Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

[Jon Miller]

babies are not sinful, they are just predisposed to sin

that means that they are attracted to it, that does not mean they have sinned

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I am tired, if I remember this thread I will return (I want to hit the others before I go to bed)

Jon Miler

[David Floyd]

read Hebrews, in particular the bit about Abraham

he was not christian

I'm sorry, you're of course correct. My understanding is that before the Christ, the people who went to heaven were those who believed in the coming Messiah, basically Godly men. I was speaking more about post-crucifixion, though. Most OT law applied only to Jews, anyway.

[Felch]

Why don't born again Christians live forever?

[Jon Miller]

I think that it is true post-crucifixion as well

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My understanding is that before the Christ, the people who went to heaven were those who believed in the coming Messiah, basically Godly men.

Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

[David Floyd]

Why don't born again Christians live forever?

Everyone lives forever, because of the concept of life after death. One either lives with God, or lives separated from God.

I think that it is true post-crucifixion as well

Actually no, the Bible states that only those who specifically accept Jesus are saved.

[David Floyd]

Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

If it's in the Bible, I've certainly never seen it. Could be wrong though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

I believe that this is one of the supposed prophecies of Revelations, so the big J will do that after the second coming.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no

it is not obvious that non-christians go to hell

read Hebrews, in particular the bit about Abraham

he was not christian

Jon Miller

He was neither a Christian nor a Jew. According to the Koran, he was a Muslim, because Muslims are pure faith, which he was, because he was not an idolator.

I guess you can look at anything in any way and still come out right.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

It is based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water (1 Pet 3:18-20).

For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does (1 Peter 4:6).

This idea is also represented in several creeds of the early church councils.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I agreed with that. I am just thinking that the word may not have that meaning in anything outside the Bible considering how far down the list it was.

I'd doubt that . . . to "know" someone is a common euphemism for sexual relations in many languages including English. The reason it is "so far down the list" as it were is because it is a specialized meaning and because yada is one of the most common words in the Hebrew Bible and has so many different connotations.

However, just to be sure, I'll check DCH (Dictionary of Classical Hebrew) the next time I'm in the library to see how it is represented in extra-biblical literature.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I understand that. But let's take that through to its conclusion.

The wages of sin are death. Death, in that sentence, equates to hell, separation from God. Therefore, sin equals hell.

Actually not. The wages of sin is death. There is no equation to "hell." Sin causes the incorruptable to become corruptable. Therefore, death is the result of sin. No sin, no death.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If one doesn't sin during their life, they won't go to hell. But, it is impossible for one not to sin. Yes, one has a choice about which action to take, but the Bible itself even says that all have sinned (and by logical extension, all WILL sin). Therefore, in actuality there is NO choice in the matter, and we will all sin at some point.

We all sin by choice. The Bible simply observes this fact.

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is of course because we are born with a sin nature. We did nothing to deserve this sin nature. The sin nature is there because of Adam and Eve's sin. Thus, every person is born with a sin nature that is a result of the sin of two people thousands of years ago, and as a result of THAT, everyone will go to hell.

We are born into sin and a sinful world. We have a predisposition towards that sin because of our finiteness. It is not necessary that we sin though. Our sin results from choice.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless, of course, they become a Christian.

Correction: Unless, of course, God in his mercy saves you.

Originally posted by David Floyd
But that brings up another good point. What about non-Christians? Well, obviously non-Christians go to hell, because they have sinned, and have not received forgiveness, not been saved. Yes, there are exceptions that I think the Bible provides for, such as small children and the mentally retarded, but overall, it can be said that all non-Christians go to hell.

But what about those that never heard about God, that were brought up their whole lives as, say, a Hindu? Well, the argument usually goes that if one really seeks the truth - Christianity - then they will find it. However, this argument makes no sense. If one is brought up as a Hindu, they are taught all their life that Hinduism is truth. They believe Hinduism is truth, and have no reason to seek another truth. It's not really fair to say that they should have been Christians if they really sought out truth, because that is not their fault.

Yet these people still go to hell, because of their sin nature, which they did nothing to deserve. I've also heard it argued that they did in fact deserve the sin nature because of sins they will commit later in life. But this doesn't make any sense at all, because one has no choice in the matter of sinning by virtue of having a sin nature. That's circular logic - one sins because of their sin nature, and one has a sin nature because of their sin. Does not compute.

God reveals himself to all people at some point; they are accountable to the degree they have received that revelation. If they choose to reject it and deny Christ, they have made a choice.

God's love is proved through Christ; his grace and justice are immutable and irreproachable. Though I can not know all his designs or means, I can trust that he is the ultimate arbiter of true and just judgments regarding each person. The central claim of the NT is that by whatever knowledge or faith people are saved, they are saved through Jesus Christ (whether they know it or not).

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or, take the example of an atheist. Most atheists arrive at their atheism through a form of logic and reason. Logic and reason are both natural, we are created with both. But, one can't really find God through reason or logic, but through faith. However, one can easily use logic and reason to go the other way - there is no empirical evidence for God, no scientific method for proving Christianity. Yes, one can use logic, reason, and science, to prove parts of the Bible, such as historical accounts, but so what? That doesn't prove anything - it isn't logical to say that because part of a book is true, the whole book must be true on the basis of that part or parts.

Thus, even those people who attempt to arrive at a conclusion using God-given gifts - logic and reason - go to hell as well, for the same reason as the Hindu in our example. The only person who has a chance to go to heaven is the person who has faith in Jesus Christ. But faith in Jesus Christ - that is, Christianity - is one belief system out of many, that has little to no degree of scientific proof, much the same as every other religion, and cannot be arrived at through reason and logic, also much the same as every other religion.

For whatever reason, God has chosen to meet with humanity through faith rather than logic or reason (although a Christian is not required to eject these two faculties either). One might speculate as to the reason faith is of importance and the Bible gives us some direction in this respect. But, I think, one of the main reasons faith is God's preferred approach is that faith is the great equalizer; all people are capable of it, regardless of their intellect. Not all people are capable of logic or reason; self-control; etc. etc. In this way, faith is non-discriminatory.

Originally posted by David Floyd
On a purely objective basis, even a logical one, choosing Christianity is no more likely and no more helpful than choosing Hinduism, or Islam, or atheism.

Ethelred will no doubt agree with you. However, I think an analysis of the claims of the myriad of religious movements proves that the religions of the world have varying degrees of plausibility, validity, and quality. Christianity, apart from any faith conviction, holds up remarkably well.

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, this is getting long-winded and I'm rambling, but I just see a lot of inherent contradictions in some of this stuff, stuff that doesn't really make sense. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I don't necessarily agree with many of the traditional interpretations of the Bible.

Contradictions are often simply tensions that must be held together in the absence of further knowledge.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Asher
The bible encourages homosexuality. Why else do you think Jesus was a long haired hippy?

Didn't you watch Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus was hetero through and through . . . even got married, twice -- and the second time to two women not just one.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I'm not going to have this as a troll, like it will most likely turn out to be, but here goes.

I've been reading my Bible a lot closer lately, and nowhere in there does it say OR allude to Sodom and Gomorrah as being destroyed for pervasive homosexuality. It is not mentioned directly, and as far as I can see (in TWO versions), there is no allusion to indicate that the destruction took place due to men having sex with men.

Could you please explain to me why, then, it is so widely interpretted this way be fundamentalist christians, and even some moderates?

Ethelred's analysis of the passage on page one is fairly accurate, aside from his throw-in opinions, which leave something to be desired. "Know" is a common euphemism in the Bible for sexual relations and the fact that Lot offers his daughters (in 19:8) suggests the request made by the men involved sexual sin. However, Ethelred is right in noting that the greater offence in the cultures of that period and place is the lack of hospitality shown by the city.

To add to these observations made by Ethelred:

The Sodom and Gomorrah story has echoes throughout the rest of the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah becomes the eminent example of evil for later writers, who make frequent allusion to it. In many of those passages, the writers interpret the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah explicity as gang rape and perverse sexual desires. Though even here, some later writers also note the lack of hospitality as an issue too.

[Robert Plomp]

Homosexuality is one of the hardest topics in the bible to me.

As I'm a hetero I'm not sure if it's up to me to have an opinion about it. Why should I, as a hapily maried man, tell other people they should not be that happy?

I know, it seems like the bible is quiet clear about it.
But I think there's only one important thing in life, and that's that we know that Jesus died for our sins.

That's my message to the world.
If a homosexual accepts that, it's up to him to read the bible, to seek contact with God, to pray about it and seek for the right answer.

I'm sure though that homosexuality as it happened in sodom is a sin. But that's because it's more like the gay-parade in Amsterdam. It's not a personal gay-thing, but mass exhabitionism and sex. Something that's equally to the love parade in Berlin (with hetero's) and all those things.

Sodom has been destroyed for this total lack of a sexual moral.

I'm sure as well that hetero's are as sinfull as gays, sexually. Not because they are, because neither gays nor hetero's are sinfull for their sexual nature, but for their lusts. And my lusts aren't worse or better than the lusts of gays.

I think all human should stick to one partner. Not because that's just the way it is, but that's because I'm sure we will all be happier. In general, and in person. Of course bad mariages are a big problem, and when ie. woman are mistreat, there should be a divorce (or other reasons) but partner-skipping is not the thing that makes us happy.

That leaves the question if a truthfull gay couple is the same as a truthfull hetero couple. I can't answer that. It's to hard for me, and I think it's not my responsibility. Every man and every woman has to explain his or her acts to God. Not to me. If someone can explain it to God, it's ok with me.

This is of course because we are born with a sin nature. We did nothing to deserve this sin nature. The sin nature is there because of Adam and Eve's sin. Thus, every person is born with a sin nature that is a result of the sin of two people thousands of years ago, and as a result of THAT, everyone will go to hell.

Unless, of course, they become a Christian.

We got a sinfull nature by one man while we did not deserve that,
But God gave us a way to get rid of it by one man as well, while we didn't deserve that either.

Sounds fair.

But what about those that never heard about God, that were brought up their whole lives as, say, a Hindu?

I think we will all be judged on our knowledge.
If a hindu stayed truthfull to his believe, and tried to live the way he thought 'god' (the gods) wanted him to live, that will be good enough for God.

That's circular logic - one sins because of their sin nature, and one has a sin nature because of their sin. Does not compute.

It IS circular logic indeed.
I won't put that up as logic.
Pherhaps I just can't understand it, but please don't stick to the understandable part. Stick to the part that gets you out of the circular logic.

God died personal for our sins, so we won't be punished for that anymore.
It might sound odd, and in our opinion pherhaps God could have skipped the entire 'original sin' and 'pay himself for our depts' part, but that would break our own responsibility and it won't give us a choise but rather make us more or less slaves.

Or, take the example of an atheist. Most atheists arrive at their atheism through a form of logic and reason. Logic and reason are both natural, we are created with both. But, one can't really find God through reason or logic, but through faith.

I disagree with that.
Please let's not get into an evolution discussion,
but I morely see the big-bang / evolution theories to serve us firstly to imagine this world without God.
It has more to do with our hunt for indepandancy than logical reasoning.

No logica reasoning would ever get into an almost infinite chain of cause reactions by luck, orgested by natural selection out of nothing. But since most people say it that way, we take that for the logical explanation.

I think it's logic to search for a supernatural designer behind the universe. All people in all millenia did it. The egypts and tha maya's did that, while they got a very high advanced civilization.

Again, it's not logic that comes up with evolution and big-bang theories, it's the desire to be independant to God. The first sin was the sin to be independant in it's original nature.

But again, let's please not make this an evolution debate. We've had plenty of them, I just try to point out that I believe that 'evolution' is not the answer to 'logic thinking' but to 'independant thinking', our original sin.

there is no empirical evidence for God

The universe would count as evidence, were it not for the sake that people rather count that as a result of billions of years of random things than the result of a designing brain.

it isn't logical to say that because part of a book is true, the whole book must be true on the basis of that part or parts.

That's true.

But faith in Jesus Christ - that is, Christianity - is one belief system out of many, that has little to no degree of scientific proof, much the same as every other religion, and cannot be arrived at through reason and logic, also much the same as every other religion. On a purely objective basis, even a logical one, choosing Christianity is no more likely and no more helpful than choosing Hinduism, or Islam, or atheism.

Well, it's true that it's hard to say christianity is right or wrong. I think I can't prove that and I won't try it.

But I think most if not all religions are based on human indepenancy. Man has to live a good life to earn eternal live, or to return as a better man. In christianity it's not the man who has to act, the man has to let go and keep it up to God himself.

That's our original sin, we want to do it ourself. We want to decide ourself on what's good and evil. We want to live a good life ourselves. And all religions (even the RC church!!! good works!!! even fundamentalists: obey much laws) get back to that. Live to laws, live to ceremonies. live a good live. Earn eternity.

But the bible teaches us that we can't earn it. We just have to accept that Jesus earned it for us.

I know, all these words by me are not the prove or might not be the logical answers. But I try to reply to the valid questions your raised.

I hope you can see that that's what I believe.
I hope you will believe it as well because I'm sure it will make you a happy human. But, indeed, it won't make you a happy human if I shove it through your troat. Neither will homosexuals be happy humans if I shove an anti-gay thing through their troats.

Thus, all I can say to gays is that Jesus died for our sins, and God is the one they should explain their acts to. But that's not different than my case. I have to explain my acts to God as well. But all I can explain is that I failed, but that I'm happy that Jesus died for my failure.

CyberShy

[Solly]

In my opinion, homosexuality is wrong. It distorts society.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
No sin, no death.

So why do animals die?

Death is due to the way biology works. Infants just born have been killed. What was their sin Ckweb? Is being born a sin?

That sort of ridiculous claim is why I say there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

We all sin by choice. The Bible simply observes this fact.

The Bible says we are evil. Thats not a choice if its inherent.

Oh and if we are god's creation WHY are we evil? Why are we punished for being as we were created?

We are born into sin and a sinful world. We have a predisposition towards that sin because of our finiteness. It is not necessary that we sin though. Our sin results from choice.

Not if Jehovah has chosen to create us that way. Think about the consequences of these claims sometime.

We are born sinful.

We are inherently sinful

The world is sinful

Jehovah created us

Jehovah created the world

Whose fault is all that evil then, the creator or us?

These claims of evil have NEVER made one bit of sense.

God reveals himself to all people at some point; they are accountable to the degree they have received that revelation. If they choose to reject it and deny Christ, they have made a choice.

Tick tock. I am still waiting for this revalation. At fifty-one I have to think Jehovah is dragging his metaphorical feat. And I can't reject something I have no reason to believe in. I can't reject Jehovah untill he reveals himself. He still looks exactly like a myth.

For whatever reason, God has chosen to meet with humanity through faith rather than logic or reason (although a Christian is not required to eject these two faculties either).

So Jehovah has chosen to reject all members of the human that likes logic and reason and only accepts people that that takes things on faith no matter how illogical like claims that Jehovah is good we are his creation and we are inherently evil. That makes so much sense.

One might speculate as to the reason faith is of importance and the Bible gives us some direction in this respect But, I think, one of the main reasons faith is God's preferred approach is that faith is the great equalizer; all people are capable of it, regardless of their intellect. Not all people are capable of logic or reason; self-control; etc. etc. In this way, faith is non-discriminatory.

This is false. Completely. I and many others do NOT function on faith. We need reason. You are claiming that Jehovah rejects us for using the mind you claim he gave us. Again that makes no sense.

Ethelred will no doubt agree with you. However, I think an analysis of the claims of the myriad of religious movements proves that the religions of the world have varying degrees of plausibility, validity, and quality. Christianity, apart from any faith conviction, holds up remarkably well.

Ethelred definitly agrees with him. Christianity does not hold up well as this discusion on evil shows very clearly.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Didn't you watch Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus was hetero through and through . . . even got married, twice -- and the second time to two women not just one.

I didn't see that. No wonder people were annoyed.

I thought it was just one marriage that might be hinted at anyway in the Bible. Thats a Gnostic or Rosicrucion idea. Not sure which just that some thought Jesus married Mary Magdaline and took of for Northern Europe.

The marriage is the one where Jesus turned water into wine. The idea apparently comes from Jesus apparently being obligated to supply wine which would be the case if it was his wedding.

Don't blame me for this stuff. I didn't invent them. I am just reporting the ideas.

[Robert Plomp]

Death is due to the way biology works. Infants just born have been killed. What was their sin Ckweb? Is being born a sin?

That sort of ridiculous claim is why I say there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

the original sin is the cause of death.
not 'sin' in general.
a 'normal' sin will cause eternal seperation from God.
Well, in fact it won't. Denying Jesus and dyning God will cause in eternal seperation from them. But again, won't that be good for people who deny Jesus?

I'm sure people who don't want to follow Him are happy to be seperated from Him for eternity. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

It's like nobody forces you to marry someone you don't like.

Originally we were destinated by God to be with him for eternity. But, he gave us a choise, the 'tree' just stands for independancy. 'Sin' literary means "missing the destiny God gave to you" but if you disagree with that destiny, that's ok, you just get what you want: eternal seperation from God.

tell me ethelred, is it fair or not?
Do you expect God that he forces all of us to be with him for eternity? Would that be a good thing?

[David Floyd]

Actually not. The wages of sin is death. There is no equation to "hell." Sin causes the incorruptable to become corruptable. Therefore, death is the result of sin. No sin, no death.

Well, I would say that once we are forgiven, our sins are taken away, yet we still die, but we don't go to hell. In that sense, death equates to hell.

We all sin by choice. The Bible simply observes this fact.

Already addressed by Ethelred - basically, it cannot be our fault that we sin if we are born with a sin nature we don't deserve, and are created with a predisposition to sin. Further, when the Bible says that all people will sin, no matter what, there is no choice in the matter.

Correction: Unless, of course, God in his mercy saves you.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

God reveals himself to all people at some point; they are accountable to the degree they have received that revelation. If they choose to reject it and deny Christ, they have made a choice.

I don't see that this logically follows. A person who grows up a Hindu would not be looking for a revelation, probably would not recognize it if it came, and is secure enough in his beliefs that a competing religion is not going to win him over.

In this way, faith is non-discriminatory.

Just as some people have trouble with logical and reasoned decisions, others have trouble with decisions based upon faith alone. I am one of the people in the latter category, and I fail to see how God could manifest himself in a way such that logic and reason are useless and in fact point the other direction, when he created us with those two qualities.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy

the original sin is the cause of death.

So why do animals die? Then there is the fact that Adam and Eve as described in the Bible never existed.

not 'sin' in general.
a 'normal' sin will cause eternal seperation from God.
Well, in fact it won't. Denying Jesus and dyning God will cause in eternal seperation from them. But again, won't that be good for people who deny Jesus?

You can't deny something till you believe in it.

I'm sure people who don't want to follow Him are happy to be seperated from Him for eternity. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

How? How is it fair IF its a good thing to be connected to Jesus? How can a person reject someone they never even heard of for that matter much less people like me that haven't rejected him and just want some REAL evidence.

It's like nobody forces you to marry someone you don't like.

Thats a wholly modern example. Not applicable in many cultures even now. Heck even in Mexico and Utah young girls have been married off without their consent.

Otherwise its a nice example barring the fact that marriage is real and any reality to claims that Jesus is part of a Trinity is open to question.

Originally we were destinated by God to be with him for eternity. But, he gave us a choise, the 'tree' just stands for independancy.

Actually that is only your opinion. Many think its a matter of disobedience in the Adam and Eve story. To me there is no way to justify a punishment for all mankind on the decision of two exceedingly ignorant individuals. The whole concept is lacking in reason and moral justification.

It definitly is a violation of the principle espoused by Jesus of do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

'Sin' literary means "missing the destiny God gave to you" but if you disagree with that destiny, that's ok, you just get what you want: eternal seperation from God.

That is quite a claim you just made. Who has claimed they want an eternal seperation from god here?

tell me ethelred, is it fair or not?
Do you expect God that he forces all of us to be with him for eternity? Would that be a good thing?

No its not fair. Not at all. Here again you are claiming its the fault of Agnostics that Jehovah can't manage to be bothered to give reason or evidence so that knowing of his existence can be a matter of fact and insists that we must take things on faith even the things that are clearly false like the Adam and Eve story.

You can't make that one disapear by saying its just a story as Ckweb tries to do. That is the justification for the crucifiction. No Adam and Eve and you lose that. Well there was no Adam and Eve.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd




6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

For further reference and to engage in threadjacking.

The Prisoner Appreciation Society (Six of One)

http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/index.htm

One of the best television series of all times.

[Robert Plomp]

Ethelred, pherhaps you want to take a look at my earlier post in this thread as well.

So why do animals die?

the original sin is the cause of ALL DEATH, including the death of animals.

You can't deny something till you believe in it.

you deny it happened.
But let's say that *if* it would be proven this would be the case to you, would you be happy and thank Jesus for saving you by taking the punishment himself? Would you follow him in that case?

How is it fair IF its a good thing to be connected to Jesus?

if you think it's a good thing to be connected to Jesus it's obviously pretty dumb to chose against it.

How can a person reject someone they never even heard of for that matter much less people like me that haven't rejected him and just want some REAL evidence.

I adressed that in an earlier post in this thread.

Thats a wholly modern example. Not applicable in many cultures even now. Heck even in Mexico and Utah young girls have been married off without their consent.

That's true. But do you think it's good that it happens that way in Mexico and Utah?
If not, than you can't expect God to do the same, thus you will agree with the concept.

Otherwise its a nice example barring the fact that marriage is real and any reality to claims that Jesus is part of a Trinity is open to question.

Everything I say about God and Jesus Christ is open to question. I know that. But right now we wonder if the concept makes sence or not.

Actually that is only your opinion. Many think its a matter of disobedience in the Adam and Eve story. To me there is no way to justify a punishment for all mankind on the decision of two exceedingly ignorant individuals. The whole concept is lacking in reason and moral justification.

disobedience and the hunt for independancy are closely related in this. Remember what 'the snake' said to them: "Eat it, and you will be like God"
God knew what would happen if humanity would decide on good and evil themselves. (that is the actual meaning of the tree, the tree of the decision over good and evil)

I don't care if there was a tree and a snake and all that, the concept is clear.

It definitly is a violation of the principle espoused by Jesus of do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

God did not do anything on humanity but giving them a choise.

That is quite a claim you just made. Who has claimed they want an eternal seperation from god here?

They wanted to be like god.
That says it all. They had it all, but they wanted more.
Why does a child want to be an adult? To be independant of their parents. To make their own decisions over good and evil.

things that are clearly false like the Adam and Eve story.

If you say it's open to question, I agree.
But if you state that it's factually wrong....... you make your argumentation sound foolish.

But again, I don't care if adam and eve were actually there, or if it's a result of mythical history. I care mostly about the concept of independancy and the choise God gave to humanity. And even the resque plan he created in case they failed to choise right.

Here again you are claiming its the fault of Agnostics that Jehovah can't manage to be bothered to give reason or evidence so that knowing of his existence can be a matter of fact

we've been here before.
I will give you the same answer, even if God would ben standing on your toes staring you straight into the eyes you will still not believe.

There is the universe, you say it's caused by the big bang
there's the earth and all the habitation, you say it's caused by evolution
there are the books of the bible, you say it's mythical
there are witness, you say they imaginated all they say
there are fullfilled prophecies, you say it's pure luck, self fullfilling or you point at (yet) unfilled prophecies (Which is a valid thing of course)

If God would be standing on your toes, facing you straight into the eyes, you would claim to be dreaming.

Our argumentations won't "convert" you because you don't want to be converted. You want to be independant and you want to live your own life. You don't want anyone to interfere with you and make your own decisions over good and evil.

I leave that up to you. But please don't state that God didn't provide enough evidence.

People saw Jesus on earth, they saw all the miracles, but they still did not believe. Of course you will say those are mythical stories that did never happen. There is evidence, but you don't want to see it.

Ethelred, I really hope that God one day will open your eyes.
And if that doesn't happen, I hope he'll take your good deeds, or whatever for good enough! Because I hope you will be happy, and live a happy life for eternally.

But above all I hope you will one day give credit to God for all he has done to you.

I can't prove it, but I can tell you how it works in my life.
I can't prove my contact with God, you have to believe me.
I can't force it or shove it through your troat. Fortunately. I might do it, as failable as I am.

CyberShy

[Thucydides]

Going back to the original question, this is the answer I got from the fundie board on where the biblical basis lies for the homosexuality being a sin. As I thought, it apparently has nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah. It's all fantasy anyway, but since there's no point trying to convince anyone of that, I'll just give the verses given to me.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:21-27 They knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds bacame dark and confused...So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies...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.

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

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Thucydides

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

Female prostitutes could go to Heaven so ... Good thing !

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I don't see any quote about pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, scatophilia, Bushophilia.

Is only homesexuality a sin ?

[Thucydides]

I don't see any quote about pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, scatophilia, Bushophilia.

Is only homesexuality a sin ?

Probably, I'll have to ask the fundies that one. BTW, what's Bushophilia though (I know what the others are)

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Thucydides
Bushophilia though (I know what the others are)

It's very recent (two years).

[Akka]

Faith is not a result of choice. Faith is much like love, it's a deep feeling you can have or not, and can't be CHOSEN.

The analogy with the marriage was, indeed, perfect : you can't force yourself to love someone.

As faith is not a result of choice, then I can hardly see why anyone would be punished to not have it. That's dumb and make no sense.

IF the Christian's god exists, I suppose He would be much interested in the ethical and moral standard of the person rather than if this person believe or not in Him;