Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[brvheart 1,752]

...

[Canada 0]

You sure did see a lot in her post....although she made several prior that added up to more than 100 words.My point is...Why do you care about or even think about, say, number 6 on your list if you can't really get by the first one? Why even argue point 6-7-8 if you can't agree with a Christian on the premise of the debate?

Her post is not relevant to my pov. I thought is was brilliant because it shows the line of reasoning that a person must process to define homosexuality as a sin and therefore be 'looked down up on' by RKIGS or 'tolerated but not accepted, hidden from children or rated not as good as mine' by LMD+t.The arrogance of a Christian to tell somebody who they can or can't love was wrapped up nicely

[DonkSlayer 1]

No. Have you ever seen the movie Rudy? In one scene at Holy Cross right before Rudy meets D-Bob. The Catholic priest is giving a lecture on divine inspiration... and he basically says exactly what I'm trying to convey....This is only true from the perspective that God doesn't exist. If he does exist, he can make sure his word doesn't get tarnished, obviously. And for a text written 66 years after his death to 2006 to basically have no differences is pretty amazing, no?

The spirit of the words are the same, but there are differences. For instance, your earlier translation that mentions "homosexual" has been translated to fill in different words there as well. "Homosexual" does not appear in Lois's KJV, for instance. The term "homosexual" was first used in the late 19th century....sooo we do have in fact a "difference" if you have a version of the Bible that specifically says "homosexual."Which is a dumb translation, because if I'm straight and totally bang a guy after we get married, I haven't really committed a sin, because I'm not homosexual.

Also a note on your attack on the Bible specifically... The Bible says that it is the infallible word of God... It also says in John 1, that the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if those two verses are incorrect, then there is no reason to believe anything in the Bible. (which I know is your point) But that's my point also. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, but if you show me any mistakes or errors in the Bible, other than your blatant personal opinions, I will reject Christianity immediately.

The Bible cannot be a self-fullfilling prophecy in and of itself in order to be taken seriously. Paul saying the Bible is inspired DOES NOT SAY that it is word-for-word infalliable. Also, the "Word" spoken about by John has to do with God's word and God's word as personified by Jesus, not the Bible, which did not exist at the time of Jesus. There would be no way to discern which "Word" written should be included in the Bible and which should not be, if it was all "Word." It is difficult to discern a "Bible" only using Paul's advice as well.

Different perspectives and memories do not equal contradictions.

True, but you aren't convicting anyone in court with it.

[Loismustdie 0]

Her post is not relevant to my pov. I thought is was brilliant because it shows the line of reasoning that a person must process to define homosexuality as a sin and therefore be 'looked down up on' by RKIGS or 'tolerated but not accepted, hidden from children or rated not as good as mine' by LMD+t.The arrogance of a Christian to tell somebody who they can or can't love was wrapped up nicely

Not suprisingly, you missed the point. I wouldn't begin to tell you what to do- but I draw the line at what I have to accept as perfectly o.k. and just wonderful to be paraded in front of my daughter. I draw the line in the sand, period. When one of my gay friends lived with us for awhile, and went into detail about some guy going down on him in a story to my wife, which made her uncomfortable, he got a talking to. She didn't want to hear about it,and it's my job to protect those close to me. Hidden from the children? How did you get that? I said I didn't want to PROMOTE it to her. There is a difference. There are quite a few things I will not be promoting to her, but in no way can hide her from. Rated not as good as mine? Yes. Incidentally, it just cracks me up how we have come to the point where live and let live is not enough. It is now at the point where you must unconditionally accept, or as soon as you say that you don't unconditionally accept, you are branded as arrogant. Do I expect you to accept me? No. Do I expect you to recognize God for what he is? No. Why should anyone else be any different?

[SBriand 4]

Tell me how it actually marginalizes the gay population. Seriously. How? The law, society in general for as long as we can remember define marriage as a man and a woman taking an oath, in a ceremony, which usually mentions God or some sort of entity that these vows are taken before.

Really? Then my wife and I are not married since no God or entity was mentioned? Cool! I can then cheat and get a tax break!

Thank god I am not the only one in society who is bothered by that, and willing to say it. Trust me,I am not gay bashing. I am straight promoting. I am proudly, excluseivly straight, and I believe what I have and what I do is the greatest thing known to man, and should be shouted in the streets.

So you want to go outside on the street and yell "I LIKE TO FUCK VAGINAS!"Cool.

[brvheart 1,752]

Flack_attack said:

Well, then, how is this logical, reasonable, or even stomachable for a "loving" God to have some people destined for eternal torture??? Have you you even considered what this entails? Step back, and look at it. What kind of sadistic evil creature (be he deity or whatever) could allow a concious being to be created, make him gay, then after he his dead let him suffer intense pain for all of ETERNITY just for how he happened to be hardwired. I should think, friend, that you are egregiously misinterpreting the Bible and misapplying whatever gift of logic you were so endowed.If, however, you are not, then I ask how can you worship such a horrible monster?

Read Romans 9, it explains to much better than I can. God is wonderful and merciful, and even though we have completely rejected him over and over again, he still loves us and desires for us to come to him with open hearts and receive the free gift of eternity with Him through the death of Jesus Christ. We deserve death, and yet in his love and mercy he is still reaching out to you today... even though you, and others on this forum, are currently rejecting him.

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God is far from a horrible monster. He is an all-sufficient Savior. If you need another opposing viewpoint to your 'monster' theory, click here.

Canada said:

It makes me smile because in less than 100 words renaedawn has pointed out that

• God may or may not exist This is the only point that matters. If we disagree here, it will obviously render all of your other 'points' moot.
• If he does he may or may not have communicated with us
• If he did he may or may not have chosen some individuals specifically over others to record his rules
• If he did those individuals may or may not have been dicated to
• If they were they may or may not of recorded these dictations infallibly
• If they did these writings may or may not have been chosen to become part of the Bible
• If they were these dictations may or may not have been translated into English accurately
• If they were these English versions may or may not have been understood by the reader
• If they were the reader finally knows god's intent

Yeah, Christianity gives you the backing to advise others on how to live their lives.ooooh it's in the Bible!!!

DonkSlayer said:

You sure did see a lot in her post....although she made several prior that added up to more than 100 words.My point is...Why do you care about or even think about, say, number 6 on your list if you can't really get by the first one? Why even argue point 6-7-8 if you can't agree with a Christian on the premise of the debate?

um... exactly.

[SBriand 4]

I draw the line in the sand, period. When one of my gay friends lived with us for awhile, and went into detail about some guy going down on him in a story to my wife, which made her uncomfortable, he got a talking to. She didn't want to hear about it,and it's my job to protect those close to me.

So if your friend was straight and came over and told you wife how he ate the vagina of this girl he met at the bar the night before you would have no problem with it? Or is that also something she would not like to hear and you would also protect her from it?

[DonkSlayer 1]

The arrogance of a Christian to tell somebody who they can or can't love was wrapped up nicely

Ok. Answer my question though, please.

[DonkSlayer 1]

So if your friend was straight and came over and told you wife how he ate the vagina of this girl he met at the bar the night before you would have no problem with it? Or is that also something she would not like to hear and you would also protect her from it?

I threw up a little in my mouth when I read your caption along with your Avatar. Aiii.

[Loismustdie 0]

So we'll put you down as a non believer, and ultimately worthless in THIS particlular conversation. Show up with your 20,000 posts in a thread where we actually debate that, and we will talk.What we are talking about is whether God believes homosexuality is wrong. To point to scriptures in the Bible and say that because the Bible says it that God believes it is ultimate arrogance by humankind. There is absolutely no way to credibly say that the Bible is the undisputed, unedited, purest intentions of God. It's a book written by fallible beings. Quit acting like you're Lord of the Religion forum.

I point out that the basis of this argument was that the bible was the word of God in the first place and you say that I am being the lord of the religous forum? That's priceless- I guess maybe if I just posted a bad beat forum is down the street or some b.s. that would have made more sense to you. Incidentally, other than the fact that you don't believe in the bible- and this goes for pretty much all of you that haven't had the courage to actually put a thought out there- you haven't actually offered any type of belief. Plenty of reasons why I am wrong, but nothing that says why you are right. Nothing that says where you stand, what you feel. To me, that's a shame. I put myself out there daily, right or wrong. I think that you should do the same. It's not good enough to come in here and say," The opposite of what you said."

[Loismustdie 0]

So if your friend was straight and came over and told you wife how he ate the vagina of this girl he met at the bar the night before you would have no problem with it? Or is that also something she would not like to hear and you would also protect her from it?

If it made her uncomfortable, then yes.

[brvheart 1,752]

Not suprisingly, you missed the point. I wouldn't begin to tell you what to do- but I draw the line at what I have to accept as perfectly o.k. and just wonderful to be paraded in front of my daughter. I draw the line in the sand, period. When one of my gay friends lived with us for awhile, and went into detail about some guy going down on him in a story to my wife, which made her uncomfortable, he got a talking to. She didn't want to hear about it,and it's my job to protect those close to me. Hidden from the children? How did you get that? I said I didn't want to PROMOTE it to her. There is a difference. There are quite a few things I will not be promoting to her, but in no way can hide her from. Rated not as good as mine? Yes. Incidentally, it just cracks me up how we have come to the point where live and let live is not enough. It is now at the point where you must unconditionally accept, or as soon as you say that you don't unconditionally accept, you are branded as arrogant. Do I expect you to accept me? No. Do I expect you to recognize God for what he is? No. Why should anyone else be any different?

What if your friend was straight and talking about a girl going down on him to your wife? She would probably be equally uncomfortable, and your friend still should've received a talking to. Sin is sin, it doesn't matter if the person is gay or not.

[Loismustdie 0]

Her post is not relevant to my pov. I thought is was brilliant because it shows the line of reasoning that a person must process to define homosexuality as a sin and therefore be 'looked down up on' by RKIGS or 'tolerated but not accepted, hidden from children or rated not as good as mine' by LMD+t.The arrogance of a Christian to tell somebody who they can or can't love was wrapped up nicely

No- I told you who you could and couldn't love and still make it into heaven. Big difference.

[Loismustdie 0]

What if your friend was straight and talking about a girl going down on him to your wife? She would probably be equally uncomfortable, and your friend still should've received a talking to. Sin is sin, it doesn't matter if the person is gay or not.

I agree with that. I was drawing up an example to Canada when it comes to how I view my role when it comes to protecting my family. I had said that if schoolbooks started showing David and David holding hands looking for an Apartment then I would homeschool her. Read my post where I just said what most are afraid to.

[Canada 0]

This is the only point that matters. If we disagree here, it will obviously render all of your other 'points' moot.

Hardly. There are Christians that would go down the list and debate those points.DS - you've stated before you don't believe that Genesis is the literal inerrant word of God so somewhere in that list you vary from brvheart and yet you are both Christians.I'll let you two work out which one is right and then that person can tell the gays they can't fall in love.My point & I believe renae's is that to believe that homosexuality is a sin you need to go through that list and tick all the boxes. Given that others don't including other Christians anyone telling a homosexual that what they are doing is wrong is expressing nothing more than an unwelcome opinion.

Ok. Answer my question though, please.

I think that the above does

[SBriand 4]

I agree with that. I was drawing up an example to Canada when it comes to how I view my role when it comes to protecting my family. I had said that if schoolbooks started showing David and David holding hands looking for an Apartment then I would homeschool her. Read my post where I just said what most are afraid to.

That's fine. If gays scare you then so be it. If you think gays are bad feel free to protect you and yours from it. But not everyone has to feel the same way. Maybe I am missing your point or missed a part of this thread and you are not trying to force these beliefs on society, and if that is the case I apologize. I am not gay. I do not want to be gay and I don't find gay sex attractive, but I it doesn't bother me one bit. I am not afraid to say myself that if people want to be gay and get married, more power to you. I could give a crap. They are human beings and they (should) have the same rights as other human beings regardless of how close-minded and rude most of the world is. I believe in God but I do not believe most of what I have read in the Bible and I also decided on my own that God isn't the prick most make him out to be.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Hardly. There are Christians that would go down the list and debate those points.DS - you've stated before you don't believe that Genesis is the literal inerrant word of God so somewhere in that list you vary from brvheart and yet you are both Christians.I'll let you two work out which one is right and then that person can tell the gays they can't fall in love.My point & I believe renae's is that to believe that homosexuality is a sin you need to go through that list and tick all the boxes. Given that others don't including other Christians anyone telling a homosexual that what they are doing is wrong is expressing nothing more than an unwelcome opinion.I think that the above does

It did, sort of. I think it constructive for me and Brvheart to debate the points...but if you believe pizza is evil, there's no point in taking a position on whether white or red sauce is better for seafood toppings. You will not ever know me to vote against gay people getting married, or judging them on the basis of overall worth. Whether I could support a Church that marries homosexual couples and/or lets practicing homosexuals serve as clergy.....that's a debate to have with those who are on the same first page as I am.

[Canada 0]

I agree with that. I was drawing up an example to Canada when it comes to how I view my role when it comes to protecting my family. I had said that if schoolbooks started showing David and David holding hands looking for an Apartment then I would homeschool her. Read my post where I just said what most are afraid to.

So a picture of 2 people in love is enough to take a child out of school because it promotes sin?Would you take her out of school if it was Jack and Jill, without wedding rings?What on earth are you going to do when she starts reading the works of Shakespeare? Tons of sin involved there. What if they teach her history or current affairs? Or if she studies law or sees a picture of a policeman and a robber? Do you keep out of McDonalds because of the Hamburglar?You guys like to bang on about how there is no 'scale' of sin yet you are being very selective about which ones are okay. Surely the measures you use to protect from one sin should apply to all?

[Canada 0]

It did, sort of. I think it constructive for me and Brvheart to debate the points...but if you believe pizza is evil, there's no point in taking a position on whether white or red sauce is better for seafood toppings. You will not ever know me to vote against gay people getting married, or judging them on the basis of overall worth. Whether I could support a Church that marries homosexual couples and/or lets practicing homosexuals serve as clergy.....that's a debate to have with those who are on the same first page as I am.

Given that people have killed themselves over their sexuality/religious conflicts I'm not going to let you claim ownership of that debate. Sorry you don't have that right.

[brvheart 1,752]

So a picture of 2 people in love is enough to take a child out of school because it promotes sin?Would you take her out of school if it was Jack and Jill, without wedding rings?What on earth are you going to do when she starts reading the works of Shakespeare? Tons of sin involved there. What if they teach her history or current affairs? Or if she studies law or sees a picture of a policeman and a robber? Do you keep out of McDonalds because of the Hamburglar?You guys like to bang on about how there is no 'scale' of sin yet you are being very selective about which ones are okay. Surely the measures you use to protect from one sin should apply to all?

You're not using common sense. While according to God if I go 60 mph instead of 55 I have sinned, that does NOT mean that the impact of my sin is the same as if I murder someone or become addicted to pornography, etc etc. Isn't this obvious? That's not being selective about what will separate us from God, but instead what will have a bigger impact on us or our families.

[Canada 0]

You're not using common sense. While according to God if I go 60 mph instead of 55 I have sinned, that does NOT mean that the impact of my sin is the same as if I murder someone or become addicted to pornography, etc etc. Isn't this obvious? That's not being selective about what will separate us from God, but instead what will have a bigger impact on us or our families.

So, tell me then how does a picture of 2 men holding hands looking for an apartment cause a bigger impact on anyones family than Romeo & Juliet which describes lust, revenge, murder and suicide?

[DonkSlayer 1]

So, tell me then how does a picture of 2 men holding hands looking for an apartment cause a bigger impact on anyones family than Romeo & Juliet which describes lust, revenge, murder and suicide?

Well, again, context. The level of impression that can be imposed on children is much more at the kindergarten level than at the level they would be reading Romeo & Juliet. Romeo & Juliet would not be appropriate for an Atheist's child in 1st grade.

[Canada 0]

Well, again, context. The level of impression that can be imposed on children is much more at the kindergarten level than at the level they would be reading Romeo & Juliet. Romeo & Juliet would not be appropriate for an Atheist's child in 1st grade.

Okay context then, Jack & Jill not wearing wedding rings?

[renaedawn 1]

No. Have you ever seen the movie Rudy? In one scene at Holy Cross right before Rudy meets D-Bob. The Catholic priest is giving a lecture on divine inspiration... and he basically says exactly what I'm trying to convey....

Did you seriously just quote the movie Rudy to back up your claims about theology?

This is only true from the perspective that God doesn't exist. If he does exist, he can make sure his word doesn't get tarnished, obviously. And for a text written 66 years after his death to 2006 to basically have no differences is pretty amazing, no?

Depends on how you define differences. There are major differences between the coptic text and the KJ Bible. However, they're accepted as true canon because they have been for centuries.

It also says in John 1, that the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if those two verses are incorrect, then there is no reason to believe anything in the Bible. (which I know is your point) But that's my point also. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, but if you show me any mistakes or errors in the Bible, other than your blatant personal opinions, I will reject Christianity immediately.

See Wang's post about backing into a conclusion.

hint: People have been trying to disprove the Bible for 2,000 years+. See C.S. Lewis, among others. If you guys would just get on it already, then we could just disband Christianity and make everyone happier.Different perspectives and memories do not equal contradictions.

Perhaps contradictions was the wrong word to use. My point was that the same events are recorded with emphasis on completely different parts of the story. There are even whole parts of what would seem to be important details that are left out of one gospel but are a big selling point in another gospel (like the origin and purpose of the Magi). This gives credence to my point that each gospel was interpreted through the life filters of the person telling the story. Things that John thought were important are emphasized in John and things that Mark thought are important are emphasized in his version and the 2 versions are pretty different. Therefore, neither can be the word of God. If they were the word of God, they would be the same. They might be inspired by God originally but there is most definitely bias by the original teller and subsequent tellers and writers in the versions we have today therefore making it the word of Man not the word of God.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Given that people have killed themselves over their sexuality/religious conflicts I'm not going to let you claim ownership of that debate. Sorry you don't have that right.

I'm certainly not asking you to stay out of the overall debate. Don't understand why you have any basis for arguing about the roofing of a house you don't believe exists.