Christian Trap...

[Dalton]

Okay. Read the entire untranslaged Bible. You will find homosexual and homosexuality never appear. Thus it cannot explicitily state that it is a sin, without there being a mistranslation.

This is like a fundamentalist saying that the phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the constitution. The fact of the matter is that that's what it boils down to. I remember that "no man shall lie with another man" appears in the bible at some point, which would boil down to "don't be a homo" - you can't say Jon is wrong because what you are saying doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that I support it in any case. Homosexuality is not wrong (hey, love where you can find it), merely unnatural.

[neoolong]

Okay. Read the entire untranslaged Bible. You will find homosexual and homosexuality never appear. Thus it cannot explicitily state that it is a sin, without there being a mistranslation.

This is like a fundamentalist saying that the phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the constitution. The fact of the matter is that that's what it boils down to. I remember that "no man shall lie with another man" appears in the bible at some point, which would boil down to "don't be a homo" - you can't say Jon is wrong because what you are saying doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that I support it in any case. Homosexuality is not wrong (hey, love where you can find it), merely unnatural.

Actually it's a bit different in this case. The only cases where homosexual comes into play is simply as a characteristic. Like saying cult prostitutes are bad. It isn't homosexuality that makes it bad. There is a difference between saying homosexual killers are bad and homosexuals are bad.

And the part where no man shall.... in context in means more than just homosexual sex. That's what I mean.

[Dalton]

Actually it's a bit different in this case. The only cases where homosexual comes into play is simply as a characteristic. Like saying cult prostitutes are bad. It isn't homosexuality that makes it bad. There is a difference between saying homosexual killers are bad and homosexuals are bad.

And the part where no man shall.... in context in means more than just homosexual sex. That's what I mean.

I don't get it. Are you saying that being a homosexual isn't wrong, but the actual sexual practice of it is, according to the bible?

[neoolong]

Actually it's a bit different in this case. The only cases where homosexual comes into play is simply as a characteristic. Like saying cult prostitutes are bad. It isn't homosexuality that makes it bad. There is a difference between saying homosexual killers are bad and homosexuals are bad.

And the part where no man shall.... in context in means more than just homosexual sex. That's what I mean.

I don't get it. Are you saying that being a homosexual isn't wrong, but the actual sexual practice of it is, according to the bible?

No, I mean that it is a characteristic that is used to describe an act that is viewed as wrong.

Here's an example. A Chinese guy kills someone. Now then, obviously the killing is wrong. But the argument used to say homosexuality is wrong in the Bible, would say in this example, that being Chinese is wrong.

There is never an explicit condemnation of homosexuality. And so if you take the Bible literally, when you do condemn homosexuality it would have to be in very specific situations.

[Jonathan]

This is like a fundamentalist saying that the phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the constitution. The fact of the matter is that that's what it boils down to.

Incidentally, I tihnk separation of church and state is a very good thing for the church as well as the state and exactly the way it should be. I don't want Tony Blair choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Christians shouldn't have extra rights to force their beliefs on others and just look what happened to the Catholic church when it had major political power. Corruption goes both ways. And Bush sucks.

I remember that "no man shall lie with another man" appears in the bible at some point, which would boil down to "don't be a homo" - you can't say Jon is wrong because what you are saying doesn't appear in the bible.

Cheers Rob. Nice to see that someone here can disagree and still be sensible. Even after years in ASVS :^)

Not that I support it in any case. Homosexuality is not wrong (hey, love where you can find it), merely unnatural.

It is against what God intended for us, which I believe makes it wrong.

[Jonathan]

Actually it's a bit different in this case. The only cases where homosexual comes into play is simply as a characteristic. Like saying cult prostitutes are bad. It isn't homosexuality that makes it bad. There is a difference between saying homosexual killers are bad and homosexuals are bad.

And the part where no man shall.... in context in means more than just homosexual sex. That's what I mean.

I don't get it. Are you saying that being a homosexual isn't wrong, but the actual sexual practice of it is, according to the bible?

The Bible is very clear that it's homosexual acts that are wrong, not feeling the temptation of those acts. I.e. beinga homosexual is not wrong, but acting on that is. It condemns homosexual acts as wrong in Romans 1 for instance. Or Leviticus 18:22.

[Jonathan]

There is never an explicit condemnation of homosexuality. And so if you take the Bible literally, when you do condemn homosexuality it would have to be in very specific situations.

Leviticus 18:22. Romans 1:26-27. Both very specific condemnations of homosexual behaviour in any circumstance.

[neoolong]

There is never an explicit condemnation of homosexuality. And so if you take the Bible literally, when you do condemn homosexuality it would have to be in very specific situations.

Leviticus 18:22. Romans 1:26-27. Both very specific condemnations of homosexual behaviour in any circumstance.

So can you read or only choose what you read?

I asked for the original text and in a direct translation to English dumbass.

I already know what those say.

[Hobot]

http://www.religioustolerance.com/hom_bibl.htm

It gives a very good break down of what the Bible says and supports neolong's position.

Basically, the Bible condemns going against one's nature (e.g. a homosexual would be going against their nature if they were to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, and vice versa for a heterosexual) and having sex with a man as if he's a woman (since women were seen as being inferior and would have taken a submissive position). The Bible never says outright about a monogomous, consenual and healthy homosexual relationship. It does condem homosexual rape, but that doesn't make homosexuality itself immoral.

[Jonathan]

http://www.religioustolerance.com/hom_bibl.htm

It gives a very good break down of what the Bible says and supports neolong's position.

Basically, the Bible condemns going against one's nature (e.g. a homosexual would be going against their nature if they were to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, and vice versa for a heterosexual) and having sex with a man as if he's a woman (since women were seen as being inferior and would have taken a submissive position). The Bible never says outright about a monogomous, consenual and healthy homosexual relationship. It does condem homosexual rape, but that doesn't make homosexuality itself immoral.

I've heard this argument before and it's wrong. Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

[Jonathan]

There is never an explicit condemnation of homosexuality. And so if you take the Bible literally, when you do condemn homosexuality it would have to be in very specific situations.

Leviticus 18:22. Romans 1:26-27. Both very specific condemnations of homosexual behaviour in any circumstance.

So can you read or only choose what you read?

I asked for the original text and in a direct translation to English dumbass.

I already know what those say.

You know, in civilised society, we debate without resorting to needless insults when we don't get what we want.

Did you ever consider that maybe I don't have the original texts, hmm? The translators did and unless someone can find a good reason not to, I'm going to trust them. You have failed to provide any argument to believe they made a mistake beyond saying 'they got it wrong'.

[Jonathan]

The problem is that you see death as the end. We do not. If the baby is innocent, it goes to a better place and God is right to order it. If the baby is not innocent, it goes where it deserves to go and God is right to order it. The problem is that you think this world is all there is and that this existence is the best possible. We do not. Therein lies the important difference.

Precisely. Your belief system condones evil by rationalizing it away in its own dogmas. That is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. The definition of an evil belief system is one which makes it possible to condone evil acts, and yours fits the bill perfectly.

But what can one expect from one who would have no problem slaughtering babies if God asked him to?

To call acts evil requires a system of morality by which to judge the acts i.e. you are judging one moral system by another with no evidence that the judging one is superior. From my perspective, your belief system is evil as it condones evil acts.

[Jonathan]

Okay. Read the entire untranslaged Bible.

Sure, I'll just get a copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek and spend a couple of years learning the language so I can reply to your post some time tonight/tomorrow.

Your claim, you provide evidence.

You will find homosexual and homosexuality never appear. Thus it cannot explicitily state that it is a sin, without there being a mistranslation.

Evidence? I'm going to trust the dozens of Bible translators on this.

[Hobot]

http://www.religioustolerance.com/hom_bibl.htm

It gives a very good break down of what the Bible says and supports neolong's position.

Basically, the Bible condemns going against one's nature (e.g. a homosexual would be going against their nature if they were to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, and vice versa for a heterosexual) and having sex with a man as if he's a woman (since women were seen as being inferior and would have taken a submissive position). The Bible never says outright about a monogomous, consenual and healthy homosexual relationship. It does condem homosexual rape, but that doesn't make homosexuality itself immoral.

I've heard this argument before and it's wrong. Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

What evidence do you have to support that it's wrong?

What is natural? Is it what we find in nature? If so, we find that over 480 species of mammals and birds exhibit homosexual behaviour. It is found throughout the natural world. By all accounts it seems natural. It would be unnatural for a homosexual to have heterosexual sex.

You can't claim to know what God intended. The Bible doesn't tell you, in fact it might even support homosexual "marriages".

[Hobot]

BTW, the word "homosexual" did not come into use in the English language until the 19th century. So any use of the word in the Bible is wrong.

[Jonathan]

Romans 1:26. Homosexual behaviour is condemned. It is condemned in the case of men because it is not the natural behaviour - sex is intended to be between man and woman. The same reason would make woman-woman sex wrong.

That's a cop out and you know it. The passage SPECIFICALLY refers to male-male acts. Not female-female.

Don't be so presumptuous. And I'm curious about why you think 'women' means 'male'.

Additionally, that's Paul's rantings. Not the word of God, unlike Leviticus supposedly is.

Paul writing filled with the Holy Spirit, being guided by God.

And most scholars acknowledge the Old Testament prohibitions towards man-man sex was in reference to it being a traditional part of Pagan religious rites, not any sort of romantic relationship

Forgive me if I don't take your word on that and reject your appeal to authority. The passage doesn't mention pagan rites, it mentions things that should not be done.

(since there was no concept of homosexuality until the 19th century).

lol, you don't actually believe that do you?

An alternative interpretation of the passage is that the "abomination" is actually two men having sex in a woman's bed, not altogether.

That's a stupid interpretation, especially in the context of the surrounding verse or the entire Bible. The verses are talking about who should have sex, not where they should.

[Jonathan]

What evidence do you have to support that it's wrong?

The Bible says so.

What is natural? Is it what we find in nature? If so, we find that over 480 species of mammals and birds exhibit homosexual behaviour. It is found throughout the natural world. By all accounts it seems natural. It would be unnatural for a homosexual to have heterosexual sex.

Quoting from my previous post:

Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

You can't claim to know what God intended. The Bible doesn't tell you,

Yes it does.

in fact it might even support homosexual "marriages".

It couldn't possibly.

[Rye]

Jonathan, what do you consider "natural"?

Bear in mind you are using the internet to post a reply to it.

[Jonathan]

BTW, the word "homosexual" did not come into use in the English language until the 19th century. So any use of the word in the Bible is wrong.

You do realise that the Bible wasn't written in Englsih originally, right? And so far I've given passages describing homosexuality, rather than ones that use the word. I can't off-hand think of ones that use it.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, what do you consider "natural"?

Bear in mind you are using the internet to post a reply to it.

For the third time,

Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

Are you about to point out that computers aren't natural? They didn't have clothes there either, but Jesus didn't have a problem with wearing them. I'm talking about natural behaviour here. How God wants us to act.

[Hobot]

Don't be so presumptuous. And I'm curious about why you think 'women' means 'male'.

Where does the Bible mention lesbian sex?

Paul writing filled with the Holy Spirit, being guided by God.

Paul also condoned slavery and misogyny.

lol, you don't actually believe that do you?

Why not?

That's a stupid interpretation, especially in the context of the surrounding verse or the entire Bible. The verses are talking about who should have sex, not where they should.

There are lots of places in Leviticus where it talks about where things should be done. RelgiousTolerance.org translated the passages in Levicticus from the orginal literally...that's pretty much what it said

[HemlockGrey]

Paul writing filled with the Holy Spirit, being guided by God.

Says him, of course.

The Bible says so.

The Bible also says that Noah was told to bring two of each animal onto the Ark; in the next chapter is says that he was told to bring seven of each gender.

Repeat after me.

The Bible is not inerrant.

You do realise that the Bible wasn't written in Englsih originally, right? And so far I've given passages describing homosexuality, rather than ones that use the word. I can't off-hand think of ones that use it.

Yep. It was written in Hebrew, translated to Greek, translated to Latin, translated to Old English, on and on and on. And yet, you claim every word is still exactly the way it was originally.

Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

Sadly, Eden never existed, you numbnut.

[Hobot]

What evidence do you have to support that it's wrong?

The Bible says so.

Where? And before you list the various places, make sure you look through all the passages explained at religioustolerance.org.

What is natural? Is it what we find in nature? If so, we find that over 480 species of mammals and birds exhibit homosexual behaviour. It is found throughout the natural world. By all accounts it seems natural. It would be unnatural for a homosexual to have heterosexual sex.

Quoting from my previous post:

Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

Again, you cannot claim too know the mind of God. The story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story; most Christians acknowledge this. Besides, the story doesn't account for those who are infertile, hermaphrodites, homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders. Don't tell me all those people aren't natural because they are. They don't choose to be the way they are, they just are.

in fact it might even support homosexual "marriages".

It couldn't possibly.

It very well might: http://www.religioustolerance.com/hom_bmar.htm

[paladin]

I was thinking about the "Christian School" thread and I realized that the thread provided the perfect opportunity to trap Christians with their own words.

You simply ask them "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" (An ordinary baby for the record, not an evil one.)

If they answer Yes, then they admit that they are sociopaths.

If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm sure most Christian's will try to wiggle out of dilema, but the trap seems pretty solid to me.

Thoughts people?

Yeah, you're lumping all Christians together with Fundies. Being a Christian DOES NOT automatically mean you're a Fundie asshole! Apart from that, it's a great idea.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

1. The baby goes to heven!
Does the baby want to go to heven? Does its parents? Why don't they have a say.

1. The baby will grow up and be evil.
You must then prove
A. God exists.
B. God told you to kill the baby.
C. God can see into the future.
D. The baby will unavoidably be evil.


Oh screw this, after all, God knows best, he's always right, and he also changed his mind about ordering us to slaughter unbelievers but he's still right and a 4 week old baby deserves to go to hell for something it MIGHT do in 20 years.