NationStates Jolt Archive

There are two things I would like to make clear before this thread begins in earnest. Firstly, this thread is about the CHRISTIAN idea of sin. You cannot therfore argue against it by saying "The Bible is rubbish" becasue we are not discussing the validity of the Bible, that is another thread. Secondly it is not for people to insult the notion of homosexuality as a sin in the Christian mind. You may think its backward, stubbon and close-minded but thats not what the thread is about. This thread is about whether or not it is a sin and the Christian response to homosexuality if it is

To adress the first point, I refer people to the following website

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I do believe that argues the case for it being a sin very well

Now to the second point. What is the correct Christian response to homosexuality. The answer is simple. With love. Christians should never hate anyone, its that simple. Homophobia is completely unjustified in terms of the Bible. The fact that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin does not mean that you can hate those people who practise it. You are entitled to hold the view that it is a sin of course, but you are not entitled as a Christian to hate them for it. Jesus told us not to judge. We are not to hate others on the basis of sin, since we all are sinners. Thus we are all the same. So how should a Christian treet a homosexual? In the same way they treet anyone else.

I fail to see how the bible can classify it as a sin, since it contravenes none of the legislation imparted to Moses by God.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery". Not much chance of that happening in a gay relatiopnship.

Amen.

(to the original post :) )

Amen.

Thank you. Glad to see someone aprciates the message in its true light

There are two things I would like to make clear before this thread begins in earnest. Firstly, this thread is about the CHRISTIAN idea of sin. You cannot therfore argue against it by saying "The Bible is rubbish" becasue we are not discussing the validity of the Bible, that is another thread.

One may not say that the Bible is "rubbish", but a Christian with a brain certainly should question the validity of a literal view of all, or at least certain parts of the Bible.

I do believe that argues the case for it being a sin very well

Sure, if you've never ever spoken to anyone who can read Hebrew or Greek and has actually looked into the words in question.

The fact that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin does not mean that you can hate those people who practise it.

Ahem. There is quite a bit of debate over this "fact".

So how should a Christian treet a homosexual? In the same way they treet anyone else.

This is certainly true.

Sure, if you've never ever spoken to anyone who can read Hebrew or Greek and has actually looked into the words in question.

Ahem. There is quite a bit of debate over this "fact".


Did you look at the web page I suggested?

There are two things I would like to make clear before this thread begins in earnest. Firstly, this thread is about the CHRISTIAN idea of sin. You cannot therfore argue against it by saying "The Bible is rubbish" becasue we are not discussing the validity of the Bible, that is another thread. Secondly it is not for people to insult the notion of homosexuality as a sin in the Christian mind. You may think its backward, stubbon and close-minded but thats not what the thread is about. This thread is about whether or not it is a sin and the Christian response to homosexuality if it is

To adress the first point, I refer people to the following website

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I do believe that argues the case for it being a sin very well

Now to the second point. What is the correct Christian response to homosexuality. The answer is simple. With love. Christians should never hate anyone, its that simple. Homophobia is completely unjustified in terms of the Bible. The fact that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin does not mean that you can hate those people who practise it. You are entitled to hold the view that it is a sin of course, but you are not entitled as a Christian to hate them for it. Jesus told us not to judge. We are not to hate others on the basis of sin, since we all are sinners. Thus we are all the same. So how should a Christian treet a homosexual? In the same way they treet anyone else.

Hate is a sin. And you are guilty of it.

And I don't by your premises that (1) the Bible is the word of God, (2) Christianity is true, etc.

Even so -- and your third party article notwithstanding -- the Bible does not teach homosexual sex is a sin.

Hate is a sin. And you are guilty of it.

Thats a rather nasty accusation. On what grounds do you make it?


Even so -- and your third party article notwithstanding -- the Bible does not teach homosexual sex is a sin.

That matter is up for debate

Did you look at the web page I suggested?

Yes, and in the first paragraph it had already made assumptions that words meant things that many scholars have said that they actually do not. In other words, as I said, it is a perfect argument - if you assume that the person in question is using a proper translation.

However, if you actually look into the words in question - talk to those who can actually translate them - and look at those passages in the context of the message of Christ, you might just come to a very different conclusion indeed.

Thats a rather nasty accusation. On what grounds do you make it?

If I say that calling oneself Avalon II is a sin, I'd say I was spreading hate against Avalon II.

That matter is up for debate

And all you've put on the table is a third-party article reciting tired old arguments that have been refuted many times.

If I say that calling oneself Avalon II is a sin, I'd say I was spreading hate against Avalon II.

That is exactly the point I am dispelling here. People shouldnt hate homosexuals, they should hate homosexual sex. People shouldnt hate thives, they should hate stealing, people shouldnt hate blaphemers, they should hate blasphemey. Belief it is a sin does not constitute hating the commiters of said sin.

Yes, and in the first paragraph it had already made assumptions that words meant things that many scholars have said that they actually do not. In other words, as I said, it is a perfect argument - if you assume that the person in question is using a proper translation.

However, if you actually look into the words in question - talk to those who can actually translate them - and look at those passages in the context of the message of Christ, you might just come to a very different conclusion indeed.

Dem-What are the "words in question", and what do they really mean?

Please help us out here.:)

The problem I have with the "homosexual sex is a sin" argument isn't based on the legitimacy of the claim. It's far more simple than that.

How is homosexual sex "more" sinful than premarital sex, drinking, smoking, lying, or any of the other so-called sins that hardly receive any massive Christian attention? Sin is sin, that's all there is to it. Sucking a big dick is not any more sinful than getting tipsy on booze or telling a woman she doesn't look fat in those jeans (when in fact she does).
That's a biblical fact, check it for yourself. All of this religious focus on homosexuality is bullshit, plain and simple. It also shows non-Christians in the know that most believers don't know jack shit about their beloved bible.

That's why I laugh and shake my head at the mere mention of the topic by the "faithful" sheep. They're full of shit and ignorant of their own religion. If they weren't, they'd split their time between all of the "devil's work", and not fetishistically focus on one tiny aspect of it. Go picket a bar instead.

-snip-

You deserve this. Holy fuck, do you ever.

*carts you a massive crate of weed, along with an equally massive crate of paper with which to roll joints*

Dem-What are the "words in question", and what do they really mean?

Please help us out here.:)

For instance, the Leviticus passage (which means much less to me, as a Christian, than New Testament passages anyways). Translated from the Hebrew, it might refer to a man "lying with a man as with a woman." It might refer to a man lying in a woman's bed (most likely referring to her menstrual bed). It might refer to a man lying with a woman who is menstruating (which would fit in rather well with OT law). Much like with English, Hebrew words can mean more than one thing - and because the grammar is so different when going between them, all sorts of things can get lost.

It is sort of like the debate over the first Creation account in Genesis. Are there 7 literal days? Are they seven time periods? Are they seven epochs? Are they 7000 years because "a day to God is like 1000 years"? When we are trying to talk about Scriptures written for an ancient culture in an ancient language, there are bound to be disputes.

Then, there is the Greek word arsenokoitai, which the author assumes to mean "men who lie with men." However, scholars don't agree on the meaning of this word. It was new when Paul used it - not having been seen before then. It was not used in contemporary literature by others so that we can glean meaning from that. It is definitely used to refer to some sort of sexual perversion - but was it meant to be men who sleep with men? That is truly unclear. Many have suggested that it actually refers to a common Romon practice in which grown, straight men took young, feminine boys as prostitutes.

However, one thing we can glean from all of Paul's writings is that he is never referring to a man who is naturally attracted to another man or a woman who is naturally attracted to another woman - two things we know to happen. He is referring to people who abandon their natural attractions and indulge in sexual pleasure with a gender that they are not really attracted to. Most likely, Paul couldn't even have conceived of the idea that a man might naturally be attracted to men, or that a woman might naturally be attracted to women. These days, we know it happens.

Edit: As for what the words "really mean", you would have to go back in time and ask the original authors to be truly sure of that.

That is exactly the point I am dispelling here. People shouldnt hate homosexuals, they should hate homosexual sex. People shouldnt hate thives, they should hate stealing, people shouldnt hate blaphemers, they should hate blasphemey. Belief it is a sin does not constitute hating the commiters of said sin.
Why should anybody hate homosexual sex, exactly?

People shouldnt hate homosexuals, they should hate homosexual sex.

Oh, for fuck's sake! :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to bother. I get tired of defending myself when I don't need to. *sigh*

There are two places in the bible where it mentions homosexuality. And they cannot be properly interrupted as the word of the Covenant for man by god. Or is it the chruch. For a God of love and mercy. Merely chosing to love should be good enough. After all the flesh is tranitory anyway. Love and mercy is what it is about.

Or is it the Church wanting to exert further pressure on the people of the times since such acts where common and no way considered evil?

I am a lesbian. I work at a hosptial 60+ hours a week. I help in homeless shelters and I donate quite a bit of money to charity. So does that make me a bad person? When I die will I go to hell because I love another woman just a deeply as I care for my friends?

I just dont understand it. Must be the oriental side of me.

There are two places in the bible where it mentions homosexuality. And they cannot be properly interrupted as the word of the Covenant for man by god. Or is it the chruch. For a God of love and mercy. Merely chosing to love should be good enough. After all the flesh is tranitory anyway. Love and mercy is what it is about.

Or is it the Church wanting to exert further pressure on the people of the times since such acts where common and no way considered evil?

I am a lesbian. I work at a hosptial 60+ hours a week. I help in homeless shelters and I donate quite a bit of money to charity. So does that make me a bad person? When I die will I go to hell because I love another woman just a deeply as I care for my friends?

I just dont understand it. Must be the oriental side of me.

*claps*

You deserve this. Holy fuck, do you ever.

*carts you a massive crate of weed, along with an equally massive crate of paper with which to roll joints*
Thanks, I could use it since I'm waiting on a bag as I write! :D

And don't expect an honest answer on that question (actually, THE question).
That's because they've been brainwashed into thinking that this "sin" somehow carries more weight than doing yardwork on Sunday. :rolleyes:

Occam's Razor says: BOGUS CLAIM.

Oh, for fuck's sake! :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to bother. I get tired of defending myself when I don't need to. *sigh*

Welcome to the crowd. We're thinking of starting a club.

Welcome to the crowd. We're thinking of starting a club.

So where do I sign up?

(Any nice single young men in that club, while we're at it? :D )

If the Bible was right, I should be in hell already, and I'm not done yet.

So where do I sign up?

(Any nice single young men in that club, while we're at it? :D )

Well of course! It wouldn't be a club without them. :D

If the Bible was right, I should be in hell already, and I'm not done yet.

If the Bible was right, everybody but Jesus is going to Hell, so nothing matters anyway. Go have gay butt sex ... God really doesn't care.

If the Bible was right, everybody but Jesus is going to Hell, so nothing matters anyway. Go have gay butt sex ... God really doesn't care.
Awesome.

I won't be having any of the gay butt sex though :p

Well of course! It wouldn't be a club without them. :D

I'm all ready to become a sinner once again, then.


(Because, according to the arguments of the original poster, I had stopped doing. Basically, it would mean that while I have a boyfriend with whom I'm in love, and have sex with, I'm sinning, but when I'm celibate I'm a sinner no more. Right?)

I think there were two places in the Bible where homosexuality was mentioned. I may be wrong! If I am, well...whatever. Then the rest of the post is void. But if I'm right, hear me out. I don't even remember the exact quotes...but I remember the significant bits.
1) Something ~ to "thou shalt not lay with a man as though you would with a woman, for it is an abomination to (life? It made sense, it wasn't something narrow-minded. It was like "the gift of life" or something)" This stands to reason. Two men can't have children, and cannot carry on the human race, hence, the word of God. But that doesn't discriminate against gays/lesbians/etc. Theoretically, they can still perform sexual acts up to but NOT including intercourse. But that's debatable.
2) Something like "The homosexuals have the greatest burden to bear, for they must (go through life without laying with another of their liking, or something)"
This also is true. But it can be interpreted in many different ways. For one thing, this makes it affirmative that not all homosexuals go to hell. Maybe if you were a gay/lesbo whore and had sex every day until you were 50, you would. But it's probably not one of the worst things you can do. After all, the important thing is to "love thy neighbour as you would yourself" and "love God with all your (heart/mind/soul)". God is forgiving and merciful, so I'd be thinking that He would understand you craving something all your life and being SUPPOSED to stay away from it. If you have to put up with it all your life, well obviously you're gonna want to do it to the point where you do.

So I think homosexuality isn't a sin, but gay intercourse is. (Chalks one up to anti-same-sex marriage)

I won't be having any of the gay butt sex though :p

You don't know what you're missing.:D

No, seriously, you have a prostate too.:p

You don't know what you're missing.:D
I'm not entirely sure I want to know ;)

No, seriously, you have a prostate too.:p
Yes, that's currently my problem :p

Yes, that's currently my problem :p

How would having a prostate be a problem? :confused:

I think there were two places in the Bible where homosexuality was mentioned. I may be wrong! If I am, well...whatever. Then the rest of the post is void. But if I'm right, hear me out. I don't even remember the exact quotes...but I remember the significant bits.
1) Something ~ to "thou shalt not lay with a man as though you would with a woman, for it is an abomination to (life? It made sense, it wasn't something narrow-minded. It was like "the gift of life" or something)" This stands to reason. Two men can't have children, and cannot carry on the human race, hence, the word of God. But that doesn't discriminate against gays/lesbians/etc. Theoretically, they can still perform sexual acts up to but NOT including intercourse. But that's debatable.
2) Something like "The homosexuals have the greatest burden to bear, for they must (go through life without laying with another of their liking, or something)"
This also is true. But it can be interpreted in many different ways. For one thing, this makes it affirmative that not all homosexuals go to hell. Maybe if you were a gay/lesbo whore and had sex every day until you were 50, you would. But it's probably not one of the worst things you can do. After all, the important thing is to "love thy neighbour as you would yourself" and "love God with all your (heart/mind/soul)". God is forgiving and merciful, so I'd be thinking that He would understand you craving something all your life and being SUPPOSED to stay away from it. If you have to put up with it all your life, well obviously you're gonna want to do it to the point where you do.

So I think homosexuality isn't a sin, but gay intercourse is. (Chalks one up to anti-same-sex marriage)

Sorry, but I have to ask... What the fuck was that supposed to mean?

And #2 is nowhere in the bible. Look again.

I love NS General, only here can a debate about homosexuality as sin get turned into a thread about how great gay butt sex is. :p

I love NS General, only here can a debate about homosexuality as sin get turned into a thread about how great gay butt sex is. :p

Amen! :p

How would having a prostate be a problem? :confused:
Ah, a newbie.

Well, I'm transgendered so having a prostate = being male =for me, anyway, bad.

It's not something I like to talk about that much, but since your new I don't really mind :)

I'd like to see a nude opera, because when they hit those high notes, I bet you can really see it in those genitals.

1) Something ~ to "thou shalt not lay with a man as though you would with a woman, for it is an abomination to (life? It made sense, it wasn't something narrow-minded. It was like "the gift of life" or something)" This stands to reason. Two men can't have children, and cannot carry on the human race, hence, the word of God. But that doesn't discriminate against gays/lesbians/etc. Theoretically, they can still perform sexual acts up to but NOT including intercourse. But that's debatable.
Actually, that can be interpreted as not using the same bed to lay with a man as you would to lay with a woman. It falls under adultery, more or less.

2) Something like "The homosexuals have the greatest burden to bear, for they must (go through life without laying with another of their liking, or something)"
This also is true. But it can be interpreted in many different ways. For one thing, this makes it affirmative that not all homosexuals go to hell. Maybe if you were a gay/lesbo whore and had sex every day until you were 50, you would. But it's probably not one of the worst things you can do. After all, the important thing is to "love thy neighbour as you would yourself" and "love God with all your (heart/mind/soul)". God is forgiving and merciful, so I'd be thinking that He would understand you craving something all your life and being SUPPOSED to stay away from it. If you have to put up with it all your life, well obviously you're gonna want to do it to the point where you do.
That one is also not in the bible at all. Stop inventing excuses for your homophobia.

So I think homosexuality isn't a sin, but gay intercourse is. (Chalks one up to anti-same-sex marriage)
I also fail to see how any religious argument can be chalked up to anti-same sex marriage. Marriage is a civil institution.

Ah, a newbie.

Well, I'm transgendered so having a prostate = being male =for me, anyway, bad.

It's not something I like to talk about that much, but since your new I don't really mind :)


Oh. :eek:

I see.

I know a transgendered person. The only thing I could ever think of when she showed me what she looked like back when she was a guy was "Damn, he's hot. What a waste :("

As a gay man I feel a sort of kinship to transgendered persons, but I still can't help bein myself :p

That being said, is being transgendered a sin too? (I had to have a semblance of relevance toward the thread's initial post, after all)

Oh. :eek:

I see.

I know a transgendered person. The only thing I could ever think of when she showed me what she looked like back when she was a guy was "Damn, he's hot. What a waste :("

As a gay man I feel a sort of kinship to transgendered persons, but I still can't help bein myself :p
Hehe, well, nobody can help being themselves :)

That being said, is being transgendered a sin too? (I had to have a semblance of relevance toward the thread's initial post, after all)
You know, I'm pretty certain everything is a sin if you look hard enough ;)

That is exactly the point I am dispelling here. People shouldnt hate homosexuals, they should hate homosexual sex. People shouldnt hate thives, they should hate stealing, people shouldnt hate blaphemers, they should hate blasphemey. Belief it is a sin does not constitute hating the commiters of said sin.
Too bad I LOVE homosexual sex

Welcome to the crowd. We're thinking of starting a club.

The for fuck's sake club? :confused:

Too bad I LOVE homosexual sex

Amen! Testify!

The for fuck's sake club? :confused:
Yea, fuck for the sake of it.

Yea, fuck for the sake of it.

I'm game! Give them something to truly hate! "Hate gay sex." Bah! The fucking nerve of this person! :mad:

You know, I'm pretty certain everything is a sin if you look hard enough ;)

The part that most people miss.

As a fundamentalist Christian, I could scarcely care if someone is a homosexual.

1. If you have sins (and who doesn't), that's between you and the Lord - not you and me (unless you did me without a reacharound).
2. There are plenty of sins worth worry about - and why isn't anyone emphasizing those - alleviating things like murder and theft would go a long way towards making life better.

I'm not God. And no one has appointed me to judge mankind. I'd rather not be judged by mankind, either. So Avalon needs to go back and read his Bible, and learn not to point his fingers saying, "look, there's a sin!" Hey, Avalon - take a moment to reflect on your own life - it should take you the rest of your life. Meanwhile, we'll all reflect on our own lives, and leave each other alone.

You know, I'm pretty certain everything is a sin if you look hard enough ;)
Yeah, tell that to those lobster-eating freaks ;)

Too bad I LOVE homosexual sex

How can you NOT love homo sex once you've tried it? ;)

Edit: Two words: Prostates Rock! :D

(unless you did me without a reacharound).

I'm sorry, the rest of your post was spot on, but this was excellent :D

How can you NOT love homo sex once you've tried it? ;)
I tried it when I was younger. I liked it then - it doesn't appeal to me much now.

Oral is ok - anal is a bad idea ever since I developed hemorrhoids.

How can you NOT love homo sex once you've tried it? ;)
:) Absolutly ... its so hot ... to be fair I like strait sex too lol

:) Absolutly ... its so hot ... to be fair I like strait sex too lol

Oddly, now I like watching well hung men have sex with women.

Oddly, now I like watching well hung men have sex with women.
Deffinatly a good choice of visualizations lol

How can you NOT love homo sex once you've tried it? ;)

Edit: Two words: Prostates Rock! :D

As do cocks, and mouths, and tongues, and nipples, and rectums, and fingers, and semen, and fists, and balls, and scrotums, and chains, and threesomes (and up), and quickies, and reacharounds, and rimmings, and I could go on.

Deffinatly a good choice of visualizations lol

Why not appreciate both if you can? That's my motto.

anal is a bad idea ever since I developed hemorrhoids.

Ewwww!:(

Ewwww!:(
It happens to everyone if you get old enough.

I'm not God. And no one has appointed me to judge mankind. I'd rather not be judged by mankind, either. So Avalon needs to go back and read his Bible, and learn not to point his fingers saying, "look, there's a sin!" Hey, Avalon - take a moment to reflect on your own life - it should take you the rest of your life. Meanwhile, we'll all reflect on our own lives, and leave each other alone.

Please, please keep reminding that to judgemental fundamentalists.

I love you.

In an entirely platonic way. :rolleyes:

It happens to everyone if you get old enough.

Old? Oh, dear lord, anything but that! :p

Please, please keep reminding that to judgemental fundamentalists.

I love you.

In an entirely platonic way. :rolleyes:

If you had come across me when I was in my 20s, I would have taken you up on just about anything.

If you had come across me when I was in my 20s, I would have taken you up on just about anything.

Lol, sorry, I'm not that kinda girl ;)

I just recently turned down a relationship. I just wasn't ready for it, I'm still somewhat heart-broken from when my BF left me for another guy nearly a year ago. Haven't seen any action since then.

I guess this goes to show that the "perverted, promiscuous lifestyle" of gay males isn't as true as some right-wing Christians would seem to believe.

Lol, sorry, I'm not that kinda girl ;)

I just recently turned down a relationship. I just wasn't ready for it, I'm still somewhat heart-broken from when my BF left me for another guy nearly a year ago. Haven't seen any action since then.

I guess this goes to show that the "perverted, promiscuous lifestyle" of gay males isn't as true as some right-wing Christians would seem to believe.

I believe that all humans are either promiscuous, or wish they were. No matter what they say.

I think you will find this most informitive ... it will let you know if your little boy is going gay

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html

I believe that all humans are either promiscuous, or wish they were. No matter what they say.

In my case, it's b)"I wish I were" :p

But it's just not working. I can't seem to get myself sexually aroused if I don't care(i.e. have strong feelings for) for my partner.

I believe that all humans are either promiscuous, or wish they were. No matter what they say.
Indeed.

Stupid long term monogamous relationships.

I think you will find this most informitive ... it will let you know if your little boy is going gay

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html

THis is pure gold :D

THis is pure gold :D
Landover is AWSOME lol

Landover is AWSOME lol
I'm adding it to my favorites :D

This thread is worthless without pics of two guys kissing:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4033/mkpic825qf.jpg

This thread is worthless without pics of two guys kissing:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4033/mkpic825qf.jpg

Holy fuck!

WHERE did you get those?


*drools uncontrollably on his keyboard*:p

Holy fuck!
WHERE did you get those?

You are aware that the Internet is made of porn?

You are aware that the Internet is made of porn?

Oh, right. I knew that. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, that pic was anything but porn. It was full of sensuality and eroticism, but it's not in any way porn. Porn is sexually explicit. That was art. And hot :D


*sigh* I really need a boyfriend.:(

Seriously though, that pic was anything but porn. It was full of sensuality and eroticism, but it's not in any way porn. Porn is sexually explicit. That was art. And hot :D

Well, here's some porn, then! (http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/00055xg2)

Oh, right. I knew that. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, that pic was anything but porn. It was full of sensuality and eroticism, but it's not in any way porn. Porn is sexually explicit. That was art. And hot :D


*sigh* I really need a boyfriend.:(
Stop that, it's sinful.

Stop that, it's sinful.

What, this?

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/00052rtc

Well, here's some porn, then! (http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/00055xg2)

Nope, still not porn.


Still hot, though :D

Stop that, it's sinful.

What's sinful in what I said?:confused:

Nope, still not porn.

Well, they do have rules as to what I can post here...

What, this?

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/00052rtc

Those guys need to shave though. Sandpaper is a turnoff. At least for me it is.:p

Those guys need to shave though. Sandpaper is a turnoff. At least for me it is.:p

You might as well be kissing a woman, then! I prefer real men, thankyouverymuch.

Well, they do have rules as to what I can post here...

I know :p

But gay porn usually involve turgid phalluses, most often being sinfully inserted in orifices where they do not belong, like oral cavities and sphincters.

Wow, I never thought I could make porn sound so weird :P

You might as well be kissing a woman, then! I prefer real men, thankyouverymuch.

Tsk, so a "REAL" man is an unshaven, uncivilised hairy drunken violent ape?

I'll take my nice hairless ephebes with greek god bodies anytime, thank you very much :D

I know :P

But gay porn usually involve turgid phalluses, most often being sinfully inserted in orifices where they do not belong, like oral cavities and sphincters.

Pfft, that's exactly where the tumescent members belong, and don't you forget it.

Pfft, that's exactly where the tumescent members belong, and don't you forget it.

I can never take my mind off it :p

Side note: anyone else wonders just how mad the thread's original poster is gonna be when he reads what has become of his "debate"? :D

*grins evilly*

I'll take my nice hairless ephebes with greek god bodies anytime, thank you very much :D

You search for your pederast eromenos, and the rest of us will be content with ravaging our own erastes.

You search for your pederast eromenos, and the rest of us will be content with ravaging our own erastes.

Done deal. Although I can hardly be called a pederast, possessing that sleek young muscular physique myself.

If you happen to meet a single, caring eromenos interested in a long-term, loving and sinfully full of sex relationship, give him my number, will ya?:D

You know, there are several communities on livejournal dedicated exclusively to men kissing each other...


to even things up, however...


http://handgranat.org/bilder/girls_kissing.jpg

You know, there are several communities on livejournal dedicated exclusively to men kissing each other...


to even things up, however...


http://handgranat.org/bilder/girls_kissing.jpg

Awwww, how very cute, albeit in a non-sexually-arousing-way. :)

*sigh*

How is homosexual sex "more" sinful than premarital sex, drinking, smoking, lying, or any of the other so-called sins that hardly receive any massive Christian attention? Sin is sin, that's all there is to it. Sucking a big dick is not any more sinful than getting tipsy on booze or telling a woman she doesn't look fat in those jeans (when in fact she does).
That's a biblical fact, check it for yourself. All of this religious focus on homosexuality is bullshit, plain and simple. It also shows non-Christians in the know that most believers don't know jack shit about their beloved bible.

That's why I laugh and shake my head at the mere mention of the topic by the "faithful" sheep. They're full of shit and ignorant of their own religion. If they weren't, they'd split their time between all of the "devil's work", and not fetishistically focus on one tiny aspect of it. Go picket a bar instead.

I think its to do with the fact that one person said "In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up"

If the Bible was right, everybody but Jesus is going to Hell, so nothing matters anyway. Go have gay butt sex ... God really doesn't care.

Explain how exactly you came to that conclusion? Have you actually read the Bible properly. Pehaps the most fameous part of it, John 3:16 explains it better for you

So I think homosexuality isn't a sin, but gay intercourse is. (Chalks one up to anti-same-sex marriage)

Hit the nail on the head

I think its to do with the fact that one person said "In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up"
?
I find more straight bigots talking about gay people than gay people talk about being gay. Most gay people I've known irl don't really even mention it, unless they're talking about how they did something the other day and mention a boyfriend/girlfriend in there somewhere.

Unless you have some huge issue with like, pride parades and equal rights or something...

I think its to do with the fact that one person said "In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up"

You bet your sanctimonious and tight-clenched patootie we will not shut up! Not any more.

?
I find more straight bigots talking about gay people than gay people talk about being gay. Most gay people I've known irl don't really even mention it, unless they're talking about how they did something the other day and mention a boyfriend/girlfriend in there somewhere.

Unless you have some huge issue with like, pride parades and equal rights or something...

You dont understand

About 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered exceptionally taboo, institutional homophobia was the norm, it was even considered illegal by the national govenrmnets of some countries. Now the climate has completely inverted, and anything less than a postive endorcement of a homosexual lifestyle is considered exceptionally prejudiced. The climate has changed in 40 years quite spectacularly.

You dont understand

About 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered exceptionally taboo, institutional homophobia was the norm, it was even considered illegal by the national govenrmnets of some countries. Now the climate has completely inverted, and anything less than a postive endorcement of a homosexual lifestyle is considered exceptionally prejudiced. The climate has changed in 40 years quite spectacularly.And why is this bad?

I think its to do with the fact that one person said "In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up"
In the end I hear more about homosexuality from the people that dispise it then thoes that engage in it

And why is this bad?

I didnt say it was

What I did say is that it is the reason which is why Christians now seem to focus on it more than other areas. Because the climite has changed, so has other areas

I didnt say it was

What I did say is that it is the reason which is why Christians now seem to focus on it more than other areas. Because the climite has changed, so has other areas

There is more reference in the Bible (whether you look in the Old Testament or New Testament) to gossip or talking behind people's backs or spreading rumors as a sin than any other sin in the Bible.

The Jewish scholars have a word for it "lashon hara" or the "evil tongue".

Jesus and Paul both mention it often.

It's a common sin nowadays. Very common, and very damaging, because the things you say when you talk about others cannot be taken back - the damage is done.

As a Christian, if there's a sin that I work on, this is the one.

Work on your own sins though - not the sins of others. Avalon, if you think that homosexual sex is a sin, and you find that you're not having it, then pat yourself on the back and move on to other sins.

There is more reference in the Bible (whether you look in the Old Testament or New Testament) to gossip or talking behind people's backs or spreading rumors as a sin than any other sin in the Bible.

The Jewish scholars have a word for it "lashon hara" or the "evil tongue".

Jesus and Paul both mention it often.

It's a common sin nowadays. Very common, and very damaging, because the things you say when you talk about others cannot be taken back - the damage is done.

As a Christian, if there's a sin that I work on, this is the one.

Work on your own sins though - not the sins of others. Avalon, if you think that homosexual sex is a sin, and you find that you're not having it, then pat yourself on the back and move on to other sins.

I am trying to make the point here that Christians beliving that homosexual sex is a sin does not equate to homophobia

I am trying to make the point here that Christians beliving that homosexual sex is a sin does not equate to homophobia

Unfortunately, for most fundamentalists who believe it is a sin, it most certainly does equate to homophobia.

Why they fear it, as though it were something that you could catch like a cold, is beyond me.

If you're not gay, you're not going to suddenly turn gay.

I am trying to make the point here that Christians beliving that homosexual sex is a sin does not equate to homophobia

Indeed. There's a huge difference between a mindset and a disorder.

I actually feel kind of thankful for those who coined the phrase, as misused as it is. If one is labelled a "homophobe" simply because they disagree with homosexuality, it seems that their stance has just been made out to be a permanent disorder and its discrimination to anyone who bashes them for their disorder.

Ironic, no?

My understanding is that the most commonly cited Biblical story supposedly condemning homosexuality is a story that ends with a guy getting drunk and having incestuous sex with his virgin daughters. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality isn't a Biblical sin, but it does make me wonder if Christians really want to rely on the Bible for their own rules of sin.

Unfortunately, for most fundamentalists who believe it is a sin, it most certainly does equate to homophobia.

Why they fear it, as though it were something that you could catch like a cold, is beyond me.

If you're not gay, you're not going to suddenly turn gay.

There can be a wide difference between believing it to be a sin and fearing it. I believe it to be a sin, yet I'm perfectly comfortable having gay friends and being around them. And since I believe love to be a choice, not inborn, I have no reason to fear any sort of "contagion" from them.

It's a lifestyle I'm perfectly willing to accept. I just don't agree with it. How is that homophobia?

You dont understand

About 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered exceptionally taboo, institutional homophobia was the norm, it was even considered illegal by the national govenrmnets of some countries. Now the climate has completely inverted, and anything less than a postive endorcement of a homosexual lifestyle is considered exceptionally prejudiced. The climate has changed in 40 years quite spectacularly.
Yep, the times have changed...fags are out of the closet, women are out of the kitchen, and the darkies are sitting at the front of the bus. Hell, you can't even call them "faggots," or "sluts," or "niggers" in common conversation any more, without some crazy librul hippie screaming at you.

I know that I for one spend at least an hour each day crying over the loss of those good 'ol traditional values.

There can be a wide difference between believing it to be a sin and fearing it. I believe it to be a sin, yet I'm perfectly comfortable having gay friends and being around them. And since I believe love to be a choice, not inborn, I have no reason to fear any sort of "contagion" from them.

It's a lifestyle I'm perfectly willing to accept. I just don't agree with it. How is that homophobia?

You and I are not "most fundamentalists".

Tell you what. Go to the nearest Southern Baptist church, and after the service, when everyone is standing around drinking coffee, shout your last sentence very loudly. You'll see what I mean.

My understanding is that the most commonly cited Biblical story supposedly condemning homosexuality is a story that ends with a guy getting drunk and having incestuous sex with his virgin daughters. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality isn't a Biblical sin, but it does make me wonder if Christians really want to rely on the Bible for their own rules of sin.

Actually, you missed the moral by a longshot. Lot, the last "righteous" person in either Sodom or Gomorrah, was spared because of Abraham's pleas to God. God, being merciful, let him live. However, Lot showed himself to be just as corruptable by indulging himself in drink and fornicating with his daughters. Abraham was proven wrong, and God, initially, was proven right in his first claim that all in Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful.

There can be a wide difference between believing it to be a sin and fearing it. I believe it to be a sin, yet I'm perfectly comfortable having gay friends and being around them. And since I believe love to be a choice, not inborn, I have no reason to fear any sort of "contagion" from them.

It's a lifestyle I'm perfectly willing to accept. I just don't agree with it. How is that homophobia?
Let's just clarify one thing:

Homophobia is prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality. The term "homophobia" does not refer exclusively to a fear or extreme hatred of homosexuals; it also includes individuals who dislike homosexuals and/or homosexuality. Whether or not you LIKE this term is another matter, but based on what you have said I think it might be fair to apply "homophobia" to your beliefs even thought I know it carries connotations that you dislike or that you don't feel fit your views.

Actually, you missed the moral by a longshot. Lot, the last "righteous" person in either Sodom or Gomorrah, was spared because of Abraham's pleas to God. God, being merciful, let him live. However, Lot showed himself to be just as corruptable by indulging himself in drink and fornicating with his daughters. Abraham was proven wrong, and God, initially, was proven right in his first claim that all in Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful.
And was Lot then slaughtered, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? If so, that's fair.

Also, why would God entertain the idea that Lot was virtuous, when he offered up his own daughters to be raped and/or murdered? Or is that supposed to be a virtue?

There are two things I would like to make clear before this thread begins in earnest. Firstly, this thread is about the CHRISTIAN idea of sin. You cannot therfore argue against it by saying "The Bible is rubbish" becasue we are not discussing the validity of the Bible, that is another thread. Secondly it is not for people to insult the notion of homosexuality as a sin in the Christian mind. You may think its backward, stubbon and close-minded but thats not what the thread is about. This thread is about whether or not it is a sin and the Christian response to homosexuality if it is

To adress the first point, I refer people to the following website

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

I do believe that argues the case for it being a sin very well

Now to the second point. What is the correct Christian response to homosexuality. The answer is simple. With love. Christians should never hate anyone, its that simple. Homophobia is completely unjustified in terms of the Bible. The fact that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin does not mean that you can hate those people who practise it. You are entitled to hold the view that it is a sin of course, but you are not entitled as a Christian to hate them for it. Jesus told us not to judge. We are not to hate others on the basis of sin, since we all are sinners. Thus we are all the same. So how should a Christian treet a homosexual? In the same way they treet anyone else.


If unlike intelligent people, you are unable to accept any notion that the bible just might be the work of men rather than god; please refrain from posting on this board.


Your arguments are patronising, offensive and tiresome in the extreme. What exactly are you looking to achieve here?


I'm sure there is a multitude of happy-clapper forums on the internet you would feel at home in. If you can't handle anyone attacking your ignorance or bigotry then either grow up or go away.

Let's just clarify one thing:

Homophobia is prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality. The term "homophobia" does not refer exclusively to a fear or extreme hatred of homosexuals; it also includes individuals who dislike homosexuals and/or homosexuality. Whether or not you LIKE this term is another matter, but based on what you have said I think it might be fair to apply "homophobia" to your beliefs even thought I know it carries connotations that you dislike or that you don't feel fit your views.

Which is why I dislike the term. When one labels me a homophobe, others will automatically view me in a negative light. If I'm a homophobe, many will percieve me to be this hateful, ignorant creature, which I happen to disagree with and hope that this was shown in my previous post. I suppose it's much alike to the homosexuals. Once it's found that someone is a homosexual, many will automatically perceive them to be some taboo kinky-loving fornicator, which may not be true at all.

See where I'm going?

Even so -- and your third party article notwithstanding -- the Bible does not teach homosexual sex is a sin.

Yes it does. Whether you believe it or not, though, is up to you. I personally feel homosexuality is a sin, but that whatever homosexuals do is between them and God, and none of my business. So long as they respect me, I respect them. What happens in the bedroom is no business of the state, the public, or anyone else.

If unlike intelligent people, you are unable to accept any notion that the bible just might be the work of men rather than god; please refrain from posting on this board.

Exceptionally rude and insulting - border line flame - almost certianly flamebait


Your arguments are patronising, offensive and tiresome in the extreme. What exactly are you looking to achieve here?

To make the point to people that believeing homosexual sex to be a sin does not equate to homophobia or hating homosexuals at all. I would apriciate you telling me what exactly you take offence to


I'm sure there is a multitude of happy-clapper forums on the internet you would feel at home in. If you can't handle anyone attacking your ignorance or bigotry then either grow up or go away.

Exceptionally rude and insulting - definite flame

Also, why would God entertain the idea that Lot was virtuous, when he offered up his own daughters to be raped and/or murdered? Or is that supposed to be a virtue?

What part of protecting your houseguest don't you understand? What part of having no good choices to choose from don't you understand?

Would I have done it? No. Will I condemn someone else for making bad choices during an extreme crisis and under overriding duress? No. What part of anguish and desperation don't you empathize with?

Do you blame the mother who is allowed to save only one child for picking one? Shouldn’t we blame those responsible for forcing them to choose in the first place instead? Yes.

You know, I'm pretty certain everything is a sin if you look hard enough ;)
Amen to that! :)

( :p )

Which is why I dislike the term. When one labels me a homophobe, others will automatically view me in a negative light. If I'm a homophobe, many will percieve me to be this hateful, ignorant creature, which I happen to disagree with and hope that this was shown in my previous post. I suppose it's much alike to the homosexuals. Once it's found that someone is a homosexual, many will automatically perceive them to be some taboo kinky-loving fornicator, which may not be true at all.

See where I'm going?
Yes, I totally understand that. Personally, even though I think it's silly to fear OR to dislike homosexuals, I still wish we had two separate terms rather than one blanket concept like "homophobia." It's just not precise, and doesn't really give all that much information.

What part of protecting your houseguest don't you understand? What part of having no good choices to choose from don't you understand?

Dude, since when is giving your children over to a rapacious mob a part of your responsibilities as a host?

Besides, the point is that Lot made that particular choice, and God decided it was a good one. So, in effect, God was saying that protecting visiting guests (who, as angels, were probably better able to defend themselves than a couple of little girls) is more important than the lives and safety of your own offspring. If you agree with those values then that's your business.


Would I have done it? No. Will I condemn someone else for making bad choices during an extreme crisis and under overriding duress? No. What part of anguish and desperation don't you empathize with?

Forgive me, but I hold human beings to certain standards. If somebody uses their kids as human shields I don't much care what kind of "anguish" they experienced over the decision...I still think they're shitty parents.


Do you blame the mother who is allowed to save only one child for picking one?

Since when were the angels Lot's children? Why didn't he offer HIMSELF to the mob, rather than shoving his kids into harms way?


Shouldn’t we blame those responsible for forcing them to choose in the first place instead? Yes.
Yes, we should certainly blame them too. We also should blame the "all-powerful and all-loving" diety who refused to lend a hand and protect those poor girls from their abusive drunk of a father. In that situation, I think there was plenty of blame to go around.

To make the point to people that believeing homosexual sex to be a sin does not equate to homophobia or hating homosexuals at all.

As if that position were somehow less bad, less insulting, less derisive, less hurtful, less demeaning? :rolleyes:

You people. You just don't get it...

Personally, I don't give a damn if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, whatever. I judge people solely by character, not by what happens under their bedroom sheets (provided everyone under the sheets consents).

*snip*
Yes, we should certainly blame them too. We also should blame the "all-powerful and all-loving" diety who refused to lend a hand and protect those poor girls from their abusive drunk of a father. In that situation, I think there was plenty of blame to go around.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post, Bottle.

But I feel I should point out that it was in fact Lot's daughters who PURPOSEFULLY got him drunk in order to copulate with their own father in order to get pregnant and repopulate the city. Poor Lot's the victim in this tale, as weird as it may sound.

As if that position were somehow less bad, less insulting, less derisive, less hurtful, less demeaning? :rolleyes:


You forgot arrogant, condescending, and holier-than-thou. Those are what really pisses me off. Most people who condemn homosexuality as a sin usually "forget" that they're just as much of a sinner as any gay man.

Heck, eating seafood or wearing a shirt made from two different kinds of fabric is as much of a fucking sin as being gay and having gay sex.:rolleyes:

You forgot arrogant, condescending, and holier-than-thou. Those are what really pisses me off. Most people who condemn homosexuality as a sin usually "forget" that they're just as much of a sinner as any gay man.

Heck, eating seafood or wearing a shirt made from two different kinds of fabric is as much of a fucking sin as being gay and having gay sex.:rolleyes:

Exactly! We're all sinners. No one's perfect, so why judge?

Personally, I don't give a damn if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, whatever. I judge people solely by character, not by what happens under their bedroom sheets (provided everyone under the sheets consents).

Heh, we have more common ground than your first post made me imagine.

Exceptionally rude and insulting - border line flame - almost certianly flamebait



To make the point to people that believeing homosexual sex to be a sin does not equate to homophobia or hating homosexuals at all. I would apriciate you telling me what exactly you take offence to



Exceptionally rude and insulting - definite flame


oh dear, please don't report me to the mods, oh wait you have... pathetic

Heh, we have more common ground than your first post made me imagine.

I see no reason to judge gay people. For the most part, they're pretty much like anyone else, except usually nicer.

oh dear, please don't report me to the mods, oh wait you have... pathetic

You're not helping yourself, you know. It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone and state as much, but to deride them because they hold different beliefs? Unacceptable.

Take it from the older and wiser users here and try to understand that we must attempt at keeping things as civil as possible. If a thread is within the bounds of the rules, yet you simple cannot stand the sight or stench of it, just stay far far away. That's what I do and that's what keeps me out of trouble.

You forgot arrogant, condescending, and holier-than-thou. Those are what really pisses me off. Most people who condemn homosexuality as a sin usually "forget" that they're just as much of a sinner as any gay man.

Heck, eating seafood or wearing a shirt made from two different kinds of fabric is as much of a fucking sin as being gay and having gay sex.

I fully agree. While I do state my opinion when asked or when I deem nessecary, I try to remain in the realization that I am, in all essence, on par with everyone else. We are all sinners, yet we are all created in God's fashion. I try not to condemn, nor do I try to hold to a holier-than-thou attitude. Yeah, sometimes I fail at it, but I do try. I just hope others won't hold it against me, and would find it in their hearts to forgive me should I slip up and act stupid.

I see no reason to judge gay people. For the most part, they're pretty much like anyone else, except usually nicer.

Haha. I COULD point out that this is a positive prejudice.

But since I happen to like positive prejudices when they're aimed at me, I won't :D

I fully agree. While I do state my opinion when asked or when I deem nessecary, I try to remain in the realization that I am, in all essence, on par with everyone else. We are all sinners, yet we are all created in God's fashion. I try not to condemn, nor do I try to hold to a holier-than-thou attitude. Yeah, sometimes I fail at it, but I do try. I just hope others won't hold it against me, and would find it in their hearts to forgive me should I slip up and act stupid.

At least you're trying. Just that makes a world of difference. A lot of fundamentalists not only don't try not to be arrogant condescending bastards, but actually revel in it.

I'm actually thinking this might be compensating for their lack of sex-lives. They have to get their pleasure somewhere :p

Judge not lest ye be judged? Does that not ring a bell. All those who go around condeming people for their lives are also commiting a sin and will be judged more harshly than those they have condemed. A fitting irony I must say. All those conservitives need to get a check on life and know that they themselves are not perfect in the eyes of their Lord. And they go down even more because they do not accept or love there fellow man.

So a muderer who repents will be spared, but the woman who loves another woman will go to hell because they chose to love? Silly silly Christians.

You're not helping yourself, you know. It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone and state as much, but to deride them because they hold different beliefs? Unacceptable.

Take it from the older and wiser users here and try to understand that we must attempt at keeping things as civil as possible. If a thread is within the bounds of the rules, yet you simple cannot stand the sight or stench of it, just stay far far away. That's what I do and that's what keeps me out of trouble.



I fully agree. While I do state my opinion when asked or when I deem nessecary, I try to remain in the realization that I am, in all essence, on par with everyone else. We are all sinners, yet we are all created in God's fashion. I try not to condemn, nor do I try to hold to a holier-than-thou attitude. Yeah, sometimes I fail at it, but I do try. I just hope others won't hold it against me, and would find it in their hearts to forgive me should I slip up and act stupid.


I agree that my second post was unfortunate - had I taken a moment to think I would have decided against it - but I stand by the first.

I am not deriding someone because they hold different beliefs here, the post is caustic, yes, but that's all.

So a muderer who repents will be spared, but the woman who loves another woman will go to hell because they chose to love? Silly silly Christians.


No, you obviously aren't a Christian.

Anyone who accepts salvation and repents is saved. God is a pretty forgiving guy - that's the message that is so often lost.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that says if a woman has sex with another woman that there is any problem at all. So go for it.

No, you obviously aren't a Christian.

Anyone who accepts salvation and repents is saved. God is a pretty forgiving guy - that's the message that is so often lost.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that says if a woman has sex with another woman that there is any problem at all. So go for it.

Shhh! Don't tell Fred Phelps that! :D

No, you obviously aren't a Christian.

Anyone who accepts salvation and repents is saved. God is a pretty forgiving guy - that's the message that is so often lost.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that says if a woman has sex with another woman that there is any problem at all. So go for it.

Which is why Christianity is so obviously unbalanced. That a man can go out kill 50 or more people. Get shot and be dying, call for a priest to be at his death bed. Repent and be like "Haha, I killed them but I get the cookie at the end anyway, so nyah!!"

Yeah that is hardly a just religion.

At least you're trying. Just that makes a world of difference. A lot of fundamentalists not only don't try not to be arrogant condescending bastards, but actually revel in it.

I'm actually thinking this might be compensating for their lack of sex-lives. They have to get their pleasure somewhere :p

It must be. However, I'm thoroughly lacking in a sex live *cough*, yet I'm not as stone-faced as other fundies are. Perhaps it's my love of the NS forums that helps with the tension? Hmmm...

Which is why Christianity is so obviously unbalanced. That a man can go out kill 50 or more people. Get shot and be dying, call for a priest to be at his death bed. Repent and be like "Haha, I killed them but I get the cookie at the end anyway, so nyah!!"

Yeah that is hardly a just religion.

Depends on whether or not God finds it sincere.

Do you honestly believe that after you've known the extent of the time that the Universe has been in existence, and the extent of space that it occupies, and how small and brief we are in relation to the Universe, that God would really get worked up about one wrong vs. another?

In the sum total of things, I'd rather believe that after living for a brief time in this hellhole, I would get a shot at living in a place where all tears are wiped away.

Which is why Christianity is so obviously unbalanced. That a man can go out kill 50 or more people. Get shot and be dying, call for a priest to be at his death bed. Repent and be like "Haha, I killed them but I get the cookie at the end anyway, so nyah!!"

Yeah that is hardly a just religion.

Were that his reasoning for "repenting", then he'd probably find himself jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It isn't the motions of salvation that saves them, it's the intend behind them. Is the murderer truly sorry for his past actions and is he truly desiring for a one on one relationship with his God? If yes, then he is saved. It works that way with everyone. That's grace--to get something we don't deserve (eternal life)...or, to put it another way, to not get something we do deserve (death).

EDIT: Sierra already covered the answer, but I'll leave mine up should anyone find anything worth discussing.

Shhh! Don't tell Fred Phelps that! :D

Au contraire!

Please tell him, by all means. Preferably with something sharp and pointy so you get his full attention:rolleyes:

Which is why Christianity is so obviously unbalanced. That a man can go out kill 50 or more people. Get shot and be dying, call for a priest to be at his death bed. Repent and be like "Haha, I killed them but I get the cookie at the end anyway, so nyah!!"

Yeah that is hardly a just religion.

That Christian God just has shitty organization skills, you know? :D

Au contraire!

Please tell him, by all means. Preferably with something sharp and pointy so you get his full attention:rolleyes:

Lol

Fred Phelps holds the world record for Biggest Pain in the Ass, Biggest Prick, Worst Bigot, and Most Aggravating Fuckwad.

Were that his reasoning for "repenting", then he'd probably find himself jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It isn't the motions of salvation that saves them, it's the intend behind them. Is the murderer truly sorry for his past actions and is he truly desiring for a one on one relationship with his God? If yes, then he is saved. It works that way with everyone. That's grace--to get something we don't deserve (eternal life)...or, to put it another way, to not get something we do deserve (death).
And I find such unjust
For the most part you can choose the action (excepting mental disorders)


You can not actively choose a belief

Which is required to truly ask for forgiveness.

It must be. However, I'm thoroughly lacking in a sex live *cough*, yet I'm not as stone-faced as other fundies are. Perhaps it's my love of the NS forums that helps with the tension? Hmmm...

I think we have a sinner here. Turn your palms up so we can see if there are any hairs growing in there ;)

I think we have a sinner here. Turn your palms up so we can see if there are any hairs growing in there ;)

Hair free, my dear sir. Hair free. :D

Fred Phelps holds the world record for Biggest Pain in the Ass, Biggest Prick, ...

That must be my dirty homosexual mind, but I couldn't help but see a deliciously ironic innuendo in this :D

That must be my dirty homosexual mind, but I couldn't help but see a deliciously ironic innuendo in this :D

ROFLMAO! :D

And I find such unjust
For the most part you can choose the action (excepting mental disorders)


You can not actively choose a belief

Which is required to truly ask for forgiveness.

You caught it on the head. No, we can't actively choose to believe in God. It's vitrually impossible due to our nature. That job is left to the Holy Spirit. He alone knocks on our hearts, and this is a door that we can only open when it's knocked on. However, this isn't to say that the Spirit picks some over others. That in itself would be unjust. There's not a time in anyone's life, past, present or future, where the Spirit hadn't or will not allow the opportunity for them to know truth.

To make it easier, He even assures that if we but ask for revelation, we will receive it.

At least, this is what Scripture promises.

You caught it on the head. No, we can't actively choose to believe in God. It's vitrually impossible due to our nature. That job is left to the Holy Spirit. He alone knocks on our hearts, and this is a door that we can only open when it's knocked on. However, this isn't to say that the Spirit picks some over others. That in itself would be unjust. There's not a time in anyone's life, past, present or future, where the Spirit hadn't or will not allow the opportunity for them to know truth.

To make it easier, He even assures that if we but ask for revelation, we will receive it.

At least, this is what Scripture promises.
I have ... and I have cried nights ... no answer in any form I have been able to understand

Maybe it is my past
I don't know but whatever it is I have not managed to get it in a form that was acceptable for me

No it far more seems likely that he in fact does not exist

Can it be assumed (from the fact that Lot offered his neighbours his daughters, in order to stop them from molesting the angels he was hosting) that working as a pimp is a righteous and noble vocation in Biblical terms?

Can it be assumed (from the fact that Lot offered his neighbours his daughters, in order to stop them from molesting the angels he was hosting) that working as a pimp is a righteous and noble vocation in Biblical terms?

No, I take it that the act of sex is not a sin if your motives are good. In this case, protecting strangers and guaranteeing their safety as a motivation.

Not to worry - the angels had a blinding device with them.

No, I take it that the act of sex is not a sin if your motives are good. In this case, protecting strangers and guaranteeing their safety as a motivation.

Not to worry - the angels had a blinding device with them.
This is true, but I'm dubious that it makes Lot look a lot better. Obviously offering up his daughters to a mob of rapists is a great sacrifice (unless they're fag hags) but I tend to wonder what the girl's take on the incident would have been.

No, you obviously aren't a Christian.

Anyone who accepts salvation and repents is saved. God is a pretty forgiving guy - that's the message that is so often lost.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that says if a woman has sex with another woman that there is any problem at all. So go for it.


Yes, people can be forgiven of many sins. And salvation comes through being washed clean by Blood of Christ...It is good of you to tell people so.

However, you do know that you have to stop doing that stuff about advocating sexual promiscuity just because you have a problem with it.

You say it over and over again in this forum and other people that don’t know any better actually believe you. Misery may like company but that is no excuse, you claim to be a brother in Christ and then you campaign that Adultery and all sexual promiscuity is just fine and the Bible doesn’t say otherwise … Utterly ridiculous.


Romans 1 18-32
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Matthew 5 27-
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

1 Corinthians 5 9-13
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

This is true, but I'm dubious that it makes Lot look a lot better. Obviously offering up his daughters to a mob of rapists is a great sacrifice (unless they're fag hags) but I tend to wonder what the girl's take on the incident would have been.

Well, taking into consideration that those two girls actually made their father drunk up in order to rape him... I can only guess that they were willing and would have enjoyed a kinky gang-bang where they get raped by a mob :rolleyes:

This is true, but I'm dubious that it makes Lot look a lot better. Obviously offering up his daughters to a mob of rapists is a great sacrifice (unless they're fag hags) but I tend to wonder what the girl's take on the incident would have been.

Iunno. For all we know it could have been their idea. It's unfortunate that the Bible is unclear on this bit.

However, you do know that you have to stop doing that stuff about advocating sexual promiscuity just because you have a problem with it.

*snip*

Adultery and all sexual promiscuity is just fine and the Bible doesn’t say otherwise … Utterly ridiculous.


See, this kind of linking homosexuality with sexual promiscuity and adultery kinda makes me mad.:mad:

Being a gay male who, at 22 years of age, has only had a single sexual partner, with whom I thought I would spend the rest of my life with, I tend not to take too kindly judgements on my so-called "sexual promiscuity". Few straight men(or women) of my age can be considered less promiscuous.

Please, stop generalizing and spouting prejudices regarding gay men. Sexual promiscuity is by no means a gay issue: in this day and age, it is an issue for heterosexual persons as well.

That being said, I have no problem with sexual promiscuity in general, as long as the partakers agree that it's what they both want, and that they protect themselves accordingly, of course.

Some people need to stop being judgemental, and look at their own failings before casting the first stone.

Iunno. For all we know it could have been their idea. It's unfortunate that the Bible is unclear on this bit.
A good point, actually: that hadn't occured to me.

Yes, people can be forgiven of many sins. And salvation comes through being washed clean by Blood of Christ...It is good of you to tell people so.

However, you do know that you have to stop doing that stuff about advocating sexual promiscuity just because you have a problem with it.


Show me chapter and verse where it specifically states that a woman having sex with another woman is committing a sin.

I know for a fact you won't find it in the Old Testament, because rabbis have spent the last 2000 years looking for it. And I'm sure you won't find it in the New Testament, either.

Show me chapter and verse where it specifically states that a woman having sex with another woman is committing a sin.

I know for a fact you won't find it in the Old Testament, because rabbis have spent the last 2000 years looking for it. And I'm sure you won't find it in the New Testament, either.

I guess it sucks being a gay man (pun intended :D)

I should've been born a lesbian. At least I wouldn't be a sinner :P

I guess it sucks being a gay man (pun intended :D)

I should've been born a lesbian. At least I wouldn't be a sinner :P

Don't worry. By definition, we're all sinners. Even Phr33dom. And it's in our nature to sin - we can't help it.

If it isn't one sin, it's another. But it's not about you personally stopping the sin - it's about cultivating your relationship with God.

Well, if we can't argue that the bible is rubbish (which I believe it to be) how about we argue that god doesn't make mistakes? If god made people gay, he/she/it obviously thought it was okay. Because people do not choose to be gay any more than people choose to be straight. In fact life is in many ways more difficult for gay people, so if it was a choice, I doubt it would be the one, one would pick. Therefore from a Christian perspective, if god is all knowing and perfect and doesn't make mistakes, this god must of wanted gay people to inhabit the earth too.

Don't worry. By definition, we're all sinners. Even Phr33dom. And it's in our nature to sin - we can't help it.

If it isn't one sin, it's another. But it's not about you personally stopping the sin - it's about cultivating your relationship with God.

Don't take me too seriously, I was kidding.

Being a "sinner" in the eyes of the christian fundamentalists isn't going to make me lose any sleep. I'm not sure I believe in God or not, but I sure believe if there's an omnipotent being around he wouldn't spend his time making stupid contradictory rules and watching his creations struggle to fulfill them all despite the contradictions.

There's a lot of mortal influence laced in religion. Never forget that Bibles get translated, and that historically when new books were added, they were written by mortals. I'm not ready to bet my life that every last one of those so-called prohets was touched by God. I guess that's the skeptic in me.

Well, if we can't argue that the bible is rubbish (which I believe it to be) how about we argue that god doesn't make mistakes? If god made people gay, he/she/it obviously thought it was okay. Because people do not choose to be gay any more than people choose to be straight. In fact life is in many ways more difficult for gay people, so if it was a choice, I doubt it would be the one, one would pick. Therefore from a Christian perspective, if god is all knowing and perfect and doesn't make mistakes, this god must of wanted gay people to inhabit the earth too.

Heh, about the choice thing:

One day a couple of years ago I woke up and felt like bringing some changes into my life. I didn't know what at first, so I sat down and thought about it. After a while, I came up with an idea: why not be gay? Now THAT would be change. I could get discriminated against and be ridiculed in public. I could be reduced to my sexual preferences by bigots and religious fundies. I would have to go through tough times coming out to my family and friends, fearing their reaction and rejection. I would lose the basic public respect I deserved as a human being being. And I couldn't choose not to get married anymore (at the time I couldn't).

It sounded like such a good idea that I decided to go for it.



*Warning!Warning! Sarcasm overload! Please evacuate immediately!*:headbang:

Explain how exactly you came to that conclusion?

Because of judgemental assholes like you, that's how.

Have you actually read the Bible properly. Pehaps the most fameous part of it, John 3:16 explains it better for you

That's just a lie. God had no son, sent no avatar, and frankly God is more offended that you'd think He would need a son or avatar more than He hates gay sex.

You're breaking Commandment #1 with your John 3:16.

So leave the queers alone and go pray for deliverance from your own sin.

Well, if we can't argue that the bible is rubbish (which I believe it to be) how about we argue that god doesn't make mistakes? If god made people gay, he/she/it obviously thought it was okay. Because people do not choose to be gay any more than people choose to be straight. In fact life is in many ways more difficult for gay people, so if it was a choice, I doubt it would be the one, one would pick. Therefore from a Christian perspective, if god is all knowing and perfect and doesn't make mistakes, this god must of wanted gay people to inhabit the earth too.


Do you mean to suggest that people are born with a cleft lips, altruism, ADHD, MDS and other conditions because ‘God’ wants them to be that way? Perhaps you suggest we shouldn't help cure conditions caused during or from natal conditions? Are you Amish or something and hate medical technology and think it’s Satan’s work curing ailments etc.,?

Or, perhaps, you mean it's something like kleptomania, or prone to addictions, or being a badly tempered person from birth, or suffering from uncontrollable nymphomania and other behavior traits that some people think they are born with? Perhaps they don't really need help either because "God" made them that way they should learn to like it?

Obviously you didn't mean it to associate Homosexual Tendencies to birth defects, so why did you make that argument? It's silly.

Your entire premise seems like it is trying to say that it’s 'perfectly natural to lust' therefore, succumbing to our inclinations, any inclinations, should be perfectly okay, no matter the moral dilemma caused by our wanton disregard for personal responsibilities, 'because God made us do it.'

I think not. :rolleyes:

Obviously you didn't mean it to associate Homosexual Tendencies to birth defects, so why did you make that argument? It's silly.

I will agree it's silly, quite silly for people to think that people who are gay have anything wrong with them. Of course it's not a defect in anyway, if it was there would be some type of way to show a defect where there quite frankly isn't one.

Of course the whole thread is silly because we were limited on the scope of what we could argue, because the bible being rubbish is a perfectly good argument.

Show me chapter and verse where it specifically states that a woman having sex with another woman is committing a sin.

I know for a fact you won't find it in the Old Testament, because rabbis have spent the last 2000 years looking for it. And I'm sure you won't find it in the New Testament, either.


Okay, if you didn’t understand the first time I quoted it for you from the NIV, I’ll try the NRSV this time and narrow it down the the basic essentials…

Romans 1 24-29
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.


*Bolding by me to help you notice the entire sentence…

Homosexual passion is called ‘degrading passions’ whether male-male or female-female. It is said to be from a ‘debased mind’ and it is called things ‘that should not be done.’ It doesn’t get any clearer than that.


Now I’m out of this thread, I only jumped in it because once again you are going around telling people that the Bible isn’t against promiscuous sex (sex outside of the confines of marriage between a husband and wife) and saying that the Bible doesn’t say stuff that it clearly does say. If you are having a problem with the temptations of the flesh, fine, that’s between you and God. But as a Christian you are held to a higher standard (not talking about damning sin, a standard of conduct because you represent the body of Christ by being a brother in Christ), the clarity of the scripture can only be twisted so far and you have been misguiding people that don’t know better. Deluding yourself is no excuse for the error of misleading other people younger in Christ than yourself. You should stop it.

Okay, if you didn’t understand the first time I quoted it for you from the NIV, I’ll try the NRSV this time and narrow it down the the basic essentials…

Romans 1 24-29
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.


*Bolding by me to help you notice the entire sentence…

Homosexual passion is called ‘degrading passions’ whether male-male or female-female. It is said to be from a ‘debased mind’ and it is called things ‘that should not be done.’ It doesn’t get any clearer than that.


Now I’m out of this thread, I only jumped in it because once again you are going around telling people that the Bible isn’t against promiscuous sex (sex outside of the confines of marriage between a husband and wife) and saying that the Bible doesn’t say stuff that it clearly does say. If you are having a problem with the temptations of the flesh, fine, that’s between you and God. But as a Christian you are held to a higher standard (not talking about damning sin, a standard of conduct because you represent the body of Christ by being a brother in Christ), the clarity of the scripture can only be twisted so far and you have been misguiding people that don’t know better. Deluding yourself is no excuse for the error of misleading other people younger in Christ than yourself. You should stop it.

Curious that the example you come up with is God making people do it.

(You also are using out-of-context and using disputed interpretations of the text.)

Okay, if you didn’t understand the first time I quoted it for you from the NIV, I’ll try the NRSV this time and narrow it down the the basic essentials…


You don't seem to understand that Paul is not Jesus. Paul is not God.

Everything you just quoted is from Paul, not Jesus.

Show me where Jesus said it. You know, the red print.

Homosexual passion is called ‘degrading passions’ whether male-male or female-female. It is said to be from a ‘debased mind’ and it is called things ‘that should not be done.’ It doesn’t get any clearer than that.


Have I ever pointed out that this guy irks me?:mad:

And NOT in the good way.

Take a look at your own "debased mind" and "degrading passions" before you worry about mine. That'll do us both a load of good.

Jesus had one word to describe the likes of you. Hypocrite, I believe it was.

You don't seem to understand that Paul is not Jesus. Paul is not God.


Good point, but one that fundamentalists never acknowledge. And I'll tell you why: because your average, run-of-the-mill fundamentalist homphobe worries more about using the bible to JUSTIFY his own prejudice, than trying to figure out what the Bible's message really is about.

Don't take me too seriously, I was kidding.

Being a "sinner" in the eyes of the christian fundamentalists isn't going to make me lose any sleep. I'm not sure I believe in God or not, but I sure believe if there's an omnipotent being around he wouldn't spend his time making stupid contradictory rules and watching his creations struggle to fulfill them all despite the contradictions.
Perhaps it gives God pleasure to watch His creatures denying the intelligence that He has given them?

Phr33dom, here is what Jesus said:

"1": Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

"2": And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

"3": And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

"4": They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

"5": Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

"6": This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

"7": So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

"8": And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

"9": And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

"10": When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

"11": She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

"12": Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

"13": The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. this is what you say to me in your posts

"14": Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

"15": Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

You don't seem to understand that Paul is not Jesus. Paul is not God.

Everything you just quoted is from Paul, not Jesus.

Show me where Jesus said it. You know, the red print.

Don't you know? Paul was supposed to replace the words of Jesus. Just ask people who happen to ignore the parts where Paul says he is just a man giving his opinion. They'll tell you. And they must be right, because they say so.

Phr33dom, here is what Jesus said:

"1": Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

"2": And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

"3": And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

"4": They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

"5": Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

"6": This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

"7": So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

"8": And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

"9": And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

"10": When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

"11": She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

"12": Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

"13": The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. this is what you say to me in your posts

"14": Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

"15": Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
It's a good one, but I'm not sure it's in quite the same league as "You are lending money in my Father's temple"...

Perhaps it gives God pleasure to watch His creatures denying the intelligence that He has given them?

If so, then he is one sneaky bastard. A very, very sneaky omnipotent bastard :p

Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.

I see nothing in this about homosexual sex. Perhaps they're talking about doggy style or oral sex or anal sex. Exchanging "natural" intercourse for "unnatural" doesn't necessarily mean hot lesbian action.

Maybe the men gave up natural intercourse with women by greasin' up and goin' for the pucker.

Consumed with passion ... not homosexual either ... hetersexuals are very passionate for one another.

Anyway, all of this is useless. It's Paul's words. Who cares what Paul had to say? None of this is Jesus's thoughts.

Anyway, all of this is useless. It's Paul's words. Who cares what Paul had to say? None of this is Jesus's thoughts.

But didn't you read Jocabia's post? Paul was actually Jesus in disguise. :rolleyes:

If so, then he is one sneaky bastard. A very, very sneaky omnipotent bastard :p
Brings that Bill Hicks routine about fossils to mind, doesn't it?

So who wants to make the spin-off thread, "Heterosexuality as a sin"? The Bible says far more about heterosexual sex than homosexual sex, and there's a pretty massive list of no-no's that today's heterosexuals probably are unaware of. Like how seeing a woman nude when she has her period, or having any sexual contact with a menstruating women, is strictly prohibited.

Also, we might raise the point that in the Bible heterosexual sex outside of wedlock = adultery = penalty of death. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but he was perfectly clear on the subject of heterosexual sex. A divorced woman cannot have sex EVER AGAIN, lest she be guilty of adultery (even if she remarries), and any man who divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery is himself an adulterer. Any sex outside of marriage is "adultery," as well as a lot of sex within a marriage; if either of you has ever been divorced before, odds are you're still committing adultery even if you're now married to each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Christians are supposed to give a crap about what Jesus said, so how does this little detail get overlooked in their rush to "defend" Christian marriage?

So who wants to make the spin-off thread, "Heterosexuality as a sin"? The Bible says far more about heterosexual sex than homosexual sex, and there's a pretty massive list of no-no's that today's heterosexuals probably are unaware of. Like how seeing a woman nude when she has her period, or having any sexual contact with a menstruating women, is strictly prohibited.

Also, we might raise the point that in the Bible heterosexual sex outside of wedlock = adultery = penalty of death. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but he was perfectly clear on the subject of heterosexual sex. A divorced woman cannot have sex EVER AGAIN, lest she be guilty of adultery (even if she remarries), and any man who divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery is himself an adulterer. Any sex outside of marriage is "adultery," as well as a lot of sex within a marriage; if either of you has ever been divorced before, odds are you're still committing adultery even if you're now married to each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Christians are supposed to give a crap about what Jesus said, so how does this little detail get overlooked in their rush to "defend" Christian marriage?
It's called ignoring inconvenient facts. Religion is a political tool, so what else would you expect?

So who wants to make the spin-off thread, "Heterosexuality as a sin"? The Bible says far more about heterosexual sex than homosexual sex, and there's a pretty massive list of no-no's that today's heterosexuals probably are unaware of. Like how seeing a woman nude when she has her period, or having any sexual contact with a menstruating women, is strictly prohibited.

Count me in anytime. Create the thread and I'll be an avid reader/poster.


Also, we might raise the point that in the Bible heterosexual sex outside of wedlock = adultery = penalty of death. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but he was perfectly clear on the subject of heterosexual sex. A divorced woman cannot have sex EVER AGAIN, lest she be guilty of adultery (even if she remarries), and any man who divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery is himself an adulterer. Any sex outside of marriage is "adultery," as well as a lot of sex within a marriage; if either of you has ever been divorced before, odds are you're still committing adultery even if you're now married to each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Christians are supposed to give a crap about what Jesus said, so how does this little detail get overlooked in their rush to "defend" Christian marriage?

As I stated earlier, that particular kind of Christian fundamentalist doesn't CARE about the Bible or its message. They just see it as a tool to justify their own personnal prejudice against homosexuals. It lets them feel all morally superior and forget their own sad, pathetic, sin-filled lives.

Because of judgemental assholes like you, that's how.


Explain how I have been judgemental


That's just a lie. God had no son, sent no avatar, and frankly God is more offended that you'd think He would need a son or avatar more than He hates gay sex.

You're breaking Commandment #1 with your John 3:16.

So leave the queers alone and go pray for deliverance from your own sin.

I am not discussing the condemnation of homosexual sex as a sin. What I am pointing out is that believing it to be a sin does not equate to hating those who commit said sin. And as for your notion that he sent no son is a Muslim notion, and at the begining of this thread, I specified we were talking within the Christian framework

It's called ignoring inconvenient facts. Religion is a political tool, so what else would you expect?
It's just a little mind-blowing to me. Jesus, their Big Cheese, says NOTHING AT ALL about homosexuality, and goes out of his way to make the rules on heterosexual adultery REALLY CLEAR...yet somehow the word of their own Son of God isn't enough to get their attention.

Explain how exactly you came to that conclusion? Have you actually read the Bible properly. Pehaps the most fameous part of it, John 3:16 explains it better for you

Interesting choice.... since John never met Jesus...

Of course, I view that particular passage differently to most anyway... since I believe 3:16 is part of John's commentary... not something that Jesus said.

Here's how I read it: The unaccented parts are narration, the Italics are the parts that I believe are John's commentary on Jesus, and the Bold are the parts I believe Jesus might actually have said:

3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

I've yet to see an argument that makes the currently accepted 'red-letter' version, ANY MORE believable an interpretation than mine.

3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

3:22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Consumed with passion ... not homosexual either ... hetersexuals are very passionate for one another.


The connsumed with passion for one another part refers to men and other men.

The connsumed with passion for one another part refers to men and other men.

Paul is not Jesus. Show me where Jesus said that.

The connsumed with passion for one another part refers to men and other men.

The wording is pretty unclear, and up to interpretation.

Curious that the example you come up with is God making people do it.

It says what it says. I didn't jump in this thread to attack anyone, not the non-Christian homosexual, nor the Christian homosexuals nor even Sierra BTHP, a self described sexually promiscuous Christian. I quoted various verses and half of chapter 1 of Romans when he said (this time) that the Bible wasn't against female-female sexual relations.



(You also are using out-of-context and using disputed interpretations of the text.)

Not out of context, not at all, like I said above I posted the context around it earlier in this thread, but he read straight past it and asked again for a quote so this time I narrowed it down.

As to the disputed interpretations claim, nonsense. Just because some people don't want it to mean what it says doesn't mean it doesn't say it. However, the single use word you are probably thinking of is in 1 Corinthians, I'm quoting Romans here, it's not a word, it's spelled out in the sentence what is being talked about...

It's just a little mind-blowing to me. Jesus, their Big Cheese, says NOTHING AT ALL about homosexuality, and goes out of his way to make the rules on heterosexual adultery REALLY CLEAR...yet somehow the word of their own Son of God isn't enough to get their attention.
Since when do fundamentalists give a shit about Christ, though? Whenever they quote the Bible it's always the old testament, or (at a pinch) Revelations. There's a lot more emphasis on the ten commandments than on the beautitudes, put it that way.
It's the main reason I find the wankers laughable.

Paul is not Jesus. Show me where Jesus said that.
That's a tricky question though. Isn't there a suspicion in some quarters that Paul rewrote a fair chunk of the Bible to suit his own approach to life?

Bible Study With Bottle is now a live thread, and the first topic of the Bible Study is "Heterosexuality as a sin"! You are all welcome to come join in the educational fun :).

That's a tricky question though. Isn't there a suspicion in some quarters that Paul rewrote a fair chunk of the Bible to suit his own approach to life?
I find that the words in red print are fairly consistent - and Paul's words inconsistent with them.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church intentionally sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls because the scrolls constantly refer to Paul as "The Liar".

Maybe that's why he left town.

The Bible said more about being wealthy is a sin than about homosexuality being a sin.

Jesus himself speaks only about the former.

I find that the words in red print are fairly consistent - and Paul's words inconsistent with them.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church intentionally sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls because the scrolls constantly refer to Paul as "The Liar".

Maybe that's why he left town.

I have never seen anyone have difficulty understanding the New Testament when they are only looking at Jesus' words. All the confusion and disagreement enters when you take the words of a man and pretend they can edit, amend, delete, or replace the words of the Son of God. I don't understand how it could be difficult to see the folly in it, but hey, if one wants to see the nature of these people simply look at my signature.

I find that the words in red print are fairly consistent - and Paul's words inconsistent with them.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church intentionally sat on the Dead Sea Scrolls because the scrolls constantly refer to Paul as "The Liar".

Maybe that's why he left town.
You can see why he'd find that a bit upsetting.

The Bible said more about being wealthy is a sin than about homosexuality being a sin.

Jesus himself speaks only about the former.

The sin that is mentioned most in the Bible is gossip - talking about others, telling stories about others, repeating rumors, etc.

I don't see any protest groups out there decrying the gossip in the media. At least not religious groups.

Didn't God tell everyone to love each other? So how can love be bad, either between opposite sex or same sex?:D

Didn't God tell everyone to love each other? So how can love be bad, either between opposite sex or same sex?:D
He was obviously speaking in purely platonic terms.

He was obviously speaking in purely platonic terms.
Maybe ... some preffer to assume so

He was obviously speaking in purely platonic terms.

Yeah, but the Catholic clergy didn't keep that in mind about "letting the little kids come to them" :headbang:

The sin that is mentioned most in the Bible is gossip - talking about others, telling stories about others, repeating rumors, etc.

I don't see any protest groups out there decrying the gossip in the media. At least not religious groups.
No kidding
You know what gossip whores thoes little ol church ladys are

Yeah, but the Catholic clergy didn't keep that in mind about "letting the little kids come to them" :headbang:
Sad thing is my priest actualy said that

Very creepy

No kidding
You know what gossip whores thoes little ol church ladys are
Quite.
They are the ones who sniff out the homosexuals, are they not?

Sad thing is my priest actualy said that

Very creepy

Yeah. Some of them are taking the bible WAY too literally.

Quite.
They are the ones who sniff out the homosexuals, are they not?

Sniffing out homos? Those little church ladies are KINKY :p

No kidding
You know what gossip whores thoes little ol church ladys are

Everyone is a gossip.

Here's a little exercise for you all.

Tomorrow, get up, and from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to bed, don't talk about anyone else. And if you're in a conversation with other people, and the topic shifts to talking about someone else, leave the conversation.

Even if you talk positively about another person, technically you are gossiping and could be "damning with faint praise".

And it's harm that cannot be taken back.

You might find that you say very little during the day, and participate in very few conversations. But the conversations you do participate in will be much more meaningful. And you might get a reputation for being a great guy who never talks about others.

Sniffing out homos? Those little church ladies are KINKY :p
And dynamite in bed.

If I say that calling oneself Avalon II is a sin, I'd say I was spreading hate against Avalon II.

Believing some act to be sinfull =/= hate towards those who commit such act.

Everyone is a gossip.

Here's a little exercise for you all.

Tomorrow, get up, and from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to bed, don't talk about anyone else. And if you're in a conversation with other people, and the topic shifts to talking about someone else, leave the conversation.

Even if you talk positively about another person, technically you are gossiping and could be "damning with faint praise".

And it's harm that cannot be taken back.

You might find that you say very little during the day, and participate in very few conversations. But the conversations you do participate in will be much more meaningful. And you might get a reputation for being a great guy who never talks about others.
I do not have to specialy try I would say about 80 + percent of my time conversing is absolutly not gossip

Got to love being in techsupport not to mention a full blown geek
it is closer to "dude I got a 20% performance increase in my networking by registry hacking and not allowing microsoft protocolls set overhead"

Or "vundo.b spreads to a random .dll file that you have to detect then replace off the xp OS cd"

The problem I have with the "homosexual sex is a sin" argument isn't based on the legitimacy of the claim. It's far more simple than that.

How is homosexual sex "more" sinful than premarital sex, drinking, smoking, lying

From my moral point of view, it's not.... They are all equally sins.

I don't buy many of these "pet-sin" concepts.

I'm all ready to become a sinner once again, then.


(Because, according to the arguments of the original poster, I had stopped doing. Basically, it would mean that while I have a boyfriend with whom I'm in love, and have sex with, I'm sinning, but when I'm celibate I'm a sinner no more. Right?)

Not quite. Willfully and consciously thinking about doing it is a sin as well.

Not quite. Willfully and consciously thinking about doing it is a sin as well.

That was sarcasm. I'm a sinner anyway because I masturbate. And I do it A LOT. :D

And I don't feel guilty about it in the least.

Because of judgemental assholes like you, that's how.



That's just a lie. God had no son, sent no avatar, and frankly God is more offended that you'd think He would need a son or avatar more than He hates gay sex.

You're breaking Commandment #1 with your John 3:16.

So leave the queers alone and go pray for deliverance from your own sin.

Keep it civil Keruvalia. Don't result to insulting someone you disagree with, rather use civil debating tactics to defeat his point. I always find that to be more satisfying, out-debating someone and proving your point.

Believing some act to be sinfull =/= hate towards those who commit such act.

Definitely not true. Not even close to true. Jesus taught us to hate the sin, not the sinner. Whomever, therefore, that hates a sinner is sinning themselves.

That was sarcasm. I'm a sinner anyway because I masturbate. And I do it A LOT. :D

And I don't feel guilty about it in the least.
The sin of Onan, I believe.

The sin of Onan, I believe.

The guy who spilled his seed in vain,right? I've heard of him. Seemed a nice enough fellow.

Alright, I admit that I haven't read most of the debate, but based on the initial qestion ("Is homosexuality a sin?"), my answer is most definately no. I am the scientific type. I keep up with all of the articles about new discoveries and all those other things. You may not be aware of this, but homosexuality is genetic. I, personally, beleive that all people are equal, and it is only by our actions that we can change that. You can not call someone "sinful," because of the way they were born. You can not change what you were biologically created to be. Nor can you hate someone for that same reason. Stripping people of their rights- such as the right to marry, a right that everyone else has- is prejudice. It is just the same as the "controversy" and illegality of interrracial marriage in the 1950s. It was thought to be sinful and immoral. And it was illegal. People lost the right to marry, because of who they were born to be. This is hate. This is prejudice. And this needs to stop.

Deffinatly a good choice of visualizations lol

[Ron White speaking to his Brother]

Ron's Borther: "I hate queers!"

Ron: "You know all men have some latent homosexual tendencies..."

Ron's Brother: "No way man, I'm as straight as they come..."

Ron: "Do you like watching those porn movies, that have a man and a women making love?"

Ron's Brother: "Of course I like that..."

Ron: "Would you want the guy to have a small flaced penis?"

Ron's Brother: "No, I'd like 'em to have a long rock hard...... Wow, I didn't know that about myself..."

Exceptionally rude and insulting - border line flame - almost certianly flamebait



To make the point to people that believeing homosexual sex to be a sin does not equate to homophobia or hating homosexuals at all. I would apriciate you telling me what exactly you take offence to



Exceptionally rude and insulting - definite flame

You're portraying yourself to be a moderator, in which case, you aren't. Don't do it again.

oh dear, please don't report me to the mods, oh wait you have... pathetic

Both you and Avalon II need to cool it before you both get yourselves in trouble.

Believing some act to be sinfull =/= hate towards those who commit such act.

Are we talking according to Christian propoganda or real life?

I was referring to the latter.

Preaching that the root of someone's very existence -- who they are -- is sinful lead to, if not is, hate and is itself a sin.

There are two places in the bible where it mentions homosexuality. And they cannot be properly interrupted as the word of the Covenant for man by god. Or is it the chruch. For a God of love and mercy. Merely chosing to love should be good enough. After all the flesh is tranitory anyway. Love and mercy is what it is about.

Or is it the Church wanting to exert further pressure on the people of the times since such acts where common and no way considered evil?

I am a lesbian. I work at a hosptial 60+ hours a week. I help in homeless shelters and I donate quite a bit of money to charity. So does that make me a bad person? When I die will I go to hell because I love another woman just a deeply as I care for my friends?

I just dont understand it. Must be the oriental side of me.

Actually Homosexual was not a word when the bible was written. The word simply did not exist in the Hebrew or Greek versions of the bible. Those bibles that use it today are political books not religious books.

Old Testament Hebrew is a very primitive language. It is the first step beyond picture writing and is the first alphabetic language. It originally consisted only of consonants with no vowels written in the text. There is no "past, present, or future" in Hebrew. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000 word vocabulary. Modern English has over 300,000 words. One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context. Each word was made up of 3 letters of the alphabet and usually expressed some form of activity or action. It is impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Scholars come as close as they can and do a lot of guessing.
Samaritan Pentateuch. It is claimed to be the oldest Bible in use today.

Earliest known fragment of the New Testament (c.AD 125-150). Part of John 18:31-4. Discovered in 1920. Now in John Ryland's Library, Manchester.

New Testament Greek was far more complex than Hebrew. Greek had a 250,000 word vocabulary and a great variety of words developed to express shades of meaning and degrees of feeling. Greek, for example, had four different words for "love". Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English. The Greek used in the New Testament is different from classical or modern Greek. For many years, some scholars thought that New Testament Greek was a special language created by the Holy Spirit. Then, in the late nineteenth century, a collection of manuscripts was discovered from the time of the New Testament. These documents were bills of sale, personal letters, business and news reports that were written in exactly the same kind of Greek that the Bible used. For the first time, Bible scholars knew and could study the kind of "everyday" Greek, called "koine" Greek, that was used in the New Testament. The King James Version was translated in 1611, long before the oldest manuscripts were discovered.

The reason that there are so many different Bible translations ( about 30 major ones) today is because the exact meaning of many words is still in question, and even what should be included as original material is hotly debated by Bible specialists.


Regards,

JMayo

Are we talking according to Christian propoganda or real life?

I was referring to the latter.

Preaching that the root of someone's very existence -- who they are -- is sinful lead to, if not is, hate and is itself a sin.

Actually, both.... Once again, to re-interate... Believing someone's acts to be morally wrong [sinful]=/= hating the person who performed that moral wrong [sin]... And, it does not matter what that moral wrong [sin] is.

Your prejudice shows heavily, Cat...

Definitely not true. Not even close to true. Jesus taught us to hate the sin, not the sinner. Whomever, therefore, that hates a sinner is sinning themselves.

=/= means "NOT EQUAL TO"

You just restated exactly what I said.

Actually, both.... Once again, to re-interate... Believing someone's acts to be morally wrong [sinful]=/= hating the person who performed that moral wrong [sin]... And, it does not matter what that moral wrong [sin] is.

Your prejudice shows heavily, Cat...

1. You dodged my point. I talked about calling the essence of someone's way of life a sin leads to hate of that someone.

2. What prejudice? Really. I'm curious as to what prejudice you are referring.

I don't hate people with blonde hair and blue eyes, but it is a sin to have blonde hair and blue eyes.

:headbang:

Actually Homosexual was not a word when the bible was written. The word simply did not exist in the Hebrew or Greek versions of the bible. Those bibles that use it today are political books not religious books.

Old Testament Hebrew is a very primitive language. It is the first step beyond picture writing and is the first alphabetic language. It originally consisted only of consonants with no vowels written in the text. There is no "past, present, or future" in Hebrew. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000 word vocabulary. Modern English has over 300,000 words. One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context. Each word was made up of 3 letters of the alphabet and usually expressed some form of activity or action. It is impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Scholars come as close as they can and do a lot of guessing.
Samaritan Pentateuch. It is claimed to be the oldest Bible in use today.

Earliest known fragment of the New Testament (c.AD 125-150). Part of John 18:31-4. Discovered in 1920. Now in John Ryland's Library, Manchester.

New Testament Greek was far more complex than Hebrew. Greek had a 250,000 word vocabulary and a great variety of words developed to express shades of meaning and degrees of feeling. Greek, for example, had four different words for "love". Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English. The Greek used in the New Testament is different from classical or modern Greek. For many years, some scholars thought that New Testament Greek was a special language created by the Holy Spirit. Then, in the late nineteenth century, a collection of manuscripts was discovered from the time of the New Testament. These documents were bills of sale, personal letters, business and news reports that were written in exactly the same kind of Greek that the Bible used. For the first time, Bible scholars knew and could study the kind of "everyday" Greek, called "koine" Greek, that was used in the New Testament. The King James Version was translated in 1611, long before the oldest manuscripts were discovered.

The reason that there are so many different Bible translations ( about 30 major ones) today is because the exact meaning of many words is still in question, and even what should be included as original material is hotly debated by Bible specialists.


Regards,

JMayo

While I agree with the spirit of MOST of this... it is untrue that Hebrew was the first written alphabetic language... or at least, UNCLEAR if it is true.

The Hebrew 'alphabet' seems to borrow heavily from Ugaritic. Of course... the Hebrew scholars would not have wanted to admit such, since much relied on their claims to be the first people....

The sin of Onan, I believe.

The 'sin of Onan' wasn't actually 'spilling his seed'.

His 'sin' was going against God's command to 'knock-up' his dead-brother's-widow, by 'pulling out'.

1. You dodged my point. I talked about calling the essence of someone's way of life a sin leads to hate of that someone.

No, it does not lead to "hate" of that person. I didn't dodge anything. I kept the point where it was at, rather than falling into your attempt to slew the words away from what I was meaning to convey my point.

Everyone's sins represent their own essence, so it does not matter what the particular sin is... As such, I'm not going to fall to your attempt of Sophistry, which fails mostly because you lack the wisdom to actually understand what I am saying here... You equate believing an act to be wrong with hate to people who comit such an act [At this point, I would have to argue, given the many acts you consider wrong, that your life must be filled with hate]...

Indeed, you might "hate" all sorts of people who have commited all sorts of moral wrongs... But that hate is not based upon merely the idea that their acts were moral wrongs in and of themselves.... But you, yourself, have taken that belief a step further to justify hate of people[which is where the sin lays]... However, there is no necessitate requirement for belief in a moral wrong justifying hate of the people who commit those acts. [In my religion, we're taught to show love to those who commit moral wrongs; because they are the ones who most need it]...

I'm really not sure what particular religion you have...


2. What prejudice? Really. I'm curious as to what prejudice you are referring.

I'm not surprised that you do not actually know yourself.

The 'sin of Onan' wasn't actually 'spilling his seed'.

His 'sin' was going against God's command to 'knock-up' his dead-brother's-widow, by 'pulling out'.
Then bukkake is a sin as well?

2. What prejudice? Really. I'm curious as to what prejudice you are referring.
I'm not surprised that you do not actually know yourself.

Please answer the question. I may be blind to the obvious or I may be calling your bluff.

Here's something I don't get:

When it comes to homophobia, all the fag-hating Christians tell me that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." Yet if I make the slightest peep about how a particular Christian practice is unjust, they start screaming about how I'm "intollerant" of Christians and I'm just some Christian-hating bigot.

I don't hate people with blonde hair and blue eyes, but it is a sin to have blonde hair and blue eyes.

:headbang:

Yep, keep banging that head... Won't do you any good....

Appeals to unscience, does you no good in this case.

There have been no conclusive studies which show homosexuality to be an exclusively genetic trait.

Therefore, your statement of such as a fact, is deceit...

I consider that wrong, but I don't hate you for it.

Yep, keep banging that head... Won't do you any good....

Appeals to unscience, does you no good in this case.

There have been no conclusive studies which show homosexuality to be an exclusively genetic trait.

I hate to break it to you, but neither eye color nor hair color are "exclusively genetic traits" either.

No, it does not lead to "hate" of that person. I didn't dodge anything. I kept the point where it was at, rather than falling into your attempt to slew the words away from what I was meaning to convey my point.

Everyone's sins represent their own essence, so it does not matter what the particular sin is... As such, I'm not going to fall to your attempt of Sophistry, which fails mostly because you lack the wisdom to actually understand what I am saying here... You equate believing an act to be wrong with hate to people who comit such an act [At this point, I would have to argue, given the many acts you consider wrong, that your life must be filled with hate]...

Indeed, you might "hate" all sorts of people who have commited all sorts of moral wrongs... But that hate is not based upon merely the idea that their acts were moral wrongs in and of themselves.... But you, yourself, have taken that belief a step further to justify hate of people[which is where the sin lays]... However, there is no necessitate requirement for belief in a moral wrong justifying hate of the people who commit those acts. [In my religion, we're taught to show love to those who commit moral wrongs; because they are the ones who most need it]...

I'm really not sure what particular religion you have...


I understand the difference between hating acts and hating people. Fewer practice it than preach it -- which is the reality I was talking about, particularly when they rant about one particular act and not any of the other thousands of alleged sins.

But you are ignoring that homosexuality is not so easily divided into acts versus people. Thus, hating the acts often leads to hating the people to whom such acts are an essential part of who they are.

Yep, keep banging that head... Won't do you any good....

Appeals to unscience, does you no good in this case.

There have been no conclusive studies which show homosexuality to be an exclusively genetic trait.

Therefore, your statement of such as a fact, is deceit...

I consider that wrong, but I don't hate you for it.

Neither eye color nor hair color are exclusively genetic traits.

(Nor did I say anything about exclusively genetic traits -- you just added that distinction. I made no statement of fact to that effect. So I committed no deceit. Your accusation otherwise is bearing false witness.)

But again, you avoid the point.

If you are going to try to stick to the so called letter of the law there are many other things that can be allowed to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

JMayo

Then bukkake is a sin as well?

According to the Bible... only if you are doing it as a way to avoid impregnating your dead-brothers'-widow.

Interesting choice.... since John never met Jesus...

What are you talking about? This is the same John that was one of the twelve. John the Beloved, named so by Jesus Himself. I'd think he'd have some sort of understanding as to whom Jesus was whilst looking at all of it in retrospect.

As for the validity of John's statements...heck even the validty of Paul's or any other writer's within scripture, I take them all for truth. They've all been attested to be "God-breathed" and canonical. I, trusting the movements of the Holy Spirit upon the early church (aka the Edict of Mulan), don't find it all that difficult to believe that it's possible that God influenced the hands of the Biblical writers. Sure, there may be some historical innacuracies, but I'm firm in the stance that what God wanted to say at the heart, the underlying roots of it all, is there and 100% accurate.

What are you talking about? This is the same John that was one of the twelve. John the Beloved, named so by Jesus Himself. I'd think he'd have some sort of understanding as to whom Jesus was whilst looking at all of it in retrospect.

As for the validity of John's statements...heck even the validty of Paul's or any other writer's within scripture, I take them all for truth. They've all been attested to be "God-breathed" and canonical. I, trusting the movements of the Holy Spirit upon the early church (aka the Edict of Mulan), don't find it all that difficult to believe that it's possible that God influenced the hands of the Biblical writers. Sure, there may be some historical innacuracies, but I'm firm in the stance that what God wanted to say at the heart, the underlying roots of it all, is there and 100% accurate.

Do you believe that a person must make the choice to allow God to lead them in life?

Do you believe that a person must make the choice to allow God to lead them in life?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you mean is it up to the person to accept the truth for what it is?

Homosexuality is a sin, point blank. But why should we keep focusing on this one particular sin though? All sin is equal in the eyes of God, so shouldn't we drop the whole homosexuality thing and focus on witnessing, not bashing fromt he comforts of our homes

While I agree with the spirit of MOST of this... it is untrue that Hebrew was the first written alphabetic language... or at least, UNCLEAR if it is true.

The Hebrew 'alphabet' seems to borrow heavily from Ugaritic. Of course... the Hebrew scholars would not have wanted to admit such, since much relied on their claims to be the first people....

I understand there is always room to learn but my understanding is this.

There is some debate as to whether Hebrew was the first Alphabetic
We know Hebrew was used in 6th century BC.
I don't know of any Ugaritic works prior to the 14th Century BC.
Could you possible be forgeting there were 3 Hebrew languages?
Early Hebrew and the Classical, or Square, Hebrew.

Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile--i.e., prior to the 6th century BC--although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date. Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BC, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets.

The Early Hebrew alphabet, like the modern Hebrew variety, had 22 letters, with only consonants represented, and was written from right to left; but the early alphabet is more closely related in letter form to the Phoenician than to the modern Hebrew. Its only surviving descendant is the Samaritan alphabet, still used by a few hundred Samaritan Jews.

Between the 6th and 2nd century BC, Classical, or Square, Hebrew gradually displaced the Aramaic alphabet, which had replaced Early Hebrew in Palestine. Square Hebrew became established in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC and developed into the modern Hebrew alphabet over the next 1,500 years.

It was apparently derived from the Aramaic alphabet rather than from Early Hebrew but was nonetheless strongly influenced by the Early Hebrew script.

Classical Hebrew showed three distinct forms by the 10th century AD: Square Hebrew, a formal or book hand; rabbinical or "Rashi-writing," employed by medieval Jewish scholars; and various local cursive scripts, of which the Polish-German type became the modern cursive form.

Regards,

JMayo

The Hebrew 'alphabet' seems to borrow heavily from Ugaritic. Of course... the Hebrew scholars would not have wanted to admit such, since much relied on their claims to be the first people....

I beleive you are mistaken. You have to consider for a moment that it is probobly more than 4,000 years old. Additionally, the word "alphabet" actually comes from the Hebrew word "Aleph Bet" (it may be one word). That is the original word for the alphabet, because aleph (I'm transliterating it pheonetically) and bet are the first two letters of the Hebrew aphabet. The Greek "alpha" and "beta" are based on this. Although, as one note, Eevreet (another pheonetic transliteration- English butchers it into the word "Hebrew" (How did we get Hebrew from Eevreet?)) is not made up of three letter words. The [I]roots[I] of the words are three letters.

If you are going to try to stick to the so called letter of the law there are many other things that can be allowed to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

JMayo


There is no actual reason for quoting this. I simply enjoyed reading it earlier in the debate, so I decided to do it again.

What are you talking about? This is the same John that was one of the twelve. John the Beloved, named so by Jesus Himself. I'd think he'd have some sort of understanding as to whom Jesus was whilst looking at all of it in retrospect.

As for the validity of John's statements...heck even the validty of Paul's or any other writer's within scripture, I take them all for truth. They've all been attested to be "God-breathed" and canonical. I, trusting the movements of the Holy Spirit upon the early church (aka the Edict of Mulan), don't find it all that difficult to believe that it's possible that God influenced the hands of the Biblical writers. Sure, there may be some historical innacuracies, but I'm firm in the stance that what God wanted to say at the heart, the underlying roots of it all, is there and 100% accurate.

I see no reason to accept your assertion that the Gospel of John was written by the man you call "John the Beloved". I wonder if you can show me where, in the Gospel of John, this claim is made?

There is a lot of reason to believe that the Apostle John did NOT write the "Gospel" accounted to him... not least the fact that the Gospel of John is the ONLY one of the four Canonical Gospels with fairly clear 'Gnostic' leanings.

The Gospel of John is the ONLY Gospel that claims Jesus used the title for himself "I am". It also misses any discussion of Satan, anything about 'endtimes', anything about the exorcisms... it fails to have any apocalyptic teachings, it fails to have any 'ethical' teachings and it fails to account for the Sermon on the Mount. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel where Jesus eats a Passover meal... and Jesus dies on a different day in John's Gospel to all three of the others.

The Gospel of John is also, by far, the most anti-Semitic Gospel.

The Gospel of John ALSO contains material validated nowhere else in the canon, but verified in Apocryphal writings... such as the 'farewell discourses'.

Even the early church saw difference in the Gospel of John - which is why, as early as 200 AD, the church had dubbed John's Gospel "the Spiritual Gospel"... to differentiate between John and the other Canonical Gospels. John's Gospel claims more than just inspiration... it claims the knowledge of 'god'... in as much as it retells the Genesis story. Obviously, this claims more 'authority' than a mere Apostle might have had.

There are other reasons to doubt the validity of John the Apostle, as author of the story. Not least, is the fact that his testimony makes Jesus' ministry a three-year jaunt, with three separate journeys to Jerusalem... while each of the other Gospels has him visiting only one time.. in a ministry on Earth of about a year.

Also - Acts tells us that the John of the Apostles was an illiterate... and yet, the Gospel of John is written in fairly good Greek... possibly with some Aramaic.

Indeed - the most logical assessment of the Gospel of John, is that it was added after the founding of the Church, in order to cement the new church belief in Jesus-as-God, which is never as explicitly stated in the synoptic texts.

There is almost damning evidence to this effect, in the discourses of the early church: Dionysius of Alexandria, for example, in writings in the mid-200's AD, refers to the Gospel of John. Heracleon commented on John's Gospel in around 160 AD. However, Papias (who died in about AD 130) failed to mention the Gospel of John, although he does refer to the letters of John.

I could go on....

I beleive you are mistaken. You have to consider for a moment that it is probobly more than 4,000 years old. Additionally, the word "alphabet" actually comes from the Hebrew word "Aleph Bet" (it may be one word). That is the original word for the alphabet, because aleph (I'm transliterating it pheonetically) and bet are the first two letters of the Hebrew aphabet. The Greek "alpha" and "beta" are based on this. Although, as one note, Eevreet (another pheonetic transliteration- English butchers it into the word "Hebrew" (How did we get Hebrew from Eevreet?)) is not made up of three letter words. The [I]roots[I] of the words are three letters.

Alphabet comes from Greek... Alpha + Bet(a).

Perhaps that comes from the Hebrew, perhaps from the Ugaritic, eprhaps from another related tongue.. it is hard to be entirely sure.

But, the question remains, I guess... which do we have the earliest WRITTEN evidence for? Pretty much all of our Hebrew writing appears about 2900 years ago... although it claims a history that stretches before that.

Ugaritic, on the other hand, has been recorded as dating back to about another 600 years earlier than Hebrew... and, while being a cuneiform alphabet, the cuneiformic structures bear striking resemblence to the more elegant Hebrew characters.

Ugaritic, on the other hand, has been recorded as dating back to about another 600 years earlier than Hebrew... and, while being a cuneiform alphabet, the cuneiformic structures bear striking resemblence to the more elegant Hebrew characters.

i think theres a ugaritic script from around 1500 B.C.

I understand there is always room to learn but my understanding is this.

There is some debate as to whether Hebrew was the first Alphabetic
We know Hebrew was used in 6th century BC.
I don't know of any Ugaritic works prior to the 14th Century BC.
Could you possible be forgeting there were 3 Hebrew languages?
Early Hebrew and the Classical, or Square, Hebrew.

Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile--i.e., prior to the 6th century BC--although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date. Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BC, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets.

The Early Hebrew alphabet, like the modern Hebrew variety, had 22 letters, with only consonants represented, and was written from right to left; but the early alphabet is more closely related in letter form to the Phoenician than to the modern Hebrew. Its only surviving descendant is the Samaritan alphabet, still used by a few hundred Samaritan Jews.

Between the 6th and 2nd century BC, Classical, or Square, Hebrew gradually displaced the Aramaic alphabet, which had replaced Early Hebrew in Palestine. Square Hebrew became established in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC and developed into the modern Hebrew alphabet over the next 1,500 years.

It was apparently derived from the Aramaic alphabet rather than from Early Hebrew but was nonetheless strongly influenced by the Early Hebrew script.

Classical Hebrew showed three distinct forms by the 10th century AD: Square Hebrew, a formal or book hand; rabbinical or "Rashi-writing," employed by medieval Jewish scholars; and various local cursive scripts, of which the Polish-German type became the modern cursive form.

Regards,

JMayo

Not forgetting anything, my friend... but the earliest Proto-Hebrew I know of is still about 900BC... so about 3000 years old... almost half a millenium later than Ugaritic.

Of course... both seem to derive their alphabets from the earlier Phoenician alphabet... even down to the names for the characters (dalet, gimel, alef, etc)... but linguistically... Hebrew seems to have been derived THROUGH Ugaritic... rather than parallel to it.

i think theres a ugaritic script from around 1500 B.C.

Indeed... I believe that the earliest I've seen is about 1500/1600 BC. Certainly, earlier than anything I've seen for Hebrew.

i used to have a big diagram of language development. here is just a random one from a website: http://phoenicia.org/imgs/alphatree.jpg

i used to have a big diagram of language development. here is just a random one from a website: http://phoenicia.org/imgs/alphatree.jpg

Hard to be sure how accurate that is. If one looks at words in Hebrew, and similar words in Ugaritic, the one often seems to be evolved forms of the other... and yet the chart has Ugaritic off on it's own...

Hard to be sure how accurate that is. If one looks at words in Hebrew, and similar words in Ugaritic, the one often seems to be evolved forms of the other... and yet the chart has Ugaritic off on it's own...

i want to answer this but i have to leave, ill be back later to respond