NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to ask a slightly sideways question relating to what has already gone before (so many pages!) ...

As I am not a theologian, I won't state this as fact but: in the passage in Romans 1, it seems to imply that homosexuality was placed on men and women by God directly as some sort of curse or punishment. If this is the case, why does it remain a sin?

Just as Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were cast into a mortal existence, it seems that some have in turn been handed "further punishment". We should "duck out" of this punishment?

Ezralia']I think I've said this one on another post about homosexuality (wow we really like to beat this one to death here don't we?), I do not see the sense in G-d giving us free will and then condemning us to eternal torment for making the "wrong" choice...and that's assuming that homosexuality is in fact a choice. It's not. Which leads us back to...if you believe that G-d creates everyone, why would G-d create homosexuals just to have them burn for HIS decision later? Not that I believe that there's a hell in the first place...

Exactly how I feel (if there is a god, that is).

That was an easy question. Next!

It may not have been universally condoned, but evidently it wasn't always a big deal.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

It may not have been universally condoned, but evidently it wasn't always a big deal.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

That's a very interesting article... I knew the the anti-homosexual feeling of the churches would have its roots in the sexual morals of the last 4 centuries, but I had no idea that homosexual marriages used to be church practice...

It may not have been universally condoned, but evidently it wasn't always a big deal.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

Thankyou for the link - I'm interested in finding more information about this research. If anyone happens to have any futher links, I'd be grateful if they could pass them along.

1) The seven deadly sins were rules made up by the Catholic church, relating to their interpretation of the bible - thus, you failed to justify it, I said no bible references.

2) You seem to think that the only purpose on your life is to f*ck, live and die; well, quite frankly, that is a bloody shallow existance.

3) How do you know what I want out of a relationship? you think that the only reason a relationship stays together is because a sprog is forcing the parents to remain faithful?

You have a very shallow existance sunshine; may you live a misserable, shallow existance on this god forsaken rock of a planet.

1)You're asking the impossible. Sin is a religious concept. How can you prove homosexuality is a sin if you can't use the Bible. It doesn't make sense.

2)I don't know why you think this. I was talking purely about sex. i made no mention of any of the other aspects of life. This is a bizarre interpretation of what I wrote.

3)I wasn't talking about your relationship. I was talking about your sex life. And that was far from what I said.

Why didn't you tell me there was going to be fire? I could have toasted marshmallows :(

www.godmademegay.com


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Revised Standard Version:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death...

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God." This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else. These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."

Romans 1:21, 26, 27

Revised Standard Version
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...

Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.



Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.

Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."

So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.

I Tim. 1:10

King James Version:
9...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,...10...for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)...

Revised Standard Version - both 1952 and 1971 editions:
9...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),...

New International Version:
9...the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)

Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term "sodomites," which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9.

As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex in our discussion.

So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals.

:headbang:

I'm greatly impressed by the discussion that has transpired thus far. However, what really concerns me is that the issue of homosexuality itself should not be treated as an exclusively Christian issue. The fact of the matter is that not everyone in the whole wide world is Christian by faith. The fact that the Bible affirms/does not affirm that homosexuality is a sin is, at this point, irrelevant to those who are not Christian. Because of this, our goal must be to find a sound moral base upon which to base our arguments; a base that does not associate itself with any religion in the slightest, and is therefore accesible, understandable, and acceptable to anyone in the world. Factors that have to be taken into consideration, therefore, are homosexuality's impact on society, civil equality, infringement of other civil rights, etc, and not religion.

I'm greatly impressed by the discussion that has transpired thus far. However, what really concerns me is that the issue of homosexuality itself should not be treated as an exclusively Christian issue. The fact of the matter is that not everyone in the whole wide world is Christian by faith. .


It's pointless. If ever a similar discussion comes up without being zinged into oblivion by a bleeting biblethumper(s) I'll take it as a sign of the Apocalypse and convert.

1)You're asking the impossible. Sin is a religious concept. How can you prove homosexuality is a sin if you can't use the Bible. It doesn't make sense.

2)I don't know why you think this. I was talking purely about sex. i made no mention of any of the other aspects of life. This is a bizarre interpretation of what I wrote.

3)I wasn't talking about your relationship. I was talking about your sex life. And that was far from what I said.

You stated that homosexual relations are motivated by lust and sex

Why didn't you tell me there was going to be fire? I could have toasted marshmallows :(

Sorry, but you said:

"Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God."

Interesting, so you classify my relationship as something that is built on nothing more than 'lust and pleasure'?

This is from a chap who has yet to have a relationship, let a alone sexual intercourse, and yet, he see's himself fit to parade these forums, declaring himself a bible scholar, and everyone should sit down, shut up, and listen to the little maestro at work?

Also, sin is a concept relative to a moral code; I would like you to put down that irrelevant, several thousand year old book, and start using that God given brain; had he wanted us to simply follow the bible, he would have not given us free will, and we would automatically stick to everything required in the old and new testament.

What God wants us to do is use our brain, rationalise and reason out actions; and I'm sorry, I've yet to hear one reasoned comment as to why homosexuality is bad or sinful.

All I have heard at *SPINOFFS* where by somewho is gay *CHOOSES* to live a certain lifestyle - be it a drug taking disco diva or a sex addicted wanker - these are issues to do with the individual, NOT the sexual orientation. What a person decides to do with his life as little to do with his sexual orientation. If he as an adult decides to take drugs, that is what HE is deciding, and no one else.

I know this will most likely fall on deaf ears as the idea of actually using your brain, rather than mindlessly following and outdated and outmoded book, is a foreign concept to you.

Plus, I don't think God would have fire-bombed Sodom, a city filled with "Men who buurned in their lust for each other" if he had no problem with people that walk on that side of the fence, if you catch my drift.
Didnt see much divine punishment raining down on Frisco lately, have you?

This is my pro-gay bible arguement, and I won't even get into the debunking of the bible itself:

Have you ever lied? Most of us have, and if so, it is wrong and you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Romans 3:7 and 3:8, Colossians 3:9, and Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.

Your god does not wish for you to judge or hate another, especially those of you who are yourselves sinners. Allow your god to be the final judge, and accept that in the meanwhile, homosexuals do exist and are just as much human as you are.
I always laugh when Homosexuals try to use parts of the Bible out of context to prove their lifestyle. I am impressed that you didn't pull the usual "Jesus loved John" to prove he was gay, that always makes me laugh.

I am very much against homosexuality and believe it to be a mortal sin but like you have stated we are not to judge or hate others. We are however to be able to recognize and guard against evil in all it's forms. The flip side of this is the sceintific side of me that knows that historically speaking man has had multiple wives (Solomon had around 700) and it was neccesary for them to sometimes turn to eachother. The male homosexuality however has only ever shown up in civilizations on the decline. Double standard? Yes, but that is history. Does that mean one is okay in the eyes of God and not the other? The Bible says that we are all equal in the eyes of God, born into sin, but that we can be redeemed but submitting ourselves to Him. Most everyone I have ever met that started gay and then came to God "straightened" out of their own volition. It has also been proven that a simple imbalance in the way our bodies process and absorb sugar can lead to this lifestyle and when the imbalance is fixed, by a naturalpath -- BodyTalk --, it has always led to a "proper" desire.

I appologize for the bad grammar and misspellings but it is WAY past time for me to be asleep! If you have any questions about my views or statements please Tg me since I almost never get in here. I will post the question/answer in here if you remind me of the thread title.

I don't so much see homosexuality as a sin, so much as "Silly faggot, Dix are for Chicks!"

Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (King James).

Leviticus 18:22. Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (The Living Bible).

**********

Leviticus 20:13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (King James).

Leviticus 20:13. The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves. (The Living Bible).

**********

Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. (King James).

Deuteronomy 23: 17. No prostitutes are permitted in Israel, either men or women; you must not bring to the Lord any offering from the earnings of a prostitute or a homosexual, for both are detestable to the Lord your God. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Kings 14:24. And there were also Sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. (King James).

1 Kings 14:24. There was homosexuality throughout the land, and the people of Judah became as depraved as the heathen nations which the Lord drove out to make room for his people. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Corinthians 6:9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. (King James).

1 Corinthians 6:9. Don't you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals--will have no share in his Kingdom. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Timothy 1:10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (King James).

1 Timothy 1:10. Yes, these laws are made to identify as sinners all who are immoral and impure: homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, and all others who do things that contradict the glorious Good News of our blessed God, whose messenger I am. (The Living Bible).

**********

The proof is in the holy scriptures. Praise the holy and majestic word of GOD. Amen!

I really start taking offense here. Homosexuality is NOT an illness, it CANNOT be cured.
Some people will take the unhealthy way out of the dilemma everybody faces as soon as they come to realise that their sexual orientation is "not the norm" and try to force themselves to be straight. This will in many cases end in frustration and depression and can lead to violence against themselves or others.

Sexuality is about a LOT more than just reproduction. A healthy sexual life reduces stress, it will help maintain an emotional balance, it will lead to a positive perception and attitude towards the world, it is fulfilling and dissolves aggression. If it is forcibly taken away, the results can be disastrous... take a look a the state many Catholic priests are in after maybe 20 years of service.
I understand und accept it that some people wish to abstain from sexuality for whatever reasons, but don't ever try to force anybody else to do the same.

Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (King James).

Leviticus 18:22. Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (The Living Bible).

**********

Leviticus 20:13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (King James).

Leviticus 20:13. The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves. (The Living Bible).

**********

Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. (King James).

Deuteronomy 23: 17. No prostitutes are permitted in Israel, either men or women; you must not bring to the Lord any offering from the earnings of a prostitute or a homosexual, for both are detestable to the Lord your God. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Kings 14:24. And there were also Sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. (King James).

1 Kings 14:24. There was homosexuality throughout the land, and the people of Judah became as depraved as the heathen nations which the Lord drove out to make room for his people. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Corinthians 6:9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. (King James).

1 Corinthians 6:9. Don't you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals--will have no share in his Kingdom. (The Living Bible).

**********

1 Timothy 1:10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (King James).

1 Timothy 1:10. Yes, these laws are made to identify as sinners all who are immoral and impure: homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, and all others who do things that contradict the glorious Good News of our blessed God, whose messenger I am. (The Living Bible).

**********

The proof is in the holy scriptures. Praise the holy and majestic word of GOD. Amen!


You know, it's people like you who constantly seek to offend others, spread hatred and enjoy being oh so holy and righteous that will one day drive me out of the church.... :(

You know, it's people like you who constantly seek to offend others, spread hatred and enjoy being oh so holy and righteous that will one day drive me out of the church.... :(

Thank Mod for the ignore list then.

My comments where simply a rebuttal of Ravyns. However, I see that you did not condemn nor blame him for posting his thoughts. He was the one that started posting erroneous scripture, not I. I simply defended my faith. Must have been because you agree with him. How convenient! Bye, bye!

My comments where simply a rebuttal of Ravyns. However, I see that you did not condemn nor blame him for posting his thoughts. He was the one that started posting erroneous scripture, not I. I simply defended my faith. Must have been because you agree with him. How convenient! Bye, bye!

As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with tolerant people and disagree with intolerance, yes.

If you love a person, does it really matter what sex they are?

I don't think it does and I think that when the Bible was written, it was written by people inspired by God, not God himself. Therefore these people also included their own personal/cultural views ie. their distrust of homosexuals.

The only abberation in the world of today is people who always have to judge the book by its cover and not its contents.

I have no disagreements with gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, black people, Chinese people, transvestites or any other group. They are only humans trying to express themselves and you bible-bashers should look on these people that "God made in his image" and see the beauty in each of them.

Well, thats my piece said. For now anyways.

:headbang:

If you love a person, does it really matter what sex they are?

I don't think it does and I think that when the Bible was written, it was written by people inspired by God, not God himself. Therefore these people also included their own personal/cultural views ie. their distrust of homosexuals.

The only abberation in the world of today is people who always have to judge the book by its cover and not its contents.

I have no disagreements with gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, black people, Chinese people, transvestites or any other group. They are only humans trying to express themselves and you bible-bashers should look on these people that "God made in his image" and see the beauty in each of them.

Well, thats my piece said. For now anyways.

:headbang:


:) You deserve a cookie! :fluffle:

Thanks for the cookie but I think I'll have lunch instead. I'll check up on how the bible-bashers reply later.

By the way everybody, I DO believe in God. I am a Christian just not a prejudiced one.

I don't think it does and I think that when the Bible was written, it was written by people inspired by God, not God himself. Therefore these people also included their own personal/cultural views ie. their distrust of homosexuals.

The only abberation in the world of today is people who always have to judge the book by its cover and not its contents.

It's like the longest ever game of Chinese Whispers.

Only it's not a game, and there are still those who interpret things so as to justify/promote their own agendas.

A healthy does of skepticism would make everyone more tolerant, and perhaps then we'd be able to do something more productive than trying to solve the imaginary problems that we create for ourselves.

The male homosexuality however has only ever shown up in civilizations on the decline.
Oh, it did? Homosexual behaviour among men has occured quite often during the times of Cesar, at the height of the roman empire and it wasnt a new invention then. It happened in Sparta and Athens over centuries, while both were the major powers in the mediterrenean. And the decline today is apparent where?

So you call people who attacks another person's faith, tolerent? And those who defend their faith, intolerent? How amusing!

The decline today is apparent everywhere!

The decline today is apparent everywhere!

Yea because we all know homosexuality is the source of all our problems. :rolleyes: Look at the world around you, murders, theft, starvation, AIDS, Genocides and so much more. Homosexuality is nothing compared to any of these, if you even believe it to be a problem at all.

homosexuality Does in fact hurt others. it helps in spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Of course, so does unsafe, straight sex.....

i often think that sex involving two people-or more than two people- that is not based on love- but moreso lust- is wrong. Unfortunately, i think this happens just as much as sex with love. It depresses me---or maybe i'm just jealous and bitter because I don't get laid much :/.......

anyway, if i was God, i'd call someone who has sex throughout their life more for lust than love, a less-evolved and base person than a person who only has sex with a partner who he has a deep emotional bond to. I'd call someone who has unsafe sex throughtout their life, possibly contributing to spreading disease, as detrimental to mankind. Both of these practices, whether between same-sex partners or between a male and female would be contributing reasons to condemn a person.

No argument from me! All those things you state, plus many, many more are all causes for civilizations decline.

So you call people who attacks another person's faith, tolerent? And those who defend their faith, intolerent? How amusing!

I was not attacking Christianity as I am too a Christian. Where does it say in the Bible that to defend the faith is to judge people completely based on their sexual orientation.

The most devout Christian could be gay. The Pope could be gay. Would that make them an immoral, inferior being in the eyes of God? The answer is no. Frankly, God doesn't care what goes on between two people in love and as I said before the people writing the Bible put their own prejudiced misconceptions into it.

Homosexuality is not a choice as has been scientifically proven.

Therefore, for a person to be gay they must've been born gay.

This also leads to the conclusion that God "made them in his image" and made them gay. If he made them gay, then how can it be wrong? And how can it automatically mean they are going to Hell... If he made them gay, did he condemn them to a lifetime of Sin and an eternity in Hell after death before their births? No. Because God is an omibenevolent (all-loving) being that would not place such a "burden" upon people.

In life, there are two kinds of people -

1) Those that understand the quirks and oddities of human nature and accept people for who they are. They also generally try to help people without an ulterior motive. These are moral people who will go to heaven regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation or any other of these "sins".

2) Those that cannot comprehend something different to what they are and spend their whole lives in denial of the simple fact that "Everyone is different".

At the end of the day some men like men and some men like women. The same goes for women. Some people dont even care.

But the point is that they didnt choose to live a "perverted" life, they chose the path that God set them upon. They have a purpose in life as does everybody.

You cannot judge people on things you yourself do not understand.

btw, Arnburg if you're such a moral person why dont you realise that people aren't calling Christianity. But I say this as a devout Christian - some of the teachings are biased and prejudiced and not applicable to the modern world.

Also, I do not believe that only the most devout Christians will go to heaven. Atheists, Hindus, Muslims and anyone else can go to heaven.

It's not a good habit to misquote people on purpose in a serious argument.

I didn't misquote anyone. I made it quite clear that I had made changes. Or are you not aware that "corrections" generally are changes?

It's rather obnoxious, actually.

It is much more obnoxious to attempt to claim that your own beliefs, which you cannot prove, are the aboslute. It is even more obnoxious to claim that your own personal beliefs represent all of a huge group of people. That is what I was correcting.

As I am not a theologian, I won't state this as fact but: in the passage in Romans 1, it seems to imply that homosexuality was placed on men and women by God directly as some sort of curse or punishment. If this is the case, why does it remain a sin?

You could look at it that way.

Another way to interpret that is that when people are completley giving in to any temptation, even heterosexuals will be tempted to have sex for nothing but pleasure - with people of either sex. Thus, the sin is not being homosexual, but leaving your sexuality to do things purely for pleasure, with no thought as to a relationship or emotional ties.

the sceintific side of me


Most everyone I have ever met that started gay and then came to God "straightened" out of their own volition. It has also been proven that a simple imbalance in the way our bodies process and absorb sugar can lead to this lifestyle and when the imbalance is fixed, by a naturalpath -- BodyTalk --, it has always led to a "proper" desire.

Considering that the few studies that have claimed this have been utterly unscientific, these two statements are incompatible. If you have a scientific side, use it.

So you call people who attacks another person's faith, tolerent? And those who defend their faith, intolerent? How amusing!

No one has attacked your faith darling, that is what you did.

Someone said "This is what I believe and these are the Scriptures to back it up."

You went, "No, you are wrong! These are my scriptures!"

And you consider any other viewpoint as an "attack on your faith."

I think he's one of those that goes to sleep every night cuddling his Bible... I mean, I'm a Christian too but still... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you said:

"Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God."

Interesting, so you classify my relationship as something that is built on nothing more than 'lust and pleasure'?

That would appear to be what I said, although perhaps I should not have. However, I do believe that there is nothing to homosexual intercourse than lust and pleasure.

I should not have made that generalisation about the relationship as a whole.

This is from a chap who has yet to have a relationship, let a alone sexual intercourse, and yet, he see's himself fit to parade these forums, declaring himself a bible scholar, and everyone should sit down, shut up, and listen to the little maestro at work?

When did I say I had never had a relationship? I did say I was a virgin, but nowhere did I say I had never had a relationship. I'll assume you misread my posts and not that you automatically equate relationship with sex. And did you also see, way back at the start of this thread, where I said that I'm not a bible scholar?

All I'm doind is offering my opinions, the same as you. You're being a bit of a hypocrite here, if you don't mind me saying so.

Also, sin is a concept relative to a moral code; I would like you to put down that irrelevant, several thousand year old book, and start using that God given brain; had he wanted us to simply follow the bible, he would have not given us free will, and we would automatically stick to everything required in the old and new testament

What God wants us to do is use our brain, rationalise and reason out actions; and I'm sorry, I've yet to hear one reasoned comment as to why homosexuality is bad or sinful.

Sin is a religious concept; morality is related to a moral code.

I do use my brain; I just choose to follow the Bible on such matters as these.

Answer this: what does homosexuality contribute to society? How does it benefit people as a group (not as individuals; I see how it benefits individuals)? Are these benefits unique to homosexuality?

Heterosexuality produces the next generation, before you ask.

This is my pro-gay bible arguement, and I won't even get into the debunking of the bible itself:





Have you ever lied? Most of us have, and if so, it is wrong and you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Romans 3:7 and 3:8, Colossians 3:9, and Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.





Your god does not wish for you to judge or hate another, especially those of you who are yourselves sinners. Allow your god to be the final judge, and accept that in the meanwhile, homosexuals do exist and are just as much human as you are.
That does not excuse homosexuality. It just means that lying and all that other stuff are sins too.

Personally, I treat homosexuality like any other sin. It's a sin, it's not the end of the world, God loves gays too, and there's no cause for damning people to hell just because they're gay. I sin too, I'm no better than them, and I don't want anyone to think that I consider myself better. Romans 12:2, "for ALL have sinned..."

That being said, it IS a sin. Whether or not anyone is better than anyone else, gays are still sinners. Does that make them bad people? Of course not. Do I have any right to damn them to hell? Of course not. But they are sinners, just like everyone else.

That does not excuse homosexuality. It just means that lying and all that other stuff are sins too.

Personally, I treat homosexuality like any other sin. It's a sin, it's not the end of the world, God loves gays too, and there's no cause for damning people to hell just because they're gay. I sin too, I'm no better than them, and I don't want anyone to think that I consider myself better. Romans 12:2, "for ALL have sinned..."

That being said, it IS a sin. Whether or not anyone is better than anyone else, gays are still sinners. Does that make them bad people? Of course not. Do I have any right to damn them to hell? Of course not. But they are sinners, just like everyone else.

Unless you are personally claiming infallibility, it would be better to say "I believe it is a sin" than "It IS a sin."

Sorry, but you said:

"Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God."

Interesting, so you classify my relationship as something that is built on nothing more than 'lust and pleasure'?


That would appear to be what I said, although perhaps I should not have. However, I do believe that there is nothing to homosexual intercourse than lust and pleasure.

I probably misunderstood what you're trying to say, but does this mean that you see sex with contraceptives as having nothing but 'lust and pleasure'?

Ok. So I see the watering-down of christianity at work. The same old "changing christianity to fit society" deal. I have a proposal, as an agnostic/nihilist, for all you liberal christians: to end this hypocrisy, quit the religion you don't believe in (if you don't agree with these tenets) instead of watering it down to a superstitious, half-assed humanism. I quit, and it feels GOOD.

Ok. So I see the watering-down of christianity at work. The same old "changing christianity to fit society" deal. I have a proposal, as an agnostic/nihilist, for all you liberal christians: to end this hypocrisy, quit the religion you don't believe in (if you don't agree with these tenets) instead of watering it down to a superstitious, half-assed humanism. I quit, and it feels GOOD.
I AGREE

IF YOU WANT TO GO AROUND CHANGING MY RELIGION TO FIT TODAY'S STANDARDS, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. YOU SHOULDN'T REFER TO THIS CRAP AS CHRISTIANITY.

I don't mean to sound inexcuseably rude, but what is the attraction to sex with other men? The concept kinda makes me gag...

About the contraceptives, well, God did bless matrimony between a man and woman, but in so many words condemned homosexuality <<<SODOM & GOMMORAH>>>. He didn't say man and woman could only have sex to concieve...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers—none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

New Living Translation

Also, sin is a concept relative to a moral code; I would like you to put down that irrelevant, several thousand year old book, and start using that God given brain; had he wanted us to simply follow the bible, he would have not given us free will, and we would automatically stick to everything required in the old and new testament.

What God wants us to do is use our brain, rationalise and reason out actions; and I'm sorry, I've yet to hear one reasoned comment as to why homosexuality is bad or sinful.
Wait, did you just call the Bible irrelevant and then mention God (with a capital G for that matter) two more times? Something seems wrong about that.

Anyone can take 15 verses out of context and justify their sin. Two of the more important verses you left out are the ones showing that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION to God (not just a sin), and that those who committed the act of homosexuality got punished for doing so. I don't hate homosexuals, and I don't think that they're going to Hell if they follow God's teachings. I also don't believe, however, that you can be homosexual and follow God's teachings, because it states in the Bible that you're not to lead a life full of the same sin every day.

To those of you who get upset with Christians talking about the infallibility of the Bible; I have a bit of reasoning for you. It's probably because that's what we believe. You don't question the Muslim's thinking of the infallibility of the Koran, do you? What's wrong with someone stating what they believe and then talking in that sense? You guys seem to believe that homosexuality is okay, and that your belief is infallible in that sense.

Any religion that declares love a sin is not worth following IMHO.

bump

Answer this: what does homosexuality contribute to society? How does it benefit people as a group (not as individuals; I see how it benefits individuals)? Are these benefits unique to homosexuality?

Heterosexuality produces the next generation, before you ask.

I take it you don't have many homosexual friends or aquaintaces... these are some of the most intelligent, sensitive, innovative and creative people I ever met. Not necessarily because being homosexual automatically makes you that way, but because they had to go through a lot of trouble from a very early stage in their life and have learned from it. Some more than others, of course, but on the whole being homosexual does in no case make them less valuable to society than any heterosexual, on the contrary.

Heterosexuality doesn't produce the next generation. I'm mostly heterosexual, and I will never ever have children. I don't want any.
I live my life, I work hard in my job, I help people wherever I can, I'm a bit of an artist, drawing, painting and writing.
Do you want to tell me that I don't contribute to society?
Does sexuality have to contribute to society??? Aren't human beings more than that?

Any religion that declares love a sin is not worth following IMHO.
It doesn't declare love as a sin. It claims that homosexuality uses a person's body for other reasons than the ones that God intended them to be used for. God made man first, and then made a woman to be his companion. The Bible mentions nothing about the desire or necessity to procreate while Adam and Eve were in the GoE, so you could argue that sin resulted in the necessity to have sex.

I take it you don't have many homosexual friends or aquaintaces... these are some of the most intelligent, sensitive, innovative and creative people I ever met. Not necessarily because being homosexual automatically makes you that way, but because they had to go through a lot of trouble from a very early stage in their life and have learned from it. Some more than others, of course, but on the whole being homosexual does in no case make them less valuable to society than any heterosexual, on the contrary.

Heterosexuality doesn't produce the next generation. I'm mostly heterosexual, and I will never ever have children. I don't want any.
I live my life, I work hard in my job, I help people wherever I can, I'm a bit of an artist, drawing, painting and writing.
Do you want to tell me that I don't contribute to society?
Does sexuality have to contribute to society??? Aren't human beings more than that?
The contribution that he is talking about is the next generation of humans. Show me a homosexual couple that has birthed a child together (no surrogates).

I AGREE

IF YOU WANT TO GO AROUND CHANGING MY RELIGION TO FIT TODAY'S STANDARDS, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. YOU SHOULDN'T REFER TO THIS CRAP AS CHRISTIANITY.

Humans evolve. Human minds, human thought, human understanding evolve. And you ask religion and faith to remain static?

Not so long ago that faith would have asked you to assume that the world is flat, because the bible says so.
That faith would not have allowed women to even speak in chruch becaues Paul instructed that they shouldn't "teach".
That faith would have demanded to kill everybody who doesn't agree with it.


All this has changed, and I dare say very few of us miss it today. Like it or not, but humans will continue contemplating faith and religion, they will go on questioning and observing the work of god, and god will reveal what he sees fit. If we let faith become static, if we stopped asking and doubting, how should it grow? It would wither and die. I'm sorry, but I value my faith to highly to let that happen.

The contribution that he is talking about is the next generation of humans. Show me a homosexual couple that has birthed a child together (no surrogates).

I know. But not every heterosexual contributs to that next generation. I for one am dead set against it.
Btw, how would a society of 6.5 billion people profit from even MORE human beings? If anything, we should seriously consider reducing the production....

Edit : And I know that there are a number of lesbian couples out there were either one or both of them had children... homosexuality isn't exclusively male.

Humans evolve. Human minds, human thought, human understanding evolve. And you ask religion and faith to remain static?

Not so long ago that faith would have asked you to assume that the world is flat, because the bible says so.
That faith would not have allowed women to even speak in chruch becaues Paul instructed that they shouldn't "teach".
That faith would have demanded to kill everybody who doesn't agree with it.


All this has changed, and I dare say very few of us miss it today. Like it or not, but humans will continue contemplating faith and religion, they will go on questioning and observing the work of god, and god will reveal what he sees fit. If we let faith become static, if we stopped asking and doubting, how should it grow? It would wither and die. I'm sorry, but I value my faith to highly to let that happen.
Woah woah woah...

The Bible instructs that the Earth is flat?!?!?!?!
We're supposed to kill everyone who doesn't agree?!?!?!?!

I guess I misread the verse that says love your neighbor as yourself. Dang, I was totally off, wasn't I?

I do believe that humans change and their minds do also, but if you're going to believe half of what the Bible says, but you're going to disregard the other half, how can you justify to anyone that your faith is real? God never asked us to take the Bible as truth and not question what it says. He did ask us, however, to have faith in what the Bible says. Without faith, there's no reason to believe it.

I know. But not every heterosexual contributs to that next generation. I for one am dead set against it.
Btw, how would a society of 6.5 billion people profit from even MORE human beings? If anything, we should seriously consider reducing the production....

Edit : And I know that there are a number of lesbian couples out there were either one or both of them had children... homosexuality isn't exclusively male.
Our population will continue to grow exponentially. Why do you think a lot of the unstoppable diseases we have now are around? They help to keep the population down. Imagine if all those 2 million (correct me if I'm wrong) people who died from AIDS were still around to have more children.

I know homosexuality isn't exclusively male, but it takes a sperm and an egg to create a human being. The females who had children got their sperm from a male donor. That is heterosexual procreation, because there is no other form. Except asexuality of course.

Ok. So I see the watering-down of christianity at work. The same old "changing christianity to fit society" deal. I have a proposal, as an agnostic/nihilist, for all you liberal christians: to end this hypocrisy, quit the religion you don't believe in (if you don't agree with these tenets) instead of watering it down to a superstitious, half-assed humanism. I quit, and it feels GOOD.

You are really funny. And obviously under the impression that Christianity was once a cohesive religion where everyone believed the same thing. This is a very, very false impression.

There have always been liberal and fundamentalist elements (as well as in betweens) in the Christian religion. Once upon a time, it was "liberal" of a white Christian church to allow a black man to attend (*gasp*).

You are not Christ. You are not God. Thus, you have your interpretation of what Christianity should be. I have mine. If you don't like mine, don't subscribe to it. And I'll afford you the same respect.

Two of the more important verses you left out are the ones showing that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION to God (not just a sin), and that those who committed the act of homosexuality got punished for doing so.

You mean the verses that don't necessarily say that in their original language and are often used out of context?

You don't question the Muslim's thinking of the infallibility of the Koran, do you?

I don't question anyone's belief, so long as they aren't trying to force it upon me.

You guys seem to believe that homosexuality is okay, and that your belief is infallible in that sense.

Not in the least. However, we are not trying to force you to say that homosexuality is ok. You are trying to force others to live by your rules. See the difference?

sin? no...its a way to live...its who they are. its how they are born. God doesn't make junk.

I am sure you are not perfect. I'm sure you've made yourself into junk at least once. What makes you think there is no hope for Gays even if they, in themselves, are morally just? Their sex life is their choice. But religion is their choice too.

You mean the verses that don't necessarily say that in their original language and are often used out of context?



I don't question anyone's belief, so long as they aren't trying to force it upon me.



Not in the least. However, we are not trying to force you to say that homosexuality is ok. You are trying to force others to live by your rules. See the difference?
I'm not forcing you to do anything. Did I kill someone because they wouldn't be heterosexual? Until you've been harmed, you haven't been forced. I'm simply telling you what I believe and what the Bible says.

Explain to me those verses in their original language. Meanwhile, I'll believe what I've read in the Bible.

I probably misunderstood what you're trying to say, but does this mean that you see sex with contraceptives as having nothing but 'lust and pleasure'?

That is my opinion, yes.

The Bible instructs that the Earth is flat?!?!?!?!

It suggests that. The Bible, even the likely mistranslated version that so many use, never says "A loving relationship between two men that is in every way like a loving relationship between a man and a woman other than the gender of the two." However, people infer that from other passages.

Taking the Bible literally (as many do), the world has to be flat. On top of that, the sun has to revolve around it.

We're supposed to kill everyone who doesn't agree?!?!?!?!

That is the way that the majority of the church once interpreted things, yes. Luckily, Christianity has progressed beyond that point and looked deeper into the actual teachings of Christ.

I do believe that humans change and their minds do also, but if you're going to believe half of what the Bible says, but you're going to disregard the other half, how can you justify to anyone that your faith is real?

You assume, first off, that a few aspects that may or not be mistranlsated equates to "half". You also assume that one's faith has to be completely in the Bible and the people who wrote and translated it. My faith is in God, not in humankind.

no, its not a sin, its a chemical imbalace in the brain, it have been proved that Gays respond to things the same way women do. Its only a sin if you beleive in eternal damnation, and all that hatred incorperated into the bible.

Woah woah woah...

The Bible instructs that the Earth is flat?!?!?!?!

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Matthew 4:8 “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” (not possible with a globe, is it?)

Revelation 7:1 “After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners of the earth"

The bible not only describes the earth as flat, it also promotes a geocentric view, describing the earth as fixed and the cosmos revolving around it.


We're supposed to kill everyone who doesn't agre?!?!?!?!


"Kill them all, God will know his own." was the slogan when Christian armies invaded Beziers to end the teachings of the Cathars, which Pope Innocence III had declared heretics.


I guess I misread the verse that says love your neighbor as yourself. Dang, I was totally off, wasn't I?

I do believe that humans change and their minds do also, but if you're going to believe half of what the Bible says, but you're going to disregard the other half, how can you justify to anyone that your faith is real? God never asked us to take the Bible as truth and not question what it says. He did ask us, however, to have faith in what the Bible says. Without faith, there's no reason to believe it.

You see, the problem with the bible is that its teachings didn't remain constant. You have the extremely harsh and pedantic Mosaic law, which could get you stoned for wearing linen and wollen clothes together, then you have the teachings of Jesus, preaching a loving, forgiving, caring god (those are the principlies I believe in, firmly), followed by the rantings and discrimination of Paul.
You cannot follow them all, you HAVE to decide which direction to choose. Do you believe the Mosaic law about the Sabbath, telling you that you cannot walk more than 3 kilometers without sinning against god? Or do you believe in Jesus who said "The Sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the Sabbath"?

Yes, you are right, the bible is at odds with itself throughout the hole book.

As I said in the last gay-stuff thread...


You want to condemn gays, feel free. But I won't take any of you seriously till you condemn straight people who indulge in anal and oral sex too.

I personally could not care less what one person does to another provided it doesn't hurt anyone. And no matter what anybody says, "being gay" does not cause anybody physical harm. ... Possible dirty jokes aside.

Our population will continue to grow exponentially. Why do you think a lot of the unstoppable diseases we have now are around? They help to keep the population down. Imagine if all those 2 million (correct me if I'm wrong) people who died from AIDS were still around to have more children.


I sincerely hope I misunderstand you here. Are you trying to say that we should continue breeding like rabbits, because diseases will take care of our population problem???
"Sure, have all the kids your body can handle, the excess will die of AIDS anyway, or starve. Whichever comes first"???

I'm not forcing you to do anything. Did I kill someone because they wouldn't be heterosexual? Until you've been harmed, you haven't been forced. I'm simply telling you what I believe and what the Bible says.

Speaking out against and pushing for homosexuals to not receive equal protection under the law causes harm. ONe need not kill someone for it to be harm.

Explain to me those verses in their original language. Meanwhile, I'll believe what I've read in the Bible.

The Levitical verse can be translated as being a prohibition against having sex with or lying in the bed of a woman who is menstuating. It is also among the other purity laws, which were done away with in the NT. (It is also next to the laws about forcing a woman to marry her rapist and being able to beat a slave to death, so long as he survives at least a day).

The NT verses, put in historical context, most likely refer to certain practices of the day, not loving homosexual relationships. In that day and age, the homosexual activity that most people knew of was either prostitution (often men using young boys as prostitutes), promiscuous sex, or heterosexuals performing homosexual favors at different religious temples. All of these things are condemned for heterosexuality as well. In the original context, there is no prohibition against monogomous homosexual relationships.

And S&G, so often brought up, when read completely through quite obviously refers to the sin of inhospitality, not to homosexuality. In fact, other passages in the Bible directly confirm that S&G were destroyed because they were inhospitable to the visitors.

I AGREE

IF YOU WANT TO GO AROUND CHANGING MY RELIGION TO FIT TODAY'S STANDARDS, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. YOU SHOULDN'T REFER TO THIS CRAP AS CHRISTIANITY.

100% agree

I take it you don't have many homosexual friends or aquaintaces... these are some of the most intelligent, sensitive, innovative and creative people I ever met. Not necessarily because being homosexual automatically makes you that way, but because they had to go through a lot of trouble from a very early stage in their life and have learned from it. Some more than others, of course, but on the whole being homosexual does in no case make them less valuable to society than any heterosexual, on the contrary.

No, I don't. I know a few, I'm related to a few, and they don't all fit the stereotype you're drawing. Some of them are totally insensitive ("I've suffered for my lifestyle, why do you get an easy ride?" mentality) and others are pretty much average joes.

Heterosexuality doesn't produce the next generation. I'm mostly heterosexual, and I will never ever have children. I don't want any.
I live my life, I work hard in my job, I help people wherever I can, I'm a bit of an artist, drawing, painting and writing.
Do you want to tell me that I don't contribute to society?
Does sexuality have to contribute to society??? Aren't human beings more than that?

So what does produce the next generation?

No, I'm not telling you you don't contribute to society. I'm asking what homosexuality contributes to society. If you choose not to procreate, that doesn't mean you don't contribute to society. I guess I am suggesting you contribute less than someone with the same other contributions and children.

From what I know, and I am not an expert so dont get all pissed off I'm wrong, is that you can be a homo and still go to heaven. But here's the catch. You CANNOT make any homosexual acts on other people, and by that I mean that you can not have sex in any way shape or form or not even kiss another person of the same sex unless it's more of a friendship thing or w/e. That's what I was told by a pastor, but that was a while ago so maybe I'm wrong. Either way I dont care if you are or arent just dont involve me.

This is my pro-gay bible arguement, and I won't even get into the debunking of the bible itself:





Have you ever lied? Most of us have, and if so, it is wrong and you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Romans 3:7 and 3:8, Colossians 3:9, and Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.





Your god does not wish for you to judge or hate another, especially those of you who are yourselves sinners. Allow your god to be the final judge, and accept that in the meanwhile, homosexuals do exist and are just as much human as you are.


Read more in depth into the Bible and you will find more things on homos. But this is all based on belief and religion, and to me it is a sin.

There can be no real winner or loser on this topic or any topic that deals with religion. You win or lose only in your mind.

gays dont bother anyone and they are all happy and the if the world would just leave them alone as if they were regular people, homosexuality wouldnt be such a big issue...

1.I can't know this because I'm not gay but IMO a relationship between a man and a woman is based on a feeling that is not 100% about sex. Sex is just somethin, I'd even say, in addition to the relationship (and the possibility to have a baby). WHile gay relationships are only about sex, though many gays insist that there is a deep feeling between them...

gays dont bother anyone and they are all happy and the if the world would just leave them alone as if they were regular people, homosexuality wouldnt be such a big issue...

I can't work out if the bolded part is ignorance or humour.

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Matthew 4:8 “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” (not possible with a globe, is it?)

Revelation 7:1 “After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners of the earth"

The bible not only describes the earth as flat, it also promotes a geocentric view, describing the earth as fixed and the cosmos revolving around it.



"Kill them all, God will know his own." was the slogan when Christian armies invaded Beziers to end the teachings of the Cathars, which Pope Innocence III had declared heretics.



You see, the problem with the bible is that its teachings didn't remain constant. You have the extremely harsh and pedantic Mosaic law, which could get you stoned for wearing linen and wollen clothes together, then you have the teachings of Jesus, preaching a loving, forgiving, caring god (those are the principlies I believe in, firmly), followed by the rantings and discrimination of Paul.
You cannot follow them all, you HAVE to decide which direction to choose. Do you believe the Mosaic law about the Sabbath, telling you that you cannot walk more than 3 kilometers without sinning against god? Or do you believe in Jesus who said "The Sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the Sabbath"?
Your verses don't mention anything about the Earth being flat. I've not read the Greek and Hebrew translations, but I imagine they're talking about the known world at the time. That is of course, in your verse about Satan showing Jesus the kingdoms of the world. Satan has powers greater than humans do anyways, perhaps he showed them in visions. The verses about the Earth being firm and immovable relate to the ability for no one to destroy the whole Earth. The Earth is fixed into an orbit. Immovable means that, like it said in the other verse, it cannot be shaken from that orbit.

If you're speaking of Christianity from a Catholic view, then no, I don't agree with everything that's said in it. The Bible doesn't teach that anyone should be killed according to their beliefs, and I'll explain what I mean in a second.

When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn, and everyone was permitted into the Holy of Holies. Haven't you heard of the change of law once Jesus died? Jesus, being the fleshly incarnation of God, changed the laws when He came into the world, because He was the sacrificial lamb. He said in scripture that a lot of the laws were changed, such as what you should/shouldn't eat, what you should wear, how you should worship, how you should treat others. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, the law changes. God and Jesus cannot be at war with each other, because They are One in the Same. Anyways, the Bible is the inspired word of God. Don't you think that Paul was inspired by God to teach what he taught? If not, there wouldn't have been such a dramatic change in his lifestyle.

1.I can't know this because I'm not gay but IMO a relationship between a man and a woman is based on a feeling that is not 100% about sex. Sex is just somethin, I'd even say, in addition to the relationship (and the possibility to have a baby). WHile gay relationships are only about sex, though many gays insist that there is a deep feeling between them...

That's cute.

"I'm not gay, but I know exactly how they feel. It is obvious that they can't possibly love each other, because I say so."

1.I can't know this because I'm not gay but IMO a relationship between a man and a woman is based on a feeling that is not 100% about sex. Sex is just somethin, I'd even say, in addition to the relationship (and the possibility to have a baby). WHile gay relationships are only about sex, though many gays insist that there is a deep feeling between them...
You couldn't be more wrong. Many gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals want to find love just like any other human being.

Besides I think that if today we allow gay marriages and adoption it will have bad consequences in the future. Pedofiles will start thinking about their rights?

No, I'm not telling you you don't contribute to society. I'm asking what homosexuality contributes to society. If you choose not to procreate, that doesn't mean you don't contribute to society. I guess I am suggesting you contribute less than someone with the same other contributions and children.

Why does homosexuality have to contribute to society?
Being able to love who they love without public scorn will make some homosexual individuals happy and balanced members of society, what more do you ask.
Btw, do you really think that producing children in our day and age is "contributing to society"? On a planet with a population of 6.5 billion? I tend to see that the other way round, homosexuality won't be as much a balast on society as reproductive heterosexuality...

I sincerely hope I misunderstand you here. Are you trying to say that we should continue breeding like rabbits, because diseases will take care of our population problem???
"Sure, have all the kids your body can handle, the excess will die of AIDS anyway, or starve. Whichever comes first"???
You did misunderstand me, sorry. I didn't mean that everyone should continue having children at an uncontrollable pace, but there's no possible way to stop it.

Besides I think that if today we allow gay marriages and adoption it will have bad consequences in the future. Pedofiles will start thinking about their rights?

Yes, you're right. Just like we gave rights to pedophiles when we gave rights to blacks.

Darling, you can't compare a relationship between two consenting adults to one between an adult and a child that is incapable of consent.

Besides I think that if today we allow gay marriages and adoption it will have bad consequences in the future. Pedofiles will start thinking about their rights?

What rights are denied to pedophiles right now?

Besides I think that if today we allow gay marriages and adoption it will have bad consequences in the future. Pedofiles will start thinking about their rights?
Okay, I spot a troll.

Why does homosexuality have to contribute to society?
Being able to love who they love without public scorn will make some homosexual individuals happy and balanced members of society, what more do you ask.
Btw, do you really think that producing children in our day and age is "contributing to society"? On a planet with a population of 6.5 billion? I tend to see that the other way round, homosexuality won't be as much a balast on society as reproductive heterosexuality...

Sorry but thats total, um, don't know how to call it.
True the global populace is growing but look at the growth of europe or usa...

sorry whats a troll?

You did misunderstand me, sorry. I didn't mean that everyone should continue having children at an uncontrollable pace, but there's no possible way to stop it.
Yes, there is. Heterosexuals can choose not to act on their desire. In fact, we can all choose to be gay! It'll be fun!

And S&G, so often brought up, when read completely through quite obviously refers to the sin of inhospitality, not to homosexuality. In fact, other passages in the Bible directly confirm that S&G were destroyed because they were inhospitable to the visitors.
So then why wasn't Jerusalem destroyed in the same way? If you read about the Samarians and Gentiles, they were definitely hated by the Jews. Doesn't that count as inhospitality?

Why does homosexuality have to contribute to society?
Being able to love who they love without public scorn will make some homosexual individuals happy and balanced members of society, what more do you ask.

So you are arguing that it contributes to society by not decreasing the ability to contribute of the indivduals?

Btw, do you really think that producing children in our day and age is "contributing to society"? On a planet with a population of 6.5 billion? I tend to see that the other way round, homosexuality won't be as much a balast on society as reproductive heterosexuality...

You have me there, I guess. Although there is sufficient food production capablitiy to feed the entire world, and it is the distribution and western decadence that causes the problems.

In that case, i have to concede that homosexuality can contribute to society in some cases. That does not change the fact that homosexual actions are sinful.

sorry whats a troll?

technically, a troll is someone who makes a statement purely designed to anger people, i.e. all Jews/Muslims/Christians/Atheists deserve to (insert horrible thing here]

Yes, there is. Heterosexuals can choose not to act on their desire. In fact, we can all choose to be gay! It'll be fun!
Why yes, let's get all the Muslims (who condemn it just as much) to be gay with the rest of us. Let's give all those Africans birth control, and maybe they'll stop having sex altogether. Let's give the Chinese, who only believe in having a male child, which will eventually kill their society, a pamphlet saying that having sex is bad. Wait, we should just let them keep only producing men.

Your verses don't mention anything about the Earth being flat. I've not read the Greek and Hebrew translations, but I imagine they're talking about the known world at the time. That is of course, in your verse about Satan showing Jesus the kingdoms of the world. Satan has powers greater than humans do anyways, perhaps he showed them in visions. The verses about the Earth being firm and immovable relate to the ability for no one to destroy the whole Earth. The Earth is fixed into an orbit. Immovable means that, like it said in the other verse, it cannot be shaken from that orbit.

Satan took him to a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can only do that with a flat earth. It doesn't work if the world is a globe.
There's another verse somewhere about the earth being set on its foundations and held up by pillars, if you insist, I'll google for that.
Assuming that they only talked about what they knew insinuates that they didn't know everything... however, if the bible is indisputable truth, how can the writers claim they are talking about "the whole world" when in fact, they are only talking about the bits they know?


When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn, and everyone was permitted into the Holy of Holies. Haven't you heard of the change of law once Jesus died? Jesus, being the fleshly incarnation of God, changed the laws when He came into the world, because He was the sacrificial lamb. He said in scripture that a lot of the laws were changed, such as what you should/shouldn't eat, what you should wear, how you should worship, how you should treat others. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, the law changes.

True, I've heard that before. And Jesus said "Love god and you neighbour as you love yourself". He never once in the whole bible says a word against homosexuals.

Don't you think that Paul was inspired by God to teach what he taught? If not, there wouldn't have been such a dramatic change in his lifestyle.

He hit his head, for goodness sake.
Christ preached equality and love, and Paul says to treat women as second class people?
Christ preached forgiveness and that it is not up to us to judge as we can never know who will reach heaven and who won't and Paul tells us straight out that he knows exactly who won't go to heaven?
That's pretty vivid contradiction in my eyes...

So then why wasn't Jerusalem destroyed in the same way? If you read about the Samarians and Gentiles, they were definitely hated by the Jews. Doesn't that count as inhospitality?

According to Scripture, Jerusalem was not destroyed (although it was taken over numerous times) because the Israelites, despite their sins, were God's chosen people. Does it count as inhospitality? Certainly! Why do you think that Christ was so compassionate towards them? Why do you think that Christ talked about the good Samaritan and ate with Gentiles?

Meanwhile, your logic is horribly flawed. I could just as well ask "If they were destroyed because of homosexuality, why hasn't Frisco been destroyed?"

Tnx for explaining
But I didn't mean to make anyone angry, just trying to talk.

And as I said look at the population growth charts of the USA or Europe!!!

In that case, i have to concede that homosexuality can contribute to society in some cases. That does not change the fact that homosexual actions are sinful.

You mean, of course, that it does not change your believe that homosexual actions are sinful.

It is far from "fact".

And as I said look at the population growth charts of the USA or Europe!!!

Quality over quantity. ;)

According to Scripture, Jerusalem was not destroyed (although it was taken over numerous times) because the Israelites, despite their sins, were God's chosen people. Does it count as inhospitality? Certainly! Why do you think that Christ was so compassionate towards them? Why do you think that Christ talked about the good Samaritan and ate with Gentiles?

Meanwhile, your logic is horribly flawed. I could just as well ask "If they were destroyed because of homosexuality, why hasn't Frisco been destroyed?"
I feel like we only have a short period of time before this country goes down the toilet. It's already in the moral toilet, it's just waiting for someone to fix the broken handle.

I feel like we only have a short period of time before this country goes down the toilet. It's already in the moral toilet, it's just waiting for someone to fix the broken handle.
I agree, for different reasons. Of course, I don't believe it's really any worse than it's ever been previously.

I feel like we only have a short period of time before this country goes down the toilet. It's already in the moral toilet, it's just waiting for someone to fix the broken handle.

Yeah, all that damn intolerance and cruelty. So very immoral.

Tnx for explaining
But I didn't mean to make anyone angry, just trying to talk.

And as I said look at the population growth charts of the USA or Europe!!!

Some people see trolls everywhere. This place is pretty much infested with us...I mean, with them. ;)

Tnx for explaining
But I didn't mean to make anyone angry, just trying to talk.

And as I said look at the population growth charts of the USA or Europe!!!

Negative growth, but not nearly enough to balance out the positive growth in Africa and Asia. Plus, even though the populations are smaller, Europe and America use more than 70% of the natural resources of the planet. Imagining them growing is a scary thought, really.

Satan took him to a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can only do that with a flat earth. It doesn't work if the world is a globe.
There's another verse somewhere about the earth being set on its foundations and held up by pillars, if you insist, I'll google for that.
Assuming that they only talked about what they knew insinuates that they didn't know everything... however, if the bible is indisputable truth, how can the writers claim they are talking about "the whole world" when in fact, they are only talking about the bits they know?



True, I've heard that before. And Jesus said "Love god and you neighbour as you love yourself". He never once in the whole bible says a word against homosexuals.



He hit his head, for goodness sake.
Christ preached equality and love, and Paul says to treat women as second class people?
Christ preached forgiveness and that it is not up to us to judge as we can never know who will reach heaven and who won't and Paul tells us straight out that he knows exactly who won't go to heaven?
That's pretty vivid contradiction in my eyes...
Jesus also spoke against sin. If the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then He's obviously speaking against it. Paul never said he knew exactly who would go to Heaven or Hell on a name basis. If someone has sin in their lives and refuses to repent of it, the Bible teaches that he will be condemned.

With that, I must be leaving. I have a 3 hour drive to make, and I need to be hitting the road.

Satan took him to a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can only do that with a flat earth. It doesn't work if the world is a globe.
There's another verse somewhere about the earth being set on its foundations and held up by pillars, if you insist, I'll google for that.
Assuming that they only talked about what they knew insinuates that they didn't know everything... however, if the bible is indisputable truth, how can the writers claim they are talking about "the whole world" when in fact, they are only talking about the bits they know?




He hit his head, for goodness sake.
Christ preached equality and love, and Paul says to treat women as second class people?
Christ preached forgiveness and that it is not up to us to judge as we can never know who will reach heaven and who won't and Paul tells us straight out that he knows exactly who won't go to heaven?
That's pretty vivid contradiction in my eyes...

Everybody knows that you can't treat the bible as it is, You have to treat it metaphoricly (sp?) or something like that. Do any christians actually believe earth was made in 7 days? I think not.

Watch yourself when you talk of John Paul II. He was propbably the greatest thing that happend to the church in a long time. He was only 1 person but made such a large number of people to believe in God. He was an example sned by God, how we should behave.
Saying that he hit his head you just label yourself as a *can't say it, don't want to get in trouble* But what to expect after you liberal pro-gays...

You mean, of course, that it does not change your believe that homosexual actions are sinful.

It is far from "fact".

Fine, okay.

Everything anyone says on a forum is their opinion, unless they say otherwise.

Jesus also spoke against sin. If the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then He's obviously speaking against it. Paul never said he knew exactly who would go to Heaven or Hell on a name basis. If someone has sin in their lives and refuses to repent of it, the Bible teaches that he will be condemned.

With that, I must be leaving. I have a 3 hour drive to make, and I need to be hitting the road.

The old law teaches homosexuality is a sin, just as eating shellfish is a sin.
So you're saying Jesus is against eating shellfish?
Or do you maintain your pervious post that the old law has been changed?

Everybody knows that you can't treat the bible as it is, You have to treat it metaphoricly (sp?) or something like that. Do any christians actually believe earth was made in 7 days? I think not.

Watch yourself when you talk of John Paul II. He was propbably the greatest thing that happend to the church in a long time. He was only 1 person but made such a large number of people to believe in God. He was an example sned by God, how we should behave.
Saying that he hit his head you just label yourself as a *can't say it, don't want to get in trouble* But what to expect after you liberal pro-gays...

Wtf... when did I mention John Paul II??? :confused:

I said Paul, as in Saint Paul, as in the guy who hit his head outside Damaskus and entered the bible preaching fire and brimstone...

Negative growth, but not nearly enough to balance out the positive growth in Africa and Asia. Plus, even though the populations are smaller, Europe and America use more than 70% of the natural resources of the planet. Imagining them growing is a scary thought, really.

First of all I am NOT A RACIST.
Now I think we should try to increase our population (usa,europe and others) because if we do not the white race will die out. We don't want that because it's natural that we want our genes to go on and on.

Wtf... when did I mention John Paul II??? :confused:

I said Paul, as in Saint Paul, as in the guy who hit his head outside Damaskus and entered the bible preaching fire and brimstone...


OMG lol, Forget I said anything :headbang: You win

First of all I am NOT A RACIST.
Now I think we should try to increase our population (usa,europe and others) because if we do not the white race will die out. We don't want that because it's natural that we want our genes to go on and on.

You assume too much... I'm as white as can be and I'm definitely NOT going to punish another human being by passing on my genes.
And why would the colour of somebody's skin be important? I live in Dublin, there's black people here who are more Irish than I am...

First of all I am NOT A RACIST.
Now I think we should try to increase our population (usa,europe and others) because if we do not the white race will die out. We don't want that because it's natural that we want our genes to go on and on.
Ha. If you have to state that you're not racist, it's because you're about to make a racist statement.

There are so many sins out there, and everyone sins, but homosexuals do not repent for that sin, and continue to practice it when they know it is against the bible. :sniper: <that guy is pretty cool

First of all I am NOT A RACIST.
Now I think we should try to increase our population (usa,europe and others) because if we do not the white race will die out. We don't want that because it's natural that we want our genes to go on and on.
No, it's natural that we want the human species to go on and on. Skin color really should not matter. And if you're really not racist, then why would it matter to you if the white race died out?

First of all I am NOT A RACIST.
Now I think we should try to increase our population (usa,europe and others) because if we do not the white race will die out. We don't want that because it's natural that we want our genes to go on and on.

There are no genes in the so-called "white race" that are not found throughout humanity.

Human beings are human beings.

There are so many sins out there, and everyone sins, but homosexuals do not repent for something that I believe to be a sin, and continue to practice it when I think it is against the bible, although many, including many homosexual Christians, do not.

Corrections in bold.

No, it's natural that we want the human species to go on and on. Skin color really should not matter. And if you're really not racist, then why would it matter to you if the white race died out?

It would matter to me because im white, so if the white race died out, i'd be dead, some people seem to tread over the thin line that is the difference between racism and reason.

There are so many sins out there, and everyone sins, but homosexuals do not repent for that sin, and continue to practice it when they know it is against the bible. :sniper: <that guy is pretty cool
WRONG. Many homosexuals either (A) are not christians or (B) interpret the bible differently than the less liberal christians. There are still many who hate themselves for their desires and consequently try to repress them in order to be a "good christian". In my opinion, this explains the outbreak of pedophillia in priests everywhere. Their repressed sexuality results in a subconscious desire to "free" young boys.

It would matter to me because im white, so if the white race died out, i'd be dead, some people seem to tread over the thin line that is the difference between racism and reason.

Well, you're going to be dead anyway? :confused:

It would matter to me because im white, so if the white race died out, i'd be dead, some people seem to tread over the thin line that is the difference between racism and reason.

Nobody said "Shoot all the whities"
The point was that white people in America and Europe have less and less children, and some people seem to be scared that in 200 years from now, there would be no "white race" left on the planet. You would be dead by then, anyway.

This isn't about anti-gay laws or seperation of Church and State. It's simply a debate whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

The essence of this thread is people who don't believe in the Bible interpreting it for those who do, which is rather condescending.

Even if they feel justified, it doesn't change the fact it is a sin. Choosing to offend God is a sin, even if they think it's right, but still know it's an affront to God. Having access to the knowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and disregarding it because they don't believe it, doesn't excuse them from their sin.

But the only reason it's being discussed is, there are those in power who are seizing on homosexuals as a section of society to revile and discriminate against, while holding themselves up as worthy, pious and good. Which according to Jesus' own words is wrong - he actually preached separation of church and state. "Render unto Caesar", etc.

It is not belief in the Bible that signifies, but knowledge of the demonstrable fact that it has been translated several times, not by God but by men with their own agendas - and the demonstrable fact that some of those translations are inaccurate. There's nothing wrong with someone possessed of a greater knowledge of Greek or Hebrew correcting a mistranslation, because by the word-of-God argument, any correction can only bring it closer to the original intent.

Do you eat seafood? Do you wear mixed fabrics or shave? These things are far more clearly and unequivocally condemned in the Bible, and yet they are conveniently ignored, just like Dubya ignores the teaching of Jesus when he prays en famille about matters of state. "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" is still even now mistranslated as "witch", and while (contrary to popular, especially pagan, belief) nobody was burned at Salem, there have been atrocities because of it.

WRONG. Many homosexuals either (A) are not christians or (B) interpret the bible differently than the less liberal christians. There are still many who hate themselves for their desires and consequently try to repress them in order to be a "good christian". In my opinion, this explains the outbreak of pedophillia in priests everywhere. Their repressed sexuality results in a subconscious desire to "free" young boys.

Hear that, everyone. Everyknowledge has spoken, and all priests are closet homo's. Bow down before Everyknowledge :rolleyes:

Get a grip, pal

One of my friends came out as gay, and one of my other friends (who is a christian) said to him, 'love the sinner, hate the sin', further going on to explain this as it was ok for him to be gay, but to act out his gay feelings would be a different matter. How hypocritical is that? It's ok for someone to be gay, as long as they dont actually BE gay. Makes me sick.

Corrections in bold.

You really are a condescending, arrogant little person, aren't you?

Hear that, everyone. Everyknowledge has spoken, and all priests are closet homo's.

Try reading it again, since that's not even close to what he said.

You really are a condescending, arrogant little person, aren't you?

Are you saying he's wrong? Care to prove it?

One of my friends came out as gay, and one of my other friends (who is a christian) said to him, 'love the sinner, hate the sin', further going on to explain this as it was ok for him to be gay, but to act out his gay feelings would be a different matter. How hypocritical is that? It's ok for someone to be gay, as long as they dont actually BE gay. Makes me sick.

Sicker than it would for the person to be condemned for something they have no control over?

Are you saying he's wrong? Care to prove it?

No, but doing that "corrections in bold" thing is completley unnecessary.

WRONG. Many homosexuals either (A) are not christians or (B) interpret the bible differently than the less liberal christians. There are still many who hate themselves for their desires and consequently try to repress them in order to be a "good christian". In my opinion, this explains the outbreak of pedophillia in priests everywhere. Their repressed sexuality results in a subconscious desire to "free" young boys.

I did have that thought myself, although I would hate to generalise. Pedophelia is a mental disorder that can have multiple causes as well as multiple forms.
But I would agree with the statement that a large number of priests are forcing themselves to adhere to an artificial ideal, abstinence, and suffer the negative emotional and mental consequences.

Sex isn't "only about procreation", as many fundamentalists keep pointing out. Sex has vital functions in the human body, reducing the stress level, releasing hormones that stimulate to a feeling of happiness and balance and creating and afirming emotional bonds, reducing aggression.
I'm not saying that everybody should go out there and fuck around, I know that there are a large number of people perfectly happy without sex. But they are in no way morally superior and to believ that abstinence is preferable to sex can have VERY dangerous results.

You really are a condescending, arrogant little person, aren't you?

No, actually. It is condescension and arrogance that I am against in this matter.

Anyone who claims their own views to be absolutely true, or claims that their views are the only Christian ones is incredibly condescending and arrogant. In fact, they are claiming infallibility.

No, but doing that "corrections in bold" thing is completley unnecessary.

Well, it's his way of making a point, that's all.

No, but doing that "corrections in bold" thing is completley unnecessary.

Claiming to have absolute knowledge of God's will is completely unnecessary. All I am doing is pointing it out. Too many people around here seem to think that they are infallible.

Try reading it again, since that's not even close to what he said.

Okay. It was the direction he was headed in.

You ever hear of using hyperbole for effect.

Anyone who claims their own views to be absolutely true, or claims that their views are the only Christian ones is incredibly condescending and arrogant. In fact, they are claiming infallibility.

So why didn't you write "Suggested corrections in bold". Else you make yourself a hypocrite. And do you see how ridiculous things would get. It is a given that what people write is their opinion. It doesn't need yo be stated every time.

Well, it's his way of making a point, that's all.

Her.

=)

Claiming to have absolute knowledge of God's will is completely unnecessary. All I am doing is pointing it out. Too many people around here seem to think that they are infallible.

Apparently, you are one of them.

Okay. It was the direction he was headed in.

Not really.

He said that the priests who were committing crimes might have repressed sexualities. There was nothing even close to a suggestion that all priests were homosexual, or repressing their own sexuality.

So why didn't you write "Suggested corrections in bold". Else you make yourself a hypocrite.

How does pointing out that something is a person's belief make me a hypocrite? I say the same things about my own beliefs. They are my beliefs, not stated fact.

And do you see how ridiculous things would get. It is a given that what people write is their opinion. It doesn't need yo be stated every time.

It does when people try to speak for every member of a group of people. I am sick and tired of being told what I, as a Christian, should believe just because someone else believes it. No one but Christ has the authority to say "Christians believe X." They can say "I believe X" or "the translation of the Bible I use says X" or so on. I am not fond of misinformation, however.

Being gay is not necessarily a sin, but is still not really acceptable. I mean its wrong, people are meant to love people of the opposite sex not the same sex, they have a screwed up mind in my opinion.

If they want to be Gay, fine, but in the confines of their own home, i don't want to see them and don't want to hear them proclaming about their messed up ideology in voice or appearance.

They need help if you ask me.

Graham Harvey

I did have that thought myself, although I would hate to generalise. Pedophelia is a mental disorder that can have multiple causes as well as multiple forms.
But I would agree with the statement that a large number of priests are forcing themselves to adhere to an artificial ideal, abstinence, and suffer the negative emotional and mental consequences.

Sex isn't "only about procreation", as many fundamentalists keep pointing out. Sex has vital functions in the human body, reducing the stress level, releasing hormones that stimulate to a feeling of happiness and balance and creating and afirming emotional bonds, reducing aggression.
I'm not saying that everybody should go out there and fuck around, I know that there are a large number of people perfectly happy without sex. But they are in no way morally superior and to believ that abstinence is preferable to sex can have VERY dangerous results.
Well, this is a puppet; on my primary name, I'd have been careful not to make it seem as though I was making generalizations, but I'm not going to even bother to go back and modify it so that it's totally PC and blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Her.

=)

Oopsie. *^_^*

Apparently, you are one of them.

No, I am not.

It is the reason that I point out that my beliefs are my beliefs, and others believe differently.

I don't say "GOD LOVES PEOPLE OF ALL SEXUALITIES!!"

Instead, I say, "It is my belief that God created people of all sexualities, and wants all of us to find loving relationships with a partner we can spend the rest of our lives with. Sex is the highest expression of that love."

Well, this is a puppet; on my primary name, I'd have been careful not to make it seem as though I was making generalizations, but I'm not going to even bother to go back and modify it so that it's totally PC and blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

I figured as much ;)

Being gay is not necessarily a sin, but is still not really acceptable. I mean its wrong, people are meant to love people of the opposite sex not the same sex, they have a screwed up mind in my opinion.

If they want to be Gay, fine, but in the confines of their own home, i don't want to see them and don't want to hear them proclaming about their messed up ideology in voice or appearance.

They need help if you ask me.

Graham Harvey
So, gays should not be allowed any PDAs but straights should? Mmm-hmm...

There is no such thing as being 'gay', it is a mental problem.

Graham Harvey

I have read in more than one place in the bible where it says "there is no place in my kingdom for... homosexuals." Also another verse that kinda gives away what God wants is " and God created man and wife. Um another one is be fruitful and multiply. Think about that you liberals. And they always say, better safe than sorry.

Wow people. Some of you are so quick to assume you know what is in the minds of others. How can you know it's a mental disorder? Be safe and sorry in your own home and church, but not mine. It sounds to me like your are spitting out cookie cutter propaganda and hatred without thought for whether or not your views make sense or can be justified for the rest of the world.

There is no such thing as being 'gay', it is a mental problem.

Graham Harvey
Ah... so what medication or therapy would you reccomend, Dr. Harvey? Obviously you are an expert on the issue.

This is my pro-gay bible arguement, and I won't even get into the debunking of the bible itself:

Have you ever lied? Most of us have, and if so, it is wrong and you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Romans 3:7 and 3:8, Colossians 3:9, and Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.

Your god does not wish for you to judge or hate another, especially those of you who are yourselves sinners. Allow your god to be the final judge, and accept that in the meanwhile, homosexuals do exist and are just as much human as you are.



Those quotes do not actually show that the bible does not consider homosexuality a sin. It only illustrates that those who judge others, for homosexuality or other traits, can be considered sinners in the christian religion.
You are well-meaning, but your argument is either badly flawed or badly titled. I'm going to award the benefit of the doubt and assume that your logic is clear but that you need to replace the title.
Good job on the research, though.

The psychiatrists need to delve into their minds and find out what is wrong with their brains as there is obviously a problem for basic instincts to be that screwed up. Probably childhood as that seems to be the number one thing to blame at the moment.

Failing that, they could be 're-educated'

Being gay is not necessarily a sin, but is still not really acceptable. I mean its wrong, people are meant to love people of the opposite sex not the same sex, they have a screwed up mind in my opinion.

If they want to be Gay, fine, but in the confines of their own home, i don't want to see them and don't want to hear them proclaming about their messed up ideology in voice or appearance.

They need help if you ask me.

Graham Harvey

Meant by who/what? Did you get a manual with your body? I seem to have lost mine.

And if you can't deal with people who are different from you, I suggest you never leave your house, watch tv or use the internet, you might just meet some.

Those quotes do not actually show that the bible does not consider homosexuality a sin. It only illustrates that those who judge others, for homosexuality or other traits, can be considered sinners in the christian religion.
You are well-meaning, but your argument is either badly flawed or badly titled. I'm going to award the benefit of the doubt and assume that your logic is clear but that you need to replace the title.
Good job on the research, though.
I'm not going to try to disprove that homosexuality is a sin according to the christian religion. Others have done so and failed. I chose this title because it is one that will attract attention and has was what was running through my head as I created this thread.

Thanks for the compliment.

The psychiatrists need to delve into their minds and find out what is wrong with their brains as there is obviously a problem for basic instincts to be that screwed up. Probably childhood as that seems to be the number one thing to blame at the moment.

Failing that, they could be 're-educated'
There have been attempts to "convert" homosexuals to heterosexuality. SHOCK THERAPY, even. These attempts had a less than 0.1% success rate.

Ive posted a few times about this topic...

Whether or not you choose to believe in a God, be it A catholic one, Muslim, Jewish or whatever, "God" is love. Love for everyone. For those who commit 'sins' for those who choose to deny or ignore his/her presence.

On homosexualty: It is true that most religions condemn homosexuality. But I believe this is more out of fear, and misunderstanding, rather than a genuine belief that lying with the same sex is a mortal sin against "God"

Having said that, I have spent a considerable amount of time exploring this issue, and after deep personal reflection I believe that gay couples deserve all the political rights afforded to straight couples, in terms of spousal rights, estate, child bearing and rearing. However I am still troubled with the term "marriage". This is only because of my deeply held belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman specifically for the purpose of raising children and continuing humanity. Gay couples, for obvious reasons cannot do this without medical or scientific assistance (which isnt a bad thing either)

I am happy to see that there are nations of this planet that accept all its citizens in all their colour, religion, sexual orientation and race. However I really believe that we are riding a political train that is going too fast and will fall off track. It is one thing to "say" "I have no problem with gays". It is much more challenging to "accept" homosexuality in our society.

There are still too many people in this country (Canada) who are left out on the fringes of our society. We aknowledge their presence when we are forced to, we come to their needs when it suits our purpose. I dont think Canada, as a whole is ready to accept Gay marriages. these things take time. We have had two thousand years of education, morals and ethics telling us that homosexuality was wrong. It is a sin. Whether this was right or wrong, You cannot wipe out deeply held beliefs with a bill and piece of paper being passed through legislation. I fear that this legislation has come too early. Nations must pause to ask themselves in all honesty. Are we ready to accept change of this scale? What are our priorities?

I truly believe Canada is an example for the world on how to live peacefully in diversity. But Im not sure that this rush to get this legislation passed is the best example we can provide.

No, I am not.

It is the reason that I point out that my beliefs are my beliefs, and others believe differently.

I don't say "GOD LOVES PEOPLE OF ALL SEXUALITIES!!"

Instead, I say, "It is my belief that God created people of all sexualities, and wants all of us to find loving relationships with a partner we can spend the rest of our lives with. Sex is the highest expression of that love."

It's the corrections that you say are correct that are hypocritical. The other guy may have got lucky and hit the universal truth on the head, you don't know.

It's the corrections that you say are correct that are hypocritical. The other guy may have got lucky and hit the universal truth on the head, you don't know.

There is nothing in the corrections to suggest that the other guy isn't correct, just that we cannot be sure.

When I say "I believe X," that means that X might and might not be universal truth, but it is what I believe.

If I say "X is true," I am claiming it to be universal truth.

There is nothing in the corrections to suggest that the other guy isn't correct, just that we cannot be sure.

When I say "I believe X," that means that X might and might not be universal truth, but it is what I believe.

If I say "X is true," I am claiming it to be universal truth.

It's still arrogant and presumptitive of you to change someone elses quotes, yes?

It's still arrogant and presumptitive of you to change someone elses quotes, yes?

Not really. The point stands whether you like the methods are not.

Would you be whining as much if I had simply said "That is your belief, not a universal belief" instead of demonstrating how such a statement could be made without claiming infallibility?

I have tried that. It doesn't work. I'm trying a new method.

Not really. The point stands whether you like the methods are not.

Would you be whining as much if I had simply said "That is your belief, not a universal belief" instead of demonstrating how such a statement could be made without claiming infallibility?

I have tried that. It doesn't work. I'm trying a new method.

No, that would make me whine a little less. I don't think it's necessary, but you can do it if you feel the need to assert your pompous style over us all.

Hi, I'm not too into religion nor anything like that, but I'd like to express my point of view on this topic.

I think that homosexuality is not a choice as many people think (yeah, women are tough, but not THAT much), but after what I've observed (because I have some friends who are gay), it's a nature.

If I adopt a 'biblic' point of view condemning it as a sin, isn't it a sin too to lie? And if yes, would it be sinful to lie about your sexuality, as in your own nature?

I don't think that it's a mental disorder, because you can live happily as a gay person without having to be a nuisance to others. It's already hard enough for them to suffer from social prejudice by stereotypes. Why make it even harder for them? Better yet, why even bother taking away their nature if it's supposed to be "God's" creation?


Anyways, that's all I have to say about this subject, and please don't hate me personally for NOT LYING.

No, that would make me whine a little less. I don't think it's necessary, but you can do it if you feel the need to assert your pompous style over us all.

Are you having other people tell you what you personally believe? And you think it is ok to allow them to do it?

Meanwhile:
Main Entry: pomp·ous
Pronunciation: 'päm-p&s
Function: adjective
1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT

Care to explain how admitting my own fallibility and that I might be wrong, while expecting the same respect from others, meets the definition of pompous?

Hi, I'm not too into religion nor anything like that, but I'd like to express my point of view on this topic.

I think that homosexuality is not a choice as many people think (yeah, women are tough, but not THAT much), but after what I've observed (because I have some friends who are gay), it's a nature.

If I adopt a 'biblic' point of view condemning it as a sin, isn't it a sin too to lie? And if yes, would it be sinful to lie about your sexuality, as in your own nature?

I don't think that it's a mental disorder, because you can live happily as a gay person without having to be a nuisance to others. It's already hard enough for them to suffer from social prejudice by stereotypes. Why make it even harder for them? Better yet, why even bother taking away their nature if it's supposed to be "God's" creation?


Anyways, that's all I have to say about this subject, and please don't hate me personally for NOT LYING.
Well, I certainly don't hate you. In fact, I like this post very much. Imaginary gold star to you! :)

Are you having other people tell you what you personally believe? And you think it is ok to allow them to do it?

Don't get this at all, sorry. What point are you trying to make?

Meanwhile:
Main Entry: pomp·ous
Pronunciation: 'päm-p&s
Function: adjective
1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric>
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT

Care to explain how admitting my own fallibility and that I might be wrong, while expecting the same respect from others, meets the definition of pompous?

Number 2.

Number 2.

Ok, so somehow or other admitting that I might be wrong makes me self-important?

Funny, just about anyone with an understanding of the English language would say that an inability to admit fallibility would make someone self-important.

If I adopt a 'biblic' point of view condemning it as a sin, isn't it a sin too to lie? And if yes, would it be sinful to lie about your sexuality, as in your own nature?


Once more, it is the actions, not the feelings, that are sinful.

Ok, so somehow or other admitting that I might be wrong makes me self-important?

Funny, just about anyone with an understanding of the English language would say that an inability to admit fallibility would make someone self-important.

Forget it, you clearly do not understanad, and I can't seem to get through to you. it's not important.

I don't like you changing what other people have written and putting it in the Quote box, but you haven't done it to me, so I don't care too much at the minute.

Forget it, you clearly do not understanad, and I can't seem to get through to you. it's not important.

Of course I don't understand. You are claiming that admitting my own fallibility and expecting others to do the same somehow makes me arrogant. It simply doesn't make sense.

I don't like you changing what other people have written and putting it in the Quote box, but you haven't done it to me, so I don't care too much at the minute.

It isn't as if it isn't exceedingly clear that they wrote something different.

It isn't as if it isn't exceedingly clear that they wrote something different.

There's a principle involved. You may be good enough to not change these things without making it clear, but would everyone?

Has anyone noticed that this argument is becoming steadily nastier as time goes on? It was extremely cool-headed when I first joined in, but people have really stopped being respectful to each other. I liked it better as it was.

Someone asked earlier, "What does Homosexuality contribute to society?" I believe that the homosexual male is fundamentally different from other people, and that he makes a considerable impact in society. It can be argued that the talented gay man has been behind the currents in high culture for the past century--in design, literature, art music and scholarship. This is not to say that these positions have been held by gay men entirely--but it seems to me that these men, operating under heterosexual executives, have been extremely productive behind the scenes of the industrial age. Just as in all populations there will be a tiny minority of talented, ambitious individuals and a much larger stratum of people content to live their lives in obscurity--but the energetic gay man's attention to social nuance, harmonious design, complex artistic and musical expression, and as architects in the management and execution of people's social requirements, makes him a unique functionary in the west. Ours is a tiny minority from which our culture's greatest diplomats and designers, as well as some of the most degenerate specimens of western decline, have come.

That's the contribution of the homosexual form of existence, unique to the industrialized west.

Ya know, I just don't get it. I really don't. Everyone is so dead set that they are right and homosexuality is a sin, despite the fact that the word homosexuality WAS NEVER IN THE BIBLE until it was mistranslated in 1952 and then corrected in 1971. How interesting is that.

We take these lines out of the bible and forget to look at what the rest of the book is about.

Let's see...Sodom and Gomorrah. You've got STRAIGHT people running around and having sex with other STRAIGHT people just for the heck of it. For lust. There was no love involved in it.

Let's define homosexuality. Homosexuality is the actual feelings/emotions for a person of the same sex that also involve feelings of a sexual nature. (I'm trying to put it into the basest definition here.)

Where in the bible does it say that people having sex with people of the same sex that they LOVE, not lust after, is wrong? Nowhere. That is the key to the whole thing. There is a great difference between love and lust.

As for the homosexual agenda...well, the only things I care about are this:
Being able to walk down the street without getting beaten up for being who/what I am.

Being able to be with the person I love for the rest of my life in a way that is recognized and has the same legal protections of marriage.

Not having to worry that I will get fired or lose my job because someone has a 'moral objection to working with someone like that'.

I don't think that these are things that are hard to achieve. They are simple human rights. Not special. Hey, I don't even care if ya call it marriage or civil union. I could care less what churches/some christians say about it. But I can understand that this is something important to people who consider themselves christians and GLBT. And it is for them that I will stand up and say homosexuality is not a sin, homosexuality is not a disease, homosexuality is not wrong, homosexuality just is.

As for the comments about sexually transmitted diseases: Did you know that the lesbian population has the LOWEST percentage of sexually transmited diseases?

As for reproduction: Did you know that it is actually proven that you can take 2 eggs from different women and that they can create a child? No man required.

As for the future? (Insert insane evil laughter here to try to get everyone to lighten up a bit) LESBIANS ARE GOING TO RULE TO WORLD!!! Seriousely though, I hope that there will be a future where people realize that their interpretations of something writtens and translated repeatedly and altered being the main document for their faith is not the best route. The bible has some beautiful stories in it. But people that choose to follow it's teachings have to quit picking and choosing. Homosexuality is a sin according to so many people... Okay. What about owning slaves? According to the bible we can own slaves. Is that right? This is just one of a myriad of examples.

Easy now, just because homosexuals have some form of mental disease does not mean that we should hate them. Besides anyone who disagrees with homosexuallity on moral reasons should probably disagree with promiscuity as well, after all, what is the big difference between the two wrongful behaviors?

That would appear to be what I said, although perhaps I should not have. However, I do believe that there is nothing to homosexual intercourse than lust and pleasure.

I should not have made that generalisation about the relationship as a whole.

Thank you

When did I say I had never had a relationship? I did say I was a virgin, but nowhere did I say I had never had a relationship. I'll assume you misread my posts and not that you automatically equate relationship with sex. And did you also see, way back at the start of this thread, where I said that I'm not a bible scholar?

All I'm doind is offering my opinions, the same as you. You're being a bit of a hypocrite here, if you don't mind me saying so.

Please, you being in a relationship and never having *ANY* sexual contact, be it basic felatio, heavy petting or virginal intercourse? I find that hard to believe (no pun intended).

Also, I'm assuming that where I said that I'm not a bible scholar? is a typo; your atttitude as displayed on this forum is proof enough of you implicity stating that you're the expert in regards to bible scholarship.



Sin is a religious concept; morality is related to a moral code.

I do use my brain; I just choose to follow the Bible on such matters as these.

No, you don't use your brain; using your brain would be looking at the bible, thinking about what the bible says, then reasoning it; thinking of ALL the possible scenarios and possibilities; you're simply saying, "bible tells me to do something, so I better do it" - not to bring up an old cliché, but if the bible told you that you must throw yourself off the cliff to prove you truely believe in God, would you? if the bible say to cut off your testicles using box cutters, after having sexual intercourse, would you do it?

Answer this: what does homosexuality contribute to society? How does it benefit people as a group (not as individuals; I see how it benefits individuals)? Are these benefits unique to homosexuality?

Heterosexuality produces the next generation, before you ask.

Hmm, let me see, without man made technology, we don't reproduce, but we contribute in otherways; I'm going to be a nurse - the fact that I have no children will mean I can work longer hours, I can contribute back more via volunteer work; I may not spawn new sprogs, my my contribution is just as valuable as the heterosexual idea of '5 minutes of f*cking followed by 9 months of waiting".

Sorry, you seem to have the same fixation that a large number of heterosexuals do - reproduction; pick up a game of scrabble and do something else for a change; f*cking and having kids aren't the only contributions people can make to society.

Wait, did you just call the Bible irrelevant and then mention God (with a capital G for that matter) two more times? Something seems wrong about that.

Do you actually realise that God is gods name, hence it is a proper noun and requires a capital - then again, that is assuming I believe in *their* god.

Anyone can take 15 verses out of context and justify their sin. Two of the more important verses you left out are the ones showing that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION to God (not just a sin), and that those who committed the act of homosexuality got punished for doing so. I don't hate homosexuals, and I don't think that they're going to Hell if they follow God's teachings. I also don't believe, however, that you can be homosexual and follow God's teachings, because it states in the Bible that you're not to lead a life full of the same sin every day.

To those of you who get upset with Christians talking about the infallibility of the Bible; I have a bit of reasoning for you. It's probably because that's what we believe. You don't question the Muslim's thinking of the infallibility of the Koran, do you? What's wrong with someone stating what they believe and then talking in that sense? You guys seem to believe that homosexuality is okay, and that your belief is infallible in that sense.

I do question the Muslims believeing in the infability because for 150 years, the damn book was lost, and 1/2 the book we know today is actually only parts collected from people who knew or heard stories about Mohammed - so the Koran we see today is not the original book that Mohammed would have used when preaching.

I question the ligitimacy of the bible because large parts are left out of it; parts (Old Testament/Torah) which Christianity holds onto have been dismissed by Judaism long ago - created out of ignorance, not the facts - in the case of homosexuality, barring the Orthodox - any Rabbi will tell you that the there are many rules in it made out of ignorance.

As for the New Testament, it lacks PAGES of gospels and letters from the likes of James - Phrases of Jesus, and many other parts that weren't politically desirable when Constantine was getting the Christian religious up and running.

Do you actually realise that God is gods name, hence it is a proper noun and requires a capital - then again, that is assuming I believe in *their* god.

Even names of fictional characters require a capital letter.

I'm sorry to interrupt the "civil" argumentation at this point, and if I repeat anything, I also apologise - you've all been posting faster than I can read your posts.

But I am really sick of people saying "Hate the sin, Love the sinner." If you are taking the Bible literally - which you seem to love to do - then you're not allowed to "Love the sinner":

If a man lay with mankind as he lieth with a woman, it is an abomination and both shall surely be put to death.

So you have to kill these people, not love them. Or is that part of the Bible open to interpretation?

Again, sorry if I repeat anything previously said.

sodomy.....= Homosexuality...god destroyed sodom...ergo...soddomy is against the bible...kind of...well it must be otherwise their wouldnt be so much protest against gays as vicars

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't sodomy named after the destruction of Sodom because people thought it was destroyed because of homosexuality - if you read back in the thread there have been numerous posts showing that this is untrue. Hence that train of logic leaves something to be desired.

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't sodomy named after the destruction of Sodom because people thought it was destroyed because of homosexuality - if you read back in the thread there have been numerous posts showing that this is untrue. Hence that train of logic leaves something to be desired.

well thats the basic impression given....then again i dont care much for biblebashers or queers.....

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't sodomy named after the destruction of Sodom because people thought it was destroyed because of homosexuality - if you read back in the thread there have been numerous posts showing that this is untrue. Hence that train of logic leaves something to be desired.

That is the fundamentalist view of it; the interpreted view by liberal and progressive Jews is that the city was destroyed because the city was inhospitable to visitors - the issue wasn't sodomy, it was being a bunch of stuck up pricks (no pun intended).

well thats the basic impression given....then again i dont care much for biblebashers or queers.....
Charming. Who says romance is dead?

To be totally honest, I don't see how the God that I believe in could possibly say that certain people aren't allowed to fall in love. That's almost as bad as the miscarriages argument earlier on. Taking the life of an unborn child and telling people that they're only allowed to love one type of person? That's hardly benevolent.

Charming. Who says romance is dead?

To be totally honest, I don't see how the God that I believe in could possibly say that certain people aren't allowed to fall in love. That's almost as bad as the miscarriages argument earlier on. Taking the life of an unborn child and telling people that they're only allowed to love one type of person? That's hardly benevolent.

I think they should have rites...its just it doesnt effect me..i dont know anyone gay.....or at least i dont think so...

That is the fundamentalist view of it; the interpreted view by liberal and progressive Jews is that the city was destroyed because the city was inhospitable to visitors - the issue wasn't sodomy, it was being a bunch of stuck up pricks (no pun intended).

The issue *is* sodomy, since the bible states that sodomy is cruelty and inhospability.

people qho judge someone on their sexual orientation (most of whome dont have one because they are too scared to admit they are gay) is pathetic. the person doesnt decide to be gay they are either born that way or are brought up that way. would someone wake up one day and say

'you know what, i think i will be gay because i like to have a load of people telling me that i am going to go to hell because i am wrong and to have people talk behind my back, its really plesant'

my RS teacher this term (who is a V religious priest... and an asshole) showed us quotes from the bible "SHOWING" homosexuality to be wrong. the best he could come up with was harcenocoitier, which is a word used only once in latinate script. the translators decided it meant sexual pervert but they had no proof. his point was that it actually meant gay. how biased is that? if people are brought up believing it to be wrong then they will believe it is! imaging being told it is wrong then realising you were one? suicide case.

the bible was written by people, not God himself, so of course biased beliefs went into it. jesus himself said nothing of it

i think that if people love eachother then they should do whatever they want. you cant say 'i can have sex because i am straight, but YOU are wrong so you cannot.'

gays can love eachother, its the same as straight people loving eachother and to say that they just have 'lust' is wrong. like all straight people are perfect? i myself hope that if people love eachother and want to spend their lives with eachother then go for it. i am myself christian and find people using my holy book to be bullies very offencive

*deep breath* glad i got all that off my chest ;)

The issue *is* sodomy, since the bible states that sodomy is cruelty and inhospability.

NO, soddam and gomorah can either refer to gay sex or to gang rape. the fact was that the people wanted to RAPE.

NO, soddam and gomorah can either refer to gay sex or to gang rape. the fact was that the people wanted to RAPE.

http://www.motherflash.com/TheLivingWaters/bible/genesis19.html

Who are the real sodomites?
Genesis 19

There are only a few passages in the Bible that refer to same-gender sexual acts. The one most people think of is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Surely, they say, here God says homosexuality is wrong when he destroys Sodom because of their homosexuality. A logical response to this is "Surely all heterosexuality is wrong because God does not approve of heterosexual rape."

The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality. It's about inhospitality. The inhospitality is expressed as a same-gender gang rape threat.

If we read the passage in context, it is a parallel to the preceding chapter, "the hospitality of Abraham." Three visitors come to Abraham, he welcomes them and is given the promise of a son in his old age. Two of these three visitors then go to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew Lot welcomes them, but all the men in the town arrive to challenge that welcome. They want to "know" the visitors. The word translated "to know" sometimes means sexual knowledge. It is likely that they mean same-gender rape, the ultimate put-down (to treat a man like a woman) that was used to humiliate a defeated enemy. This is not referring to a homosexual orientation or a loving same-gender relationship. This is talking about heterosexual men abusing power in violent same-gender rape. To say this is wrong and sinful and that God condemns it, is not to say that homosexuality is any of those things.

Lot refuses to surrender the visitors and offers his two virgin daughters instead. That this behavior is not condemned by the Bible is usually ignored by people trying to prove homosexuality is a sin. Likewise the apparent acceptance of incest between these same daughters and Lot in the story that follows is ignored. To be consistent, a biblical literalist (who does not accept that some things in the Bible are a result of the culture and time and not of God's will) ought to take the whole passage: accepting that same-gender rape is wrong and that incest and offering ones daughters to a violent mob are okay. But homophobic people are not known for their logic.

Nor do they seem to take what the Bible says elsewhere about Sodom as important. Other biblical references, such as Ezekiel 16:49, are clear that the sin of Sodom is about hospitality not about sex. In Luke's Gospel (10:12), Jesus also understands the sin of Sodom to be inhospitality. In fact, Jesus says nothing anywhere in the Bible about homosexuality, but he has a lot to say about the importance of welcoming people.

According to the Bible, the sin of Sodom is failure to welcome people who are different. By biblical standards, then, those who fail to welcome GLBT people are the real sodomites that the Bible condemns.

Easy now, just because homosexuals have some form of mental disease does not mean that we should hate them. Besides anyone who disagrees with homosexuallity on moral reasons should probably disagree with promiscuity as well, after all, what is the big difference between the two wrongful behaviors?

if it is a disease is there a cure? and good point, straight people can be promiscuous, they spread diseases just as much as gay people

if it is a disease is there a cure? and good point, straight people can be promiscuous, they spread diseases just as much as gay people

And children too, seriously... damn hetero's. :p

lol. are you refering to teen sex? *waves* 15 year old! and im not promiscuous... i promise... really... *shifty eyes* :p

No I mean they spread children around. :p

No I mean they spread children around. :p

haha *blushes* yeh darn children... messing up our lives. if we didnt have any children then we would have very clean classrooms!
line em up on a wall and shoot!
:) :) :sniper:
:) :) :sniper:

I personally think we should blame the parents. Tsk tsk tsk.

What have parents got to do with it? It is not a disease. It is not curable.

And children too, seriously... damn hetero's. :p
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease." ~Anonymous

It is an interesting thread because it allows me to see several points of views on this subject.

One of the posts said that a sin is an action, not a feeling. But wait a second... isn't homosexuality a feeling of love and desire towards someone of your own gender? As discussed previously, there's a big difference between love and lust... some people even live 'platonic love', meaning love without sex. Then, if actions were condemned, lying is an action that supposed to be sinful, meaning that lying and being dishonest about one's sexuality is actually another sin... so in other words, if I follow the irrational logic, homosexuality + lying about it = 2 times more sin.

So I don't really think that sodomy and everything has much to do in here because not only it can be used in heterosexual sexual acts but it also aims to male homosexuals. Isn't it funny how most guys think that two girls together is actually more sexy than two guys together? That's because not only that's a heterosexual point of view but maybe it involves what people can imagine about the sexual act: for them, guys just penetrate and sodomize each other whereas girls can only touch and caress themselves. I think that lust has to do with the both combined... anyways, the point is, sodomy is not part of the subject.

Another point I would really like to discuss about is about the Bible. A lot of people say that it is the message from God whereas others believe that it was written by us mortals: I couldn't care less. The fact is, we're using christianity as a reference. Why is it that this religion can dictate above others? If religious anti-homosexuals really wanted to prove something, then at least try to prove it from several religious points of views, otherwise people would just confine you into your stereotypical "close-minded" image, which is bad to spread messages.

And at last, as I said in my previous post, homosexuality seems to be a nature. Condemning people for their nature, that's almost like racism except that you judge people on a different factor. I thought that those times were over, with the fall of Nazism and slavery, each of them killed millions of innocent people. We're supposed to learn from every mistake we make otherwise we'd be condemned to live them over and over again.

sodomy.....= Homosexuality...god destroyed sodom...ergo...soddomy is against the bible...kind of...well it must be otherwise their wouldnt be so much protest against gays as vicars


ummm...the dictionary defines sodomy as:
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

So...that would be the reason that heterosexual men can sodomize heterosexual women.

The belief that homosexuality is wrong and therefore homosexuals are "evil" or "deviant" in some way stems from the human nature to wish to condemn all those who are different is some way. Religious support of such a belief only strengthens one's determination and pride in it. They then feel it is justified. Is it, really? I, personally, do not believe it is.
We are all "Evil " or "deviant" in some ways.regardless of our sexual Reference " Romans 3:23 ": For all have sinned and fall short the glory of God"Thus religous support of the fact that we are all evil in facts points out the flaws in each of our lives. And points us to the Life that is given through Jesus Christ.But as for Homosexuals it is clearly explicit that Homosexuality is a sin. But on the other hand we are not to Judge them for the scriptures also says " Judge and ye shall be judged condemn and ye shall be condemned"Therefore the best we are commanded to Love the Sinner But hate the sin"

sodomy.....= Homosexuality...god destroyed sodom...ergo...soddomy is against the bible...kind of...well it must be otherwise their wouldnt be so much protest against gays as vicars

are you compleatly stupid? soddom was a place... 'sodomy' came from the place name. the people didnt name themselves after gay sex.

therefore god wasnt condemning them because they were named after gay sex but the term came after god smited them.

and the idea that vicars arnt allowed to be gay, not true. its acting homosexuals that are not allowed. therefore the church must agree that people cant help it and, although they still think it is a sin because they havnt finished debating about it, they agree that it cannot be changed.

The issue *is* sodomy, since the bible states that sodomy is cruelty and inhospability.

True, but I'm using the contemporary definition of sodomy - to engage in anal intercourse with either a member of the same or opposit sex.

We're agreeing on the same thing; Sodom wasn't destroyed because of anal sex, it was destroyed beecause of cruelty and inhospability.

I think they should have rites...its just it doesnt effect me..i dont know anyone gay.....or at least i dont think so...

Please, everyone knows *atleast* one gay person; if you don't know someone, the its obvious that one of your friends know your personality type and perfers not to tell you.

"Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin"... I apologise if I offend people, but I am really tired of that particular phrase. I'm sorry, but I have to fundamentally disagree with any religious position that involves Hate on any level: be it hating a person, place, thing or activity.

"Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin"... I apologise if I offend people, but I am really tired of that particular phrase. I'm sorry, but I have to fundamentally disagree with any religious position that involves Hate on any level: be it hating a person, place, thing or activity.

I don't regard homosexuality in any way as sin, but I have to defend that sentence here:

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" sounds ridiculous in the context regarding homosexuality. However, most religions will tell you that hurting other, stealing, killing, etc. are sins. The intention of that sentence is to point out that even though commiting a sin like that cannot be condoned by Christians (or any other religion), Christians are called not to hate or stigmatise the perpetrator of the sin, but are rather asked to forgive, inegrate and love that person, regardless of the sin he commited.

The interesting bit is that those Christians who shove that sentence in your face are least likely to follow its message...

I don't regard homosexuality in any way as sin, but I have to defend that sentence here:

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" sounds ridiculous in the context regarding homosexuality. However, most religions will tell you that hurting other, stealing, killing, etc. are sins. The intention of that sentence is to point out that even though commiting a sin like that cannot be condoned by Christians (or any other religion), Christians are called not to hate or stigmatise the perpetrator of the sin, but are rather asked to forgive, inegrate and love that person, regardless of the sin he commited.

The interesting bit is that those Christians who shove that sentence in your face are least likely to follow its message...

I agree with the intended sentiment, but the wording leaves a lot to be desired. When you condone hatred of something as a valid viewpoint, you open up a path to unbalanced stances on issues. IMHO, an issue is best decided when looked through all aspects, not just a personal emotional one.

http://www.motherflash.com/TheLivingWaters/bible/genesis19.html

Thats a very myopic view of what the bible actually says. Basically, it ignores everything we know about Sodom and Gommorrah up until the one incident immediately before it is destroyed. It ignores the fact that we have known that Sodom was wicked since chapter 13, and that the angels were there in order to warn Lot about the pending destruction of the cities when the inhospitality incident that this site alleges is the sole reason for its destruction actually occured.

Hmm... I haven't posted about this before, because I'm not a theologian and I'm probably going to get something wrong, however curiosity gets the better of me.

In Genesis 13 we are forewarned of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction and that the people were "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly". However, we soon learn of a large-scale war in which Sodom and Gomorrah are thoroughly beaten and have their food and goods stolen from them which are rescued and returned by Abram (soon to become Abraham). The Kings of those lands are grateful and offer Abram gifts (which are declined).

At this point, it seems that God's Champion (my terminology, not the Bible's) has rescued these two places from extinction. By Genesis 18, we are told that the newly named Abraham is meant to have all the land and that God is going to personally deal with Sodom and Gomorrah. Although Abraham "defies God" by requesting that good people don't get punished.

At this point, the angels are sent down to warn Sodom and are set upon by the people at Lot's house and the actions that gives rise to homosexuality debates occur.

The question is, finally, what had the people of Sodom done? All we were told is that they were "wicked". But then, so would everyone be who was not following God..? And if they were so wicked before the Angel Incident (again, my terminology) why did God allow Abraham to save them? There is not even any mention of trying to "save them" in the modern sense (preach to them in an effort to convert them to another religion).

I fear that even including the entire story of Sodom and Gomorrah does little to increase my belief that homosexuality is Smite-Worthy. (I really must stop coming up with these terms...)

"Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin"... I apologise if I offend people, but I am really tired of that particular phrase. I'm sorry, but I have to fundamentally disagree with any religious position that involves Hate on any level: be it hating a person, place, thing or activity.

I think its fair to hate what is wrong/evil. Its not ok to hate the people who do it but it is ok to hate what they do. Can you explain why I'm wrong on that?

I think its fair to hate what is wrong/evil. Its not ok to hate the people who do it but it is ok to hate what they do. Can you explain why I'm wrong on that?

True dat, but people say homosexuality is a sin thinking that gives them justification to hate homosexuals. Don't befriend or hate someone because there a homo, please, I hate it when chicks are like "YAY I HAVE A GAY FRIEND" like there ticking me off a list with a black guy, a vegetarian, a muslim and a lesbian.

the bible was written by people, not God himself, so of course biased beliefs went into it. jesus himself said nothing of it


Thats not true. Jesus had a great deal to say on "Sexual imorality" which is a term used by translators to cover an array of things like faunication (sex outside marriage), bestiality and homosexual sex.

True dat, but people say homosexuality is a sin thinking that gives them justification to hate homosexuals.

Indeed it doesnt, and they are wrong

Thats not true. Jesus had a great deal to say on "Sexual imorality" which is a term used by translators to cover an array of things like faunication (sex outside marriage), bestiality and homosexual sex.
Wait, so if jesus said "People" he might only be refering to christians, and if he said "Woman" he might only be refering to white woman...because that's what the translators say. You can't just say put some spread on my toast or you'll get jam when you want butter. If jesus wanted to say something against us homo's then maybe he should of just said it instead of someone saying "Sexual Imorality" means anything that isn't a guy impregnating a lady.

"Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin"... I apologise if I offend people, but I am really tired of that particular phrase. I'm sorry, but I have to fundamentally disagree with any religious position that involves Hate on any level: be it hating a person, place, thing or activity.

And yet you're okay if the phrase was "Love the crime-committer; hate the crime", used non-religiously. You could have a bias towards religion, you know. Many people I've met do.

And yet you're okay if the phrase was "Love the crime-committer; hate the crime", used non-religiously. You could have a bias towards religion, you know. Many people I've met do.

I have a problem with the phrase as well; when you insult homosexuality, you insult ME as a person; when you hate that perceived sin of homosexuality, you label ME and metaphorically beat up ME at the same time.

Our sexual orientation/identity is intrinsically part of who we are as a person; you either accept the whole person, sexual orientation and all, or not. There is no half-way house about it.

The sooner Christians stopped the bullshit, the better for all concerned.

Thats not true. Jesus had a great deal to say on "Sexual imorality" which is a term used by translators to cover an array of things like faunication (sex outside marriage), bestiality and homosexual sex.

Ah, you see - there's the thing. It's been used by translators to cover those things. Jesus never actually says "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", or anything along those lines. It was the translators' interpretations - which could have been wrong.

Ah, you see - there's the thing. It's been used by translators to cover those things. Jesus never actually says "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", or anything along those lines. It was the translators' interpretations - which could have been wrong.

Kinda reminds me of Buddhism, and what 'sexual immorality' covers. The fact is, sexual immortality is NEVER covered explicity; my assumption is that sexual immortality is defined by the individual rather than everyone sitting around arguing over it.

Ah, you see - there's the thing. It's been used by translators to cover those things. Jesus never actually says "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", or anything along those lines. It was the translators' interpretations - which could have been wrong.

No, the word "Sexual imorality" was used by the translators to cover the words that were there which ment those things already. Older translations often use those words.

Don't befriend or hate someone because there a homo, please, I hate it when chicks are like "YAY I HAVE A GAY FRIEND" like there ticking me off a list with a black guy, a vegetarian, a muslim and a lesbian.

thankyou soo much i was trying to explain this to a (lady)friend and i couldnt put it into words! perfectly said.

I think they should have rites...its just it doesnt effect me..i dont know anyone gay.....or at least i dont think so...

haha! trust me you do. is it one in five people? and besides, you know me now lol. maybe you just live in a state that is very conservative or something, like in england, manchester city centre is like a real big gay hangout wheras where i live its more of a 'church going old people village'. no one round here would ever come out and i have no intention of doing. however when im in manchester.... hehehe...

Okay. So the Bible was written by man. Man is fallible. The Bible has been translated by man. Again, Man is fallible.

So. The Bible, although the original was divinely inspired, is now being written and translated by MAN (or in this case MEN) who do not necessarily have the same connection with it.

I also find it interesting that no one will address the fact that it wasn't until 1952 that the word homosexual was ever actually put into the Bible or the fact that it was then re-translated in 1971 without the word homosexual after it was decided there had been an error in translation. That fact alone should end the entire conversation.

Okay. So the Bible was written by man. Man is fallible. The Bible has been translated by man. Again, Man is fallible.

So. The Bible, although the original was divinely inspired, is now being written and translated by MAN (or in this case MEN) who do not necessarily have the same connection with it.

I also find it interesting that no one will address the fact that it wasn't until 1952 that the word homosexual was ever actually put into the Bible or the fact that it was then re-translated in 1971 without the word homosexual after it was decided there had been an error in translation. That fact alone should end the entire conversation.
People frequently ignore what they cannot largely accept/debate in this forum.

Please, you being in a relationship and never having *ANY* sexual contact, be it basic felatio, heavy petting or virginal intercourse? I find that hard to believe (no pun intended).

Just because you choose not to believe it doesn't make it false. Sorry.

No, you don't use your brain; using your brain would be looking at the bible, thinking about what the bible says, then reasoning it; thinking of ALL the possible scenarios and possibilities; you're simply saying, "bible tells me to do something, so I better do it" - not to bring up an old cliché, but if the bible told you that you must throw yourself off the cliff to prove you truely believe in God, would you? if the bible say to cut off your testicles using box cutters, after having sexual intercourse, would you do it?

But the bible doesn't say those things. If it did, I probably wouldn't follow it. But it doesn't.



Hmm, let me see, without man made technology, we don't reproduce, but we contribute in otherways; I'm going to be a nurse - the fact that I have no children will mean I can work longer hours, I can contribute back more via volunteer work; I may not spawn new sprogs, my my contribution is just as valuable as the heterosexual idea of '5 minutes of f*cking followed by 9 months of waiting".

Sorry, you seem to have the same fixation that a large number of heterosexuals do - reproduction; pick up a game of scrabble and do something else for a change; f*cking and having kids aren't the only contributions people can make to society.

It's frustrating that you have entirley missed the point. In the example you have given, you have nowhere shown that this is because of you being homosexual. Your sexuality is having no impact on your contribution. A hetrosexual nurse with children and a spouse could work exactly the same number of hours by leaving their spouse to look after the kids. I stand by my point.

haha! trust me you do. is it one in five people? and besides, you know me now lol. maybe you just live in a state that is very conservative or something, like in england, manchester city centre is like a real big gay hangout wheras where i live its more of a 'church going old people village'. no one round here would ever come out and i have no intention of doing. however when im in manchester.... hehehe...
One in five? Last I heard, 10% was considered a stretch. If it was at a 20% margin, the American gay population would be higher than the African-American population. If this was the case, there would be many states allowing gay marriage (besides the current grand total of two, one in which it is still prohibited in most of the state) and much less homophobia. Gays would not doubt be the highest American minority, which is simply not true.

It's frustrating that you have entirley missed the point. In the example you have given, you have nowhere shown that this is because of you being homosexual. Your sexuality is having no impact on your contribution. A hetrosexual nurse with children and a spouse could work exactly the same number of hours by leaving their spouse to look after the kids. I stand by my point.

Why on earth is everybody so fixated on reproduction???
Do we really need that with the current population of the planet being aqlmost to the limit of what the planet can sustain? On this basis alone I would support homosexual marriages, at least they won't add to our problems in the future!

Btw, just one spouse looking after the kids defies the purpose of the whole marriage/traditional family a bit. You might as well have two single parents, one working full time, the other taking care of the kids.

One in five? Last I heard, 10% was considered a stretch. If it was at a 20% margin, the American gay population would be higher than the African-American population. If this was the case, there would be many states allowing gay marriage (besides the current grand total of two, one in which it is still prohibited in most of the state) and much less homophobia. Gays would not doubt be the highest American minority, which is simply not true.
Well, interestingly enough:
42% of all homeless youth identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Well, interestingly enough:
Originally Posted by http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/stats.html
42% of all homeless youth identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.


Not that surprising, really. If you consider the incredible stress and pressure that society, peers and family will put on a homosexual, especially during youth when it's difficult enough to adapt to norm, even without the additional "burden" of homosexuality... Sad sign of the state of our society, actually...

One in five? Last I heard, 10% was considered a stretch. If it was at a 20% margin, the American gay population would be higher than the African-American population. If this was the case, there would be many states allowing gay marriage (besides the current grand total of two, one in which it is still prohibited in most of the state) and much less homophobia. Gays would not doubt be the highest American minority, which is simply not true.

i thought it was 1 in 10 too but then it changed, people felt ok to tell the truth in surveys. however, the homophobia thing, what you must understand is that people often dont come out and tell the truth, imagine coming out thinking that no one around you were? then when people are homophobic they agree thinking that its the best cover. i know, to my shame i have done pretended to be disgusted by the idea so as not to be beaten up by chavs.

Not that surprising, really. If you consider the incredible stress and pressure that society, peers and family will put on a homosexual, especially during youth when it's difficult enough to adapt to norm, even without the additional "burden" of homosexuality... Sad sign of the state of our society, actually...
Precisely. If peer and social pressure to identify as heterosexual did not exist, we would see a huge increase of youth who were openly members of the GLBT community. Unfortunately, that won't happen anytime soon, considering the hate that currently exists.

Precisely. If peer and social pressure to identify as heterosexual did not exist, we would see a huge increase of youth who were openly members of the GLBT community. Unfortunately, that won't happen anytime soon, considering the hate that currently exists.

thats a perrfect way of putting it. i think socioty should leave people alone till about 12 where it shouldnt be assumed straight or otherwise. if a parent asked if i was hetrosexual id have less trouble saying no than saying yes to 'are you gay sam?' its a pyscological thing... mad i know!
i only just got used to saying the word which im still uncomfortable with. came out a month ago to my friends all of which were just stupid about it. havnt dared tell my parents for this 'social pressure' im only 15 :-( lol

i think its hard for parents to understand because they cant associate with it themselves... unless they had their child by surrogate mother or adopted that is.

thats a perrfect way of putting it. i think socioty should leave people alone till about 12 where it shouldnt be assumed straight or otherwise. if a parent asked if i was hetrosexual id have less trouble saying no than saying yes to 'are you gay sam?' its a pyscological thing... mad i know!
i only just got used to saying the word which im still uncomfortable with. came out a month ago to my friends all of which were just stupid about it. havnt dared tell my parents for this 'social pressure' im only 15 :-( lol

i think its hard for parents to understand because they cant associate with it themselves... unless they had a surrogate mother or adopted that is.
Parents always seem to be able to twist a GLBT teen's inner turmoil to where it's all about them. How? I don't know. It's a gift with parenthood, I suppose. My estimation is that they feel that if their children identifies as GLBT, it reflects negatively (or at least, in many societies, it does) on them. Of course, it's not the parents who have to go to school every day only to be teased, terrorized, and tormented by their peers.

i think its hard for parents to understand because they cant associate with it themselves... unless they had a surrogate mother or adopted that is.

You mean so they can put the blame on somone else? That's not really understanding, in my eyes.
I think parents are under a similar pressure in that regard. They live in society as well, a society that sometimes still seems to think that homosexuality is choice, that if the kid "chooses" to be homosexual, there must be something wrong with the parents. Plus, parents themselves often don't understand homosexuality to well, belonging to a generation that wasn't yet able to discuss it as freely as we do today.

Plus, parents themselves often don't understand homosexuality to well, belonging to a generation that wasn't yet able to discuss it as freely as we do today.

urm yeh... thats whhy i said they find it hard to understand ;) also them not being homosexual themselves otherwise they wouldnt have children now would then? (hense the surrogate mother thing)

Parents always seem to be able to twist a GLBT teen's inner turmoil to where it's all about them. How? I don't know. It's a gift with parenthood, I suppose. My estimation is that they feel that if their children identifies as GLBT, it reflects negatively (or at least, in many societies, it does) on them. Of course, it's not the parents who have to go to school every day only to be teased, terrorized, and tormented by their peers.

nah! i dont think mine (would) twist it, i just think theyd not understand it because they would have no real connection with it.. unless maybe they had a gay best friend or something. but yeh people do see it reflecting on them for some reason... and the school thing, i dont get any of that and i go to an all christian school too.

nah! i dont think mine (would) twist it, i just think theyd not understand it because they would have no real connection with it.. unless maybe they had a gay best friend or something. but yeh people do see it reflecting on them for some reason... and the school thing, i dont get any of that and i go to an all christian school too.
Wow, you are extremely lucky, then.

Students who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered are five times more likely to miss school because of feeling unsafe. 28% are forced to drop out.
75% of people committing hate crimes are under age 30 - one in three are under 18 - and some of the most pervasive anti-gay violence occurs in schools.

thats so bad its terrible. it makes you want to hug some 13 year old child who is too afraid to go to school. :( if i ever do see any homophobia going on i do stop it though, and id hope someone else would do the same for me

thats so bad its terrible. it makes you want to hug some 13 year old child who is too afraid to go to school. :( if i ever do see any homophobia going on i do stop it though, and id hope someone else would do the same for me
I feel guilty for never defending people who are wrongly discriminated against in the public schooling system, but self-preservation instincts had the best of me. There was one particular child in the middle school was either homosexual or really, really, naive, and possibly even stupid. He got picked on a lot, and I did nothing. The truth is, he was really annoying and didn't have the best personality in the world. (I am now homeschooled.)

I feel guilty for never defending people who are wrongly discriminated against in the public schooling system, but self-preservation instincts had the best of me. There was one particular child in the middle school was either homosexual or really, really, naive, and possibly even stupid. He got picked on a lot, and I did nothing. The truth is, he was really annoying and didn't have the best personality in the world. (I am now homeschooled.)

yeh. dont feel bad though! your not homeschooled becase you get buiiled or anything are you?
theres this autistic year 7 on my bus, bullies call her a dyke and last week kept spraying deoderant in her face. they have in the past pushed her off the bus at her stop and she fell and cut open her knees. im just not strong enough to tell the head of year though. i will DEFINETLY do it tomorrow.

yeh. dont feel bad though! your not homeschooled becase you get buiiled or anything are you?
theres this autistic year 7 on my bus, bullies call her a dyke and last week kept spraying deoderant in her face. they have in the past pushed her off the bus at her stop and she fell and cut open her knees. im just not strong enough to tell the head of year though. i will DEFINETLY do it tomorrow.
Bullying is not one of the main reasons I ended up homeschooling, but probably (though I hate to admit it), one of the reasons.

Bullying is not one of the main reasons I ended up homeschooling, but probably (though I hate to admit it), one of the reasons.

*hugs*

*hugs*
*hugs back*

*hugs back*

;)
how old are you then? im 15

The Bible I have read makes it very clear that any sexual act that is not clearly meant to produce offspring is a sin.

I would love to see someone go on about how the heterosexuals not shooting for children, the infertile, the masturbators et al accept their sin and repent. It is just silly. Homosexuality is no more a sin than sex without the intent to produce a child, or masturbation (spilling one's seed, I believe is the way it is worded in the Bible), or any other form of fornication. Anyone who puts blinders on and points fingers at just homosexuality is beyond silly and I feel rather pathetic in their narrowmindedness and ignorance.

It is a natural drive to have sex. Why would a superior being give us a natural drive, an instinct and then deny us the participation in fulfilling that drive? I do not think a superior being would be hung up on sex. I think the men who got together with Constantine at the Nicene Convention where they put the Bible together came up with the whole anti-sex scheme as well as the subjugation of women scheme and pay your taxes scheme (give to Caesar (sp?)what is Caesar's) among other idiotic and contradictory things in the Bible. Not that it does not have some good philosophy in it. I am just saying it is not the be all and end all that it is cracked up to be and people need to get over it and open their eyes, minds, and hearts. Christianity is no less a fanatical religion than Islam or any other religion. So people are afraid of what happens after they die - so they want a religion that restricts the way that they live as a comfort???

I might as well voice my personal opinion.

Although the bible contradicts itself a lot, it does say that homosexuality is a sin. However, I also find the bible and religion in general to be nothing but self- deceit, and thus, I don't fucking care. Someone seperate the church and the state, please.

will smeone please change the record , over and over can we please think of somthing elce to post about or at the very least keep it in one post plesae :headbang:

the conversations are still going to be the same no matter how you phrase the question

The way I view this issue is that it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to commit homosexual acts.

Too lazy to see if this was posted:

1 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.

My view on it is, since it doesn't hurt anyone, and makes people happy I don't view it as wrong.

*claps*

I'd like to say that many of us nonChristians (speaking as an atheist) don't particularly care about what Christianity finds a sin. That is not to say we don't have morals, but as our morals may be different (for instance, mine are driven by the need for justice for everyone, and taking responsibility for everything I do, not hurting others, etc), I don't want regulations of the country I live to be made based on a book that I don't find to be anything else than a nice piece of historic literature.

I haven't been paying attention to this string much, but here's my two cents. I accept any religion, but, anyone who uses the Bible to justify anything will always be wrong. They read one line and repeat it as truth. It it were true, women who menstrate would have to stay in a tent in their backyards. Do any bible thumpers do that? How about adultery? Did they forget that was wrong? How about evangelicals? Maybe the parishoners aren't worshiping them, but they sure do have a lot of money for priests... According to the Bible, selling and trading in the church is wrong, but every year, I love going to the Italian church for their bazaar. You can even gamble right inside the church.

In summation, the Bible is the easiest defense to knock down.

I haven't been paying attention to this string much, but here's my two cents. I accept any religion, but, anyone who uses the Bible to justify anything will always be wrong. They read one line and repeat it as truth. It it were true, women who menstrate would have to stay in a tent in their backyards. Do any bible thumpers do that? How about adultery? Did they forget that was wrong? How about evangelicals? Maybe the parishoners aren't worshiping them, but they sure do have a lot of money for priests... According to the Bible, selling and trading in the church is wrong, but every year, I love going to the Italian church for their bazaar. You can even gamble right inside the church.

In summation, the Bible is the easiest defense to knock down.
A lot of people disagree.

A lot of people disagree.

Because they apply their faith to a world that is beyond their faith's jurisdiction. If the world is going to get along, people need to apply that faith only to the communities that support it and no where else.

Too lazy to see if this was posted:

1 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.
Arsenkotai means "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals". Try reading a Bible that hasn't been run through the woodchipper during translation.

Because they apply their faith to a world that is beyond their faith's jurisdiction. If the world is going to get along, people need to apply that faith only to the communities that support it and no where else.
The only way to argue with those that see nothing but bibles and gods and spirtuality is to argue with bibles and gods and spirituality.

I'm no bible knower, but I do know that there's is a passage that explicitly states that homosexual actions are sinful. All your original post proves is that it's wrong for one man to hate gays or judge them. Unless the judgers repent.
Amen to that. Your arguement did nothing to sanction homosexuality. It is just condeming those who condemn it.

The only way to argue with those that see nothing but bibles and gods and spirtuality is to argue with bibles and gods and spirituality.

And as a result of a a lack of perspective on both sides, the world will never get along.

Homosexuality is not a sin. People are sometimes born that way and can't help it. If God creates these people, is God sinning for making these people? No, he knows that every person is unique, whatever that uniqueness might be, he will love that child no matter what. That is what we need to do, love eachother no matter what.

Amen to that. Your arguement did nothing to sanction homosexuality. It is just condeming those who condemn it.
I've already explained myself, I'm not reposting it.

Homosexuality is not a sin. People are sometimes born that way and can't help it. If God creates these people, is God sinning for making these people? No, he knows that every person is unique, whatever that uniqueness might be, he will love that child no matter what. That is what we need to do, love eachother no matter what.

Maybe in your faith that is how it is. There are a great deal of faiths out there that condemn it as a sin.

I haven't been paying attention to this string much, but here's my two cents. I accept any religion, but, anyone who uses the Bible to justify anything will always be wrong. They read one line and repeat it as truth. It it were true, women who menstrate would have to stay in a tent in their backyards. Do any bible thumpers do that? How about adultery? Did they forget that was wrong? How about evangelicals? Maybe the parishoners aren't worshiping them, but they sure do have a lot of money for priests... According to the Bible, selling and trading in the church is wrong, but every year, I love going to the Italian church for their bazaar. You can even gamble right inside the church.

In summation, the Bible is the easiest defense to knock down.
The bible isn't that easy to knock down, say if you are trying to argue against Mormons.

I don't think Mormons are really Christians...

They're no more Christians than Christians are Jews.

I don't think Mormons are really Christians...

They're no more Christians than Christians are Jews.
Mormons believe in the same Christ as all Christians. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Man I hate living in Utah.

Taking back to bible's arguing...

The famous passage about "homofilia" (a.k.a. homosexuality) is Levitic 20:13

"If a man sleeps with another man, as it is doing with a woman, both of them are doing an abomination, and must death, their blood lays over their bodies"

This means that the punishment for this action is terrenal death.

However, in new testament, there are many passages that defends some gays saying that a man can dominate himself, even with this strange modus vivendi. If a gay do not acts as a gay, he do not make any sin and are fair at god's eyes.

Now, without bible's argument, homosexuality is a criminal act against all human beings, because, if all of us were gays, there were no future. If be gay is right, then why it has this effect?