use"?

Just as if you could use the Bible to say that homosexuality is okay. You COULD. But you'd be wrong.

Wow, you are awfully sure of your own infallibility. I could use the Bible to show that homosexuality is ok, but always with the caveat that I might be wrong. If you cannot admit that you might be wrong, you have no faith in your own conclusions.

Israel was God's chosen people. The canaanites wanted to kill Israel. They weren't just sitting around minding their own business when out of the blue, here comes this crazy zealotous nation of Israel.

And this has what to do with the order to kill *ALL* men, women, and children? You really think every single man, woman, and child in Canaan was bent on destroying all Israelites? And even if they were, would that excuse genocide?

Even if all Muslims (which they don't) wanted to kill everyone in America, would that justify us nuking every Muslim country? I think not.

Again, you CAN'T say God was working through Nazi Germany. He told us how the plan was going to work, and that wasn't a part of it.

If you believe the Bible is absolutely and literally true, you know that God sometimes changes plans. Sometimes God gets angry and decides to smite people. How can you be truly sure that this wasn't the case?

But thanks for again drawing the parallel between Nazism and Christianity. It adds credability.

Martyr complex, anyone? I never drew any such parallel. I drew a parallel between genocide and genocide - plain and simple. Christianity never even came into the comparison.

You're deluding yourself if you know WHO I TALK TO, and what they said.

You're right. You go to the only church in the world in which every single parishioner is a true believer who has researched everything for themselves and examined all viewpoints.

I don't believe in Original Sin because Augustine said so. I believe in Original Sin because the Bible says so.

Where exactly? The only passage I know of is largely based off of a probable mistranslation.

Why is it a sin??? Think back to creation {this is all written from the standpoint of a Christian to other Christians} God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It's not how God meant for things to be. He made woman for man. And God makes no mistakes, his creation is perfect.

Why have you chosen the second, rather than the first, Genesis story of creation? Because it fits the point you are trying to make?

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy. People will be marrying their cats and such. can anyone quote exactly what it says in the bible cause i think it has been misconstrued. And shouldnt the goverment step out of marriage? isnt that more of a church issue? The people should be able to vote on what is their definition of marriage? there fore if people in a certain state want gay marriages and not polygamy they can do so by voting. i dont think it should decided by governments or courts.

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy. People will be marrying their cats and such.

Why does this absolutely assinine and stupid statement keep getting spouted over and over and over again?

Why does this absolutely assinine and stupid statement keep getting spouted over and over and over again?
Because no one has ever put forth a counter argument based on something other than morality.

Because no one has ever put forth a counter argument based on something other than morality.

I have. Again and again and again and again.

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


Maybe because Christians didn't invent marriage?

And addressing the original question, I believe it was due to several factors:
1. No reproduction usually meant no reason for union... sex is generally considered sinful unless it produces a baby (minus Song of Solomon.)
2. Other nations were openly accepting of homosexuality at the time and to curb that would be to lessen the chance of interracial marriage.
3. It grossed out Paul big time.

Do you guys even realize the contradictory nature of this 'debate' You all seem to want the other side to shut up and stop looking at things their way... while they want you to shut up and look at things their way. the whole idea of somone having a right is just bullshit. you do what you want, if you get shot, you get shot. you should have been wearing a vest anyway... or shot the other human first.
:sniper:

what you people seem to forget is that there is a consequence to every single choice you make. If you choose to be gay, you choose to be part of an 'other' or a group different from a mainstream human (how that mainstream human was created was by a power struggle(see shooting other person before the person shoots you))

you can do what you want. but by doing so you open yourself up to perception/interpretation, by not doing so the same applies

you kill someone, someone might kill you.
people are equally entitled to their opinions because they are what they believe, there is no right or wrong and what you believe is shaped upon by what the person before you believed (whether you are opposed to it or not) that is logic people.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

Because the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination!

True, but the bible also clearly states that to test my girlfriend's loyalty to me I have to get her to drink muddy water. The bible clearly states that slaves are not only purchaseable but acceptable. The bible clearly states that if I love my kid I will beat him.

Using a literally centuries - old document to fund your views is not only ignorant and arrogant, it's laughable.


Because the couple could adopt a kid and screw up it's life!

Yeah, apparently homosexual couples are likely to screw up a kids' life, but when it comes to the guy down the road beating his kid senseless, "Oh don't worry about him, there's less and less of that happening." As long as the homosexual couple raise their child to be a good, responisible, considerate compassionate person I really don't see what the problem is.

You say that the child needs a male/female role model? Fine, I agree. But couldn't it be a teacher? Or a sports star? Or an uncle/aunt, or really anyone? If you truely feel the need to press this point and say that a kid raised without a parent of one gender will grow up terribly, then I'll have to ask you to say that in front of a single, hard working parent. You've just dissed so many of them.


Because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage!

Yeah, i've heard that argument lately. You know what? Where did that sanctity of marriage go? Because I doubt it ever existed. 300 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to go out into the Sunday market with your wife on a leash and sell her to the highest bidder. 100 years ago your wife wasn't really considered a person, just someone who's only destiny was to raise her family and not do anything else, and EVERYONE knew that the man was better and more important than she was.

And now.......

I can divorce my wife and marry another, as many times as I want. I can cheat on her, without her knowledge, and have no penalties for it. I can come home and beat my wife senseless. I can go on a game show and marry someone who I have NEVER MET in my life for the rest of my life, all for media profit. When I marry, part of her vows are to serve me for the rest of my life, promoting inequality and possibly slavery.

So where did sanctity go? No where - it never existed. What DOES exist is a societal structure on marriage. This societal structure is ever-changing - it doesn't conform to the past, it changes with the times. Which means that sooner or later we will accept homosexuality as a marriage option, because as we progress into the future it becomes more and more acceptable, and evidence of this is everywhere.


In short, to all of you homophobes.....your arguement is illogical, ignorant and hateful. Shut the fuck up.


AWESOME points dude. I want to point out about the 'missing parent' thing. Everyone has to remember- there is divorce, and death. A LOT of children grow up without a parent of one gender for these reasons alone. How could a gay couple be worse? It'd be better- at least you have two fathers, or two mothers to spread the attention around and to help with homework.

OH! And you CAN'T FORGET, all these Bible interpretations- remember, this is the same religion(s) that people have used to predict the end of the world. Hey, did you all know that the world ended in 1844? Seeing its 2004, close to 2005, thats a startling date! I should go pack up my religious symbols and go pray til I die.

Perversion means in its second context

"A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant"

And rape, whilst wrong, is useualy between a man and a women. Certianly it was when refered to in the bible and Man-Women sex is not considered deviant or abnormal. And if you are going to take use of language personally in this case then you need to develop a thicker skin.

So rape isn't a sexual practice considered abnormal or deviant?

I have. Again and again and again and again.
Where? If you dare say "find it" then I'll know you're just one of the ignorant bigots who supports something as long as they don't have to think.

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy. People will be marrying their cats and such. can anyone quote exactly what it says in the bible cause i think it has been misconstrued. And shouldnt the goverment step out of marriage? isnt that more of a church issue? The people should be able to vote on what is their definition of marriage? there fore if people in a certain state want gay marriages and not polygamy they can do so by voting. i dont think it should decided by governments or courts.

The government has a duty to provide for equality for all. Period. And while I agree with you government should just get out of marriage completely (call it civil unions for homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as the government is concerned) due to separation of church and state.

And I fail to see the connection between allowing gay marriage and people marrying their cats. Homosexuals are consenting adults. Cats are not.

The government should grant fair and equal rights to all and everyone should stop trying to legislate religious beliefs.

what you people seem to forget is that there is a consequence to every single choice you make. If you choose to be gay, you choose to be part of an 'other' or a group different from a mainstream human (how that mainstream human was created was by a power struggle(see shooting other person before the person shoots you))


Homosexuality is NOT a choice. All mainstream and peer-respected scientific groups hold that to be true.

And people DO have the right to as they want. Until it takes rights from someone else. My right to swing my fist stops where your nose ends.

And while I agree with you government should just get out of marriage completely (call it civil unions for homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as the government is concerned) due to separation of church and state.

And I fail to see the connection between allowing gay marriage and people marrying their cats. Homosexuals are consenting adults. Cats are not.


To that I must say:
Amen.

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy. People will be marrying their cats and such. can anyone quote exactly what it says in the bible cause i think it has been misconstrued. And shouldnt the goverment step out of marriage? isnt that more of a church issue? The people should be able to vote on what is their definition of marriage? there fore if people in a certain state want gay marriages and not polygamy they can do so by voting. i dont think it should decided by governments or courts.

Any reasonably sane person can tell the difference between a person and an animal. And you should learn how to spell and punctuate correctly.

Where? If you dare say "find it" then I'll know you're just one of the ignorant bigots who supports something as long as they don't have to think.

Here, I'll help out. Homosexual couples are comprised of two consenting adults. The cat/human pairing is different in that the cat cannot consent to a legal contract, such as marriage. Read the thread.

Its a sticky situation. You cant just allow gay marriages with out allowing other types. like polygamy. People will be marrying their cats and such.

So why can you allow heterosexual marriages without being forced to allow all these others?

Here, I'll help out. Homosexual couples are comprised of two consenting adults. The cat/human pairing is different in that the cat cannot consent to a legal contract, such as marriage. Read the thread.
Cats are property. Their consent or nonconsent is irrelevant. You can't sell a human, you can't leave on in your will, you can't send one to the pound to get it fixed. Besides, the age of consent is wrong anyway, biologically, a 12 year old has the same decision making powers as anyone older, as his brain is fully developed.

So why can you allow heterosexual marriages without being forced to allow all these others?
You shouldn't. Kick the government out of marriage.

First off...throw out ALL arguments about cats, dogs, horses, pieces of furniture, plants and cars marrying people. These items are not persons under the law and as such cannot enter into a contract. Throw out arguments about people wanting to marry children...they cant...children under 18 cannot enter into a binding contract either.

Throw out arguments about people wanting to marry children...they cant...children under 18 cannot enter into a binding contract either.
And homosexuals can't marry. You want to change that. Biologically speaking, there is no reason why a child 12 years old should be denied the right to enter into a contract.

You shouldn't. Kick the government out of marriage.

I wasn't specifically referring to any government.

I wasn't specifically referring to any government.
Well that's the issue isn't it? Homosexuals don't care about married in church, they care about the state recognizing them and rewarding them. If they cared what the church thought, they wouldn't engage in homosexuality.

And homosexuals can't marry. You want to change that. Biologically speaking, there is no reason why a child 12 years old should be denied the right to enter into a contract.

Ahem, i call douchery on that argument, obviously you are not someone who has much experience with children. Do YOU think a 12 year old is emotionally or intellecutally capable of grasping the ramifications of a contract, much less marriage? Honestly? If you cant come up with a decent argument against something please stop referring to the patently absurd.