Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[solderz 0]

brvheart is not wrong. Now please post all the rules regarding men and children... thanks.Please, in the future, when you just cut and paste entire pages from websites that don't know what they're talking about, post a link.http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

Eloquent as usual. Good refutation of the site. How can I argue with such ingenuity? I can't. You are a genius. God himself should bow to your feet.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Eloquent as usual. Good refutation of the site. How can I argue with such ingenuity? I can't. You are a genius. God himself should bow to your feet.

Dude, you just got owned for copying/pasting from a biased web site and not citing it.

[solderz 0]

Dude, you just got owned for copying/pasting from a biased web site and not citing it.

The correct term is p'wned. And I never said I didn't. Since I am aware of the fact that God is fairy tale that is used by people as a crutch to get through times in life that are difficult and to avoid the finality of death, I am happy to say that I am unable to quote the bible from memory. Did you really think I typed all that? Hell no. Got better things to do with my time. But I do have time to go to google, do a search, and look at the results. I have no problem with that. If you do, fine. Your problem, not mine.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The correct term is p'wned. And I never said I didn't. Since I am aware of the fact that God is fairy tale that is used by people as a crutch to get through times in life that are difficult and to avoid the finality of death, I am happy to say that I am unable to quote the bible from memory. Did you really think I typed all that? Hell no. Got better things to do with my time. But I do have time to go to google, do a search, and look at the results. I have no problem with that. If you do, fine. Your problem, not mine.

Just cite stuff that isn't your own. Essay writing 101. I don't care if you copied or not.

[beans-n-icewater 18]

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)I read this in the Crazy Horse bathroom last week... the name and phone number at the end was different though

[brvheart 1,751]

solderz said:

Eloquent as usual. Good refutation of the site. How can I argue with such ingenuity? I can't. You are a genius. God himself should bow to your feet.

If you read my previous post on the topic you would know that I already refuted your post before you even made it. The Bible also talks about slavery, so you should do the following someday soon:

1) Get home from school,

2) Google a propaganda website that says that the Bible thinks slavery is awesome,

3) Make a post that starts with a personal insult, followed by a copy/paste from said website, and finishes with a couple more personal insults for good measure.

4) Leave for a few weeks

5) repeat

It's important to note, that the Bible has a structure for everything, it certainly doesn't mean that children are worthless to God because the Bible tells them to honor their Father and Mother, or that they should be put to death for insulting a prophet of God. Furthermore the propaganda that you copy/pasted takes the majority of it's references (about 95% actually) from the Old Testament, which makes it clear that they lack basic understand of Christianity. If you had read what you copied & pasted, you would see that all of the New Testament references refer to how terrible it is that God wants man to be the head of the household. It's a shame that they didn't also reference where God tells man that he should honor his wife as Jesus loves the church, or that God will judge a man for dishonoring his wife. It's easy to make a point when you don't read anything in context, or don't even read it at all.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

We keep talking about the bible here and it being interpreted literally and I'm not trying to be condesceding here, but do the people that believe in the bible believe that someone (Jonah I think) really lived in the belly of a whale?What about the Noah's Ark thing? I'm genuinely curious about your guys take on this

[Shimmering Wang 1]

YOU GUYS ARE LOSING YOUR MINDS1) Canada, cool it. I think LoisMustDie's opinions are misguided. I think, in the future, the way we regard homosexuality will be overhauled completely. But he's NOT acting out of line here. He's simply saying his religion considers homosexuality a sin, and he'd rather that issue not be discussed by his 6 year old's teacher. He's not saying he thinks all fags should burn. He's not even saying he'd never be friends with a gay guy. He's being reasonable about all this, but you're just being a fucking jerk, for what seems like no reason. You know who you remind me of? A closed-minded, intellectually-overmathched FUNDAMENTALIST. When in doubt, start spitting insults and whipping up anger.2) Donkslayer, shut up about being on the lowest rung of the social ladder. That's just absurd. As a white male, you have so many more opportunities than the average black man. And it isn't even close. Wang

[beans-n-icewater 18]

I want this newfangled "fast reply" thing in the sick thread....

[Flack_attack 0]

As a white male, you have so many more opportunities than the average black man. And it isn't even close. Wang

I don't want to get this thread hijacked, but this statement is so far from the truth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any disenfranchizement of white males, but on the basis of race alone is MUCH easier to get into college and get a scholarship if you are black (or hispanic, etc.).Of course, whilst remnants of the "Good Ole Boy" system are certainly still extant (especially where I live, in the South), society is very different from even 20 or 30 years ago. If a minority and a white person apply for the same position, the minority will amost always get it because of the "quotas", unless there is a vaaast discrepancy in credentials.If you are a white male and you apply to Duke Medical School, you are deferred automatically untill they can find a suitable number of applicants of the races they need. It's sad, but true.I am not arguing what societal effect this has, or whether it's right or not; only that it exists.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Of course, whilst remnants of the "Good Ole Boy" system are certainly still extant (especially where I live, in the South), society is very different from even 20 or 30 years ago. If a minority and a white person apply for the same position AND ARE NEARLY EQUALLY QUALIFIED, the minority will amost always get it because of the "quotas", unless there is a vaaast discrepancy in credentials.

FYP so I could agree.

[brvheart 1,751]

We keep talking about the bible here and it being interpreted literally and I'm not trying to be condesceding here, but do the people that believe in the bible believe that someone (Jonah I think) really lived in the belly of a whale?

Keep the questions coming Ron, I'll answer everything you have...No, Christians do not think that Jonah was living in the belly of a whale, BUT they do think that he was swallowed by a 'great fish' and was in the belly of the fish for parts of 3 days.

2"Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me." 3But Jonah rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD So he went down to Joppa, found a ship which was going to Tarshish, paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. 4The LORD hurled a great wind on the sea and there was a great storm on the sea so that the ship was about to break up. 5Then the sailors became afraid and every man cried to his god, and they threw the cargo which was in the ship into the sea to lighten it for them. But Jonah had gone below into the hold of the ship, lain down and fallen sound asleep. 6So the captain approached him and said, "How is it that you are sleeping? Get up, call on your god Perhaps your god will be concerned about us so that we will not perish." 7Each man said to his mate, "Come, let us cast lots so we may learn on whose account this calamity has struck us " So they cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah. 8Then they said to him, "Tell us, now! On whose account has this calamity struck us? What is your occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?" 9He said to them, "I am a Hebrew, and I fear the LORD God of heaven who made the sea and the dry land." 10Then the men became extremely frightened and they said to him, "How could you do this?" For the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them. 11So they said to him, "What should we do to you that the sea may become calm for us?"--for the sea was becoming increasingly stormy. 12He said to them, "Pick me up and throw me into the sea. Then the sea will become calm for you, for I know that on account of me this great storm has come upon you." 13However, the men rowed desperately to return to land but they could not, for the sea was becoming even stormier against them. 14Then they called on the LORD and said, "We earnestly pray, O LORD, do not let us perish on account of this man's life and do not put innocent blood on us; for You, O LORD, have done as You have pleased." 15So they picked up Jonah, threw him into the sea, and the sea stopped its raging. 16Then the men feared the LORD greatly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows. 17And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

I understand that non-Christians will find this 'convenient', but if God is real, it's pretty obvious that this could've happened.From Wikipedia:

The fishThough often called a whale today, the Hebrew, as throughout scripture, refers to no species in particular, simply sufficing with "great fish" or "big fish" (whales are mammals and not fish, but no such distinction was made in antiquity). According to some Bible scholars, the size and habits of the white shark correspond better to the representations given of Jonah's being swallowed.[1] In Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), the original Hebrew text reads dag gadol (דג גדול), which literally means "great fish."The LXX translates this phrase into Greek as ketos megas (κητος μεγας). The term ketos alone means "huge fish," and in Greek mythology the term was closely associated with sea monsters. (See the Theoi Project "Ketea" for more information regarding Greek mythology and the Ketos.) Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda in his Latin Vulgate. However, he translated ketos as cetus in Matthew 12:40.At some point, cetus became synonymous with "whale" (the study of whales is now called cetology). In his 1534 translation, William Tyndale translated the phrase in Jonah 2:1 as "greate fyshe," and he translated the word ketos (Greek) or cetus (Latin) in Matthew 12:40 as "whale." Tyndale's translation was, of course, later incorporated into the Authorized Version of 1611. Since, the "great fish" in Jonah 2 has been most often interpreted as a whale.The throats of many large whales (as well as that of a large whale shark specimen, which could be found in the Mediterranean) can accommodate passage of an adult human. There are some 19th century accounts of whalers being swallowed by sperm whales and living to tell about it, but these stories remain unverified.

[Flack_attack 0]

Christians do not think that Jonah was living in the belly of a whale, BUT they do think that he was swallowed by a 'great fish' and was in the belly of the fish for parts of 3 days.

Not necesarily. The OT is shaky at best.

[WrongWay 0]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Bible doesn't actually condemn the homosexual lifestyle? That instead of asking people who were born as homosexuals to pray to become straight, they should be accepted as followers of Christ regardless of their sexual orientation?

The question is moot. The Bible is a collection of ancient mythology that says the Earth is a flat disk in a vast ocean, with a sky dome that is heaven. Rain is the windows of heaven being opened to allow the water above the sky dome to fall to Earth. Silly.To base our current morals off such silliness is a SHAME!!!!!!!!The question is, is it good for individuals and society as a whole. People are packed with desires that are harmful to themselves and society in general. I frequently crave a giant hamburger dripping in grease... I supress this desire sufficiently often, and commune with the exercise equipment in the gym often enough, that this harmful desire has not yet wrecked havok upon my body.I aslo like to play poker, but I manage to control this desire so that it does not damage my family life nor my finances.Don't get me started on my own personal sexual deviations.... (not gay, but have done some things I wouldn't want my momma to hear about).Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, can be very harmful, even deadly, if done promescusily and without regard for personal safety.Okay, some desires are so damaging that we actually make them illegal (it is a SHAME that alcohol is legal but pot isn't... Personally, I do neither.) Others we've decided aren't bad enough to be illegal, just shunned (looked down upon so strongly in an attempt to keep it in the closet). Other things are now perfectly acceptable to flaunt in public.In the past, homosexuality was illegal. It has now progressed to the point of "shunned by some members of society, openly flaunted by others".Where do I think it should be? As someone else said, it should not be considered any different than someone that likes blonds, someone that likes women in stilleto heels, or someone that is into oral.... It is just a personal preference that does no harm to anyone else.Well, male homosexuality. Unlike most guys, I'm strongly for male homosexuality and strongly against female homosexuality.... Each gay guy is a guy out of the pool of competition. Each gay gal is a gal out of the pool of possible targets. Female homosexuality negatively effects the ratio of competition to targets... Gay guys help me get laid by women. Gay women alter the odds against me. Think about it guys.... Maybe a guy plowing another guy's backsides grosses you out, but those are two guys that won't be at the club hitting on the babe that you have your target on!

[brvheart 1,751]

Ron Mexico said:

What about the Noah's Ark thing? I'm genuinely curious about your guys take on this

Noah is a much harder sell to non-Christians, because in the absence of God... the story is crazy. I do find it interesting that Noah is a prophet in Islam and Judaism. If the story did happen... and at one point there were only 50 people left on Earth (Noah's family), it would definitely be a story and a person that would be passed down in the history of basically everyone. There are a lot of different 'flood' stories from all over the world. Why is this? Did it just seem like a fun thing to 'make up'?

Also, who knows what the Bible meant by 'water covered the Earth'. It could mean... the 'known Earth'... I have no idea.

 

[brvheart 1,751]

Flack_attack said:

Not necesarily. The OT is shaky at best.

 

Not for me it isn't.

[renaedawn 1]

Look back at how you entered the fray and tell me you can reasonably say that my reaction to your line of thinking was that off base. I liked what you said earlier about not so entrenched that you could never be convinced- these are good things. That's not how you acted when you arrived. Would you agree on that? Incidentally, I made a post about your discrepancies with the New Testament. I will paste it for you in this reply. I would love to hear your reaction: Ron, you're way off, and I will tell you why. The same story is told, by 4 different writers. Emphasis on different things-details different here and there- and yet, the same story, which proves the human element while at the same time proveing uncorroborated effort- just 4 dudes writing about the same thing they witnessed. All Mrs. Game, Set, Match has done is prove the oposite of what she intended to. Ron had agreed with you, and I replied to him. If I am taking the role of religous forum police, I apologize. Realize that I do spend alot of time putting myself out there, and take alot of guff for it, so it does put me on the defensive. I will work on that. Fair enough?

I think that's the part you wanted a response to? I think your explanation proves exactly what my point was. I believe the conclusion we finally came to is that my point would have been better served if I had substituted "literal Christians" every where I said "Christians". That's my bad on that because 'those who believe literally that the Bible is the unedited, not influenced by the humans that wrote it, direct from the creator's lips word of God are being illogical' was my point.We know that the texts were written by man after many generations of oral history and that none of them were written by the original apostles. There are countless numbers of retellings passed down through village after village through untold numbers of humans before they were ever written down.Ever played Gossip? Ever have the story come out exactly the same at the end of the line as it did where it started? Same concept.

[renaedawn 1]

It's fine for you to think this if looking at things from the perspective that God doesn't exist. I, however, look at it from a different perspective... THIS IS THE POINT I THINK YOU ARE MISSING: My God is all powerful and all knowing... BECAUSE the Bible is infallible that is PROOF to me that He has maintained it and not allowed His message to be tarnished. To me it's also basic common sense, that if an all powerful God didn't want the Bible to change in 2,000 - 4,000 years that it wouldn't be hard for Him... considering He made the universe and everything in it.

It's been a long time since I've been to college so someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 'the Bible is infallible so therefore it must be true' circular logic?

[renaedawn 1]

I have felt smited for about a year. I don't think God really watches the game.

Insert mean joke that I really mean to be funny and not malicious about if God loved you would have won the Protege contest here.

[Canada 0]

YOU GUYS ARE LOSING YOUR MINDS1) Canada, cool it. I think LoisMustDie's opinions are misguided. I think, in the future, the way we regard homosexuality will be overhauled completely. But he's NOT acting out of line here. He's simply saying his religion considers homosexuality a sin, and he'd rather that issue not be discussed by his 6 year old's teacher. He's not saying he thinks all fags should burn. He's not even saying he'd never be friends with a gay guy. He's being reasonable about all this, but you're just being a fucking jerk, for what seems like no reason. You know who you remind me of? A closed-minded, intellectually-overmathched FUNDAMENTALIST. When in doubt, start spitting insults and whipping up anger.

No reason?You may notice a number of posts here that are of the nature "I even have gay friends but...". If that doesn't offend your sensiblity I don't know what should.I do have gay friends and I find assaults on their right to love disgusting. Excuse me for getting upset.Let me show you something...You are an abomination because you are homosexual.orYou are an abomination because you are black.How much of a stink would there be if LMD posted the second?Why are you not outraged by the first?What gives him the right to hide either behind the fabric of religion? Perhaps you should read Dawkins on undue respect given to religion

[renaedawn 1]

If you read my previous post on the topic you would know that I already refuted your post before you even made it. The Bible also talks about slavery, so you should do the following someday soon:1) Get home from school, 2) Google a propaganda website that says that the Bible thinks slavery is awesome, 3) Make a post that starts with a personal insult, followed by a copy/paste from said website, and finishes with a couple more personal insults for good measure. 4) Leave for a few weeks 5) repeatIt's important to note, that the Bible has a structure for everything, it certainly doesn't mean that children are worthless to God because the Bible tells them to honor their Father and Mother, or that they should be put to death for insulting a prophet of God. Furthermore the propaganda that you copy/pasted takes the majority of it's references (about 95% actually) from the Old Testament, which makes it clear that they lack basic understand of Christianity. If you had read what you copied & pasted, you would see that all of the New Testament references refer to how terrible it is that God wants man to be the head of the household. It's a shame that they didn't also reference where God tells man that he should honor his wife as Jesus loves the church, or that God will judge a man for dishonoring his wife. It's easy to make a point when you don't read anything in context, or don't even read it at all.

I think anyone who knows anything about the New Testament knows that Jesus loved (not gonna debate here what kind of love it was) Mary Magdelene and that caused him to speak differently, according to those who wrote the NT, about women than the men who wrote the Old Testament.Perhaps it would help if we stuck to either New Testament or Old Testament for this debate and since we're talking about if homosexuality is a sin to Christian beliefs we're obviously talking about the New Testament being as that Christianity can't come to happen without the New Testament.

[renaedawn 1]

Keep the questions coming Ron, I'll answer everything you have...No, Christians do not think that Jonah was living in the belly of a whale, BUT they do think that he was swallowed by a 'great fish' and was in the belly of the fish for parts of 3 days.

Seriously?What is that quote from Star Trek: TNG? Something about nothing is impossible, however, logically whatever is most probable is a more logical theory than all things that are not impossible.

[crowTrobot 2]

Not necesarily. The OT is shaky at best.

in what way is the OT shaky that doesn't also apply equally to the NT? what makes jesus walking on water or rising from the dead ANY less likely than the flood or jonah stories to be a historical embellishment or fabrication? news flash: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCEHYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT

[Flack_attack 0]

in what way is the OT shaky that doesn't also apply equally to the NT? what makes jesus walking on water or rising from the dead ANY less likely than the flood or jonah stories to be a historical embellishment or fabrication? news flash: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCEHYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT

A number of reasons, one being that the God of the Old Testament does not conform to many of the generally recognized properties of God, thereby making it less credible. Also, the OT contains stories easily disproven by history (not miracles) like the 7 day creation, thereby making the other stories in it (like Jonah and the fish, etc.) less credible (more allegorical, in a sense). The NT however, does not contain said entities which could detract from theological or philosophical credibility. Believing that Jesus walked on water but not believing in a literal creation or a flood is NOT applying a double standard. God manifested as Jesus can bended natural laws such as hydrogen bonds of water in a lake, whereas when one s to mount a justification for the near fairy tales of the OT one comes up dreadfully short.

[crowTrobot 2]

A number of reasons, one being that the God of the Old Testament does not conform to many of the generally recognized properties of God, thereby making it less credible.

wha? generally recognized properties? you mean properties made up by cultural consensus to make god into something more morally reasonable than the bible portrays?

Also, the OT contains stories easily disproven by history (not miracles) like the 7 day creation, thereby making the other stories in it (like Jonah and the fish, etc.) less credible (more allegorical, in a sense). The NT however, does not contain said entities which could detract from theological or philosophical credibility. Believing that Jesus walked on water but not believing in a literal creation or a flood is NOT applying a double standard. God manifested as Jesus can bended natural laws such as hydrogen bonds of water in a lake, whereas when one s to mount a justification for the near fairy tales of the OT one comes up dreadfully short.

the problem is you are NOT using "theology or philosophy" to judge the credibility of the OT - YOU ARE USING SCIENCE. judged on scientific grounds the NT falls apart in exactly the same way as the OT does. you are absolutely using a double standard.as an example it would be a LOT less complicated for god to get oxygen to someone inside a fish somehow than it would be for jesus to alter the molecular structure of water wherever he stepped lol.