Was God wrong?

[Patriot]

Rebecca Hagelin
May 19, 2004

For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate over the redefinition of marriage.

Advocates of preserving traditional marriage, myself included, have argued that the fundamental building-block of every single civil society in the world throughout history has been marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman – all societies that have veered from this definition eventually vanished

Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier, safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional families that include one mother and one father.

To change the basic building block of society would result in radical changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250 passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.

Evidence from the Netherlands illustrates that when the definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as unnecessary – since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born to single mothers.

Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the federal treasury.

Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry, can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does it end? Why should it matter?

We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of marriage. But the basic question we must raise – the only one that really matters – is: "Was God wrong?"

Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.

Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is couched in moral terms – "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.

The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God – most seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for everyone to stop – stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:


And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong when he established marriage as the institution in which children are to be born?

God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence – much of which has been provided in this column – also proves that God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.

God loves us – all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of nature – created and defined by the Creator – are the indisputable evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.

To say otherwise is to declare God wrong..

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/rh20040519.shtml

[MikeD4o7]

1. You can derive morality without God by simply applying empathy and reason.

2. Possibly some of the adverse psychological effects of homosexuality just MIGHT come from the fact that they encounter homophobes pretty much every single day of their lives.

3. We're not an endangered species... people who refuse to or can't procreate should not be looked down upon.

4. Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier, safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional families that include one mother and one father.

I have a feeling somebody's being a little bit dishonest here. If she cited her sources of this research I have a very strong suspiscion that the results she pulled this from are from studies whos main purpose was to study contrasts between single parent families to two-parent families... not homosexual vs heterosexual parents.

5. We'd be in big trouble if we constantly looked to the Bible, especially the OT to determine right from wrong.

[eugene40]

For a quick answer,, yes god was wrong..... Wrong with what you may ask? Wrong with making people like her... who are narrow of mind and wide of ignorant speach... I mean i am getting sick of all of these threads on gays and marriage and the whole of it.... Gay people are people,,,, nothing less,,, they are just built differently and happen to be attracted to members of the same sex.. it isn't anything bad,, it isn't going to be the downfall of society as some people think,, it isn't going to lead people to incest and the marrying of ones dogs and cats... It isn't bad... It is just the way they are,,, and we as fellow humans should show compassion to that not judgement,, not ignorant hate... just let them be who they are,,, they do not try to change you so why change them.... The whole sanctiety of marriage argument is retarded,,, the divorce rate and the rate of adultery is staggering and increasing every year,... there is no sanctiety anymore,,, Gay marriage and gay people aren't going to ruin it,, they just want a chance to be able to show and recognize there love,,, who is anyone to deny love,,, and if there is a god,,,, certainly not he.. for if there is he,, he created love.... So can we please stay away from these threads and stay away from this disheartening bashing of gays and gay marriage and just try to be humane to each other...

[Fasdf]

Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry, can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does it end? Why should it matter?

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. And also proven to be stupid by people smarter than me.

Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier, safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional families that include one mother and one father.

It can also probably prove that they're healthier if the mother and father are married.

Evidence from the Netherlands illustrates that when the definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as unnecessary – since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born to single mothers.

Which is an increase of how much?

The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God – most seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for everyone to stop – stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:


Reinterpreting the bible isn't exactly something new.

[allan]

Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry, can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does it end? Why should it matter?


Wait, is she implying that God was wrong when he allowed incest to occur between Adam and Eve's children? Was he wrong about the plygamy that is rife throughout the Bible?

I mean if God is cool with incest and polygamy maybe he is cool with homosexual marriage? I don't see anything in the Bible condemning homosexual marriage. There are certainly passages condemning homosexuality, but not homosexual marriage. Maybe God is cool with homosexual marriage and the religious people have it all wrong.

So, the question is not, "was God wrong", it is "were we interpreting God's teachings wrong". Given the fact that it was in the 70s and sunny the first day gay marriages were made legal in MA the answer has to be yes.

[Seth928]

So God told this woman himself that homosexuality was wrong. The bible was written by men and men are fallible.

[Gale_Force15]

1. You can derive morality without God by simply applying empathy and reason.

2. Possibly some of the adverse psychological effects of homosexuality just MIGHT come from the fact that they encounter homophobes pretty much every single day of their lives.

3. We're not an endangered species... people who refuse to or can't procreate should not be looked down upon.

4.

I have a feeling somebody's being a little bit dishonest here. If she cited her sources of this research I have a very strong suspiscion that the results she pulled this from are from studies whos main purpose was to study contrasts between single parent families to two-parent families... not homosexual vs heterosexual parents.

5. We'd be in big trouble if we constantly looked to the Bible, especially the OT to determine right from wrong.

1.) *BUZZZ* Ooooh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. What do you think the world would be like without life after Death? Anarchy, thats what.

2.) This is because homosexuality is WRONG! It is not natural and you cannot say it is.

3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species.

4.) You have to prove that she can't prove it.

[Gale_Force15]

So God told this woman himself that homosexuality was wrong. The bible was written by men and men are fallible.

no, not written by men, SCRIBED by men. Dictated from God.

[BFPierce]

God wasn't wrong but your interpretation of him is way off base.

According to the biblical quote cited here, God created woman out of man and told them to cleave unto one another. But, at that time, who else did they have to cleave unto. The quote cited does not forbid other variations from this cleaving, it just speaks to these two people that have been created.

My question to you would be: Was God wrong when he created gay people? Why would he do that. Certainly the God of the NT was a loving God. Why would he be so mean spirited to create someone in a particular way that would cause them to be hated by others? Was God wrong?

[Gale_Force15]

God wasn't wrong but your interpretation of him is way off base.

According to the biblical quote cited here, God created woman out of man and told them to cleave unto one another. But, at that time, who else did they have to cleave unto. The quote cited does not forbid other variations from this cleaving, it just speaks to these two people that have been created.

My question to you would be: Was God wrong when he created gay people? Why would he do that. Certainly the God of the NT was a loving God. Why would he be so mean spirited to create someone in a particular way that would cause them to be hated by others? Was God wrong?

God didn't create gay people, they created themselves. free agency, remember?

[Redheat]

God didn't create gay people, they created themselves. free agency, remember?


:confused: How do you figure? We aren't all made in God's image? Or was that all a bunch of BS?

I don't believe God created hateful ignorant people,yet they exist. So if you are a human being and you believe God is the creator then where would you get the idea that God didn't create Gay's?

[Seth928]

no, not written by men, SCRIBED by men. Dictated from God.
The bible was not scribed all accounts in the bible are written after said event had taken place. The thing that is odd to me is that God would put out different versions of the bible. There are very few instances in the bible where it is specifically the voice of God. The entire new testament was written at least 30 years after Christ's death. By the way the book in the bible that condems homosexuality also condems eating shellfish.

[Gale_Force15]

I don't believe God created hateful ignorant people,yet they exist. So if you are a human being and you believe God is the creator then where would you get the idea that God didn't create Gay's?

God didn't create gays, or hateful ignorant people, just like he didn't create good or bad people. Remember I said Free Agency?

[Gale_Force15]

By the way the book in the bible that condems homosexuality also condems eating shellfish.

I don't eat shellfish.

[Albert]

Jesus said he could tear down the temple and build it back in three days. Did you think he was just talking about his resurrection? If everything in the Old Testament was perfect why did Jesus suffer crucifixion over changing it? In the days of Jesus lepers were shunned for it was believed that they earned their affliction by sin. Jesus rejected this belief. Can you honestly say that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Why would anyone seek the recrimination and scorn hoisted on him or her? If it were an infliction, why would God do this to people? If it is part of God’s plan, like how God makes some of us fair and others dark, then what business do we have questioning their desire to love?

[Gale_Force15]

Jesus said he could tear down the temple and build it back in three days. Did you think he was just talking about his resurrection? If everything in the Old Testament was perfect why did Jesus suffer crucifixion over changing it? In the days of Jesus lepers were shunned for it was believed that they earned their affliction by sin. Jesus rejected this belief. Can you honestly say that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Why would anyone seek the recrimination and scorn hoisted on him or her? If it were an infliction, why would God do this to people? If it is part of God’s plan, like how God makes some of us fair and others dark, then what business do we have questioning their desire to love?

God can only create, not control.

As for gays, they secretly love the attention they get.

[Fasdf]

1.) *BUZZZ* Ooooh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. What do you think the world would be like without life after Death? Anarchy, thats what.

2.) This is because homosexuality is WRONG! It is not natural and you cannot say it is.

3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species.

4.) You have to prove that she can't prove it.
I like how you make 1-3 and then post 4.

[Gale_Force15]

ook? er... what?

[Seth928]

I don't eat shellfish.
I'm fairly sure you're not gay either but where is your condemnation of Red Lobster.

[Texsand]

1.) *BUZZZ* Ooooh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. What do you think the world would be like without life after Death? Anarchy, thats what.

2.) This is because homosexuality is WRONG! It is not natural and you cannot say it is.

3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species.

4.) You have to prove that she can't prove it.
Well I can sure say it's natural. It occurs in other species outside of homosapiens. Another Patriot special served up to do nothing more but incite more of the same kind of hate that killed Matthew Shepherd and a host of other gays and lesbians, by denigrating and deriding us for being the way God made us. Disprove that.

[MikeD4o7]

1.) *BUZZZ* Ooooh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. What do you think the world would be like without life after Death? Anarchy, thats what.


If there is no morality without a belief in life after death... you need to explain why atheists and nonbelievers aren't statistically criminal.

2.) This is because homosexuality is WRONG! It is not natural and you cannot say it is.


Our closest relative, the bonobo (edges out chimps by a fraction of a percentage), regularly have homosexual relationships... it's not abhorrent in nature.

3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species.

Maybe it's natures natural way of population control without resorting to killing. You know what a problem for humanity overpopulation poses... homosexuality could very well be nature's response.... and it's a pretty damn good one if it is.

4.) You have to prove that she can't prove it.

No I don't... The author of that article made a claim based on studies that she apparently doesn't cite... We shouldn't accept her claim of the existence of these studies unless she produces them... it's not my responsibility to prove that those studies don't exist.

[Machiavelli]

First God was not wrong: the being that defines the parameters of morality can never be "wrong" if for no other reason than the fact that he has exclusive authority and power to define right and wrong.

Second: The Bible repeatedly denounces homosexuality (read Levitcus) not just once or twice, God makes a pretty clear stand on this one.

Third: At the time that the book of Levitcus was written, homosexuality was so wide spread in some areas that the survival of the community was endangered because of the lack of reproduction. What this means is that to the people writing the book their was more than just religion at stake, so even if you denounce God the validity of the advice is still sound.

Fourth: Stepping back from religion a little bit, love is learned. Simple as that. Just because one man might find other men attractive doesn't mean that if they spend time with a woman that they couldn't fall in love and have a heterosexual relationship.

Fifth: If you want to throw out God's law on social issues (and once you throw it out on gays, the rest will follow. Its a slippery slope arguement I know, but it is supported by histor), what will we use to define morality? Whatever feels good? Even atheist typically follow christian values because they are a part of the culture they grew up in. Throw away religion and our culture has no other system of beliefs to help define right and wrong.

[Fasdf]

Well guys, you heard it! Failure to ban gay marriage may result in the deaths of over 6.1 BILLION people!!!! Holocaust? PFFT! Soviet Union? CHILDS PLAY! Meteor crashing into earth? Don't make me laugh! Disease? War? NO! The way humanity will die out is GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

"3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species."

[Gale_Force15]

Well guys, you heard it! Failure to ban gay marriage may result in the deaths of over 6.1 BILLION people!!!! Holocaust? PFFT! Soviet Union? CHILDS PLAY! Meteor crashing into earth? Don't make me laugh! Disease? War? NO! The way humanity will die out is GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

"3.) And yet, if they are allowed to thrive, we WILL be an endangered species."

HAHAHAHAHAHA.. thats petty funny.

Anyway, god made us to be heterosexual. If you want to act like some horny monkey, then by all means go ahead. I have no problems with other people being gay, its just their marriage that bothers me. And if god wanted us gay, why did he create two sexes?

Our FREE ****ING AGENY!!!! GET IT THROUGHJ YOUR HEADS!!! WE make choices on this world that will decide where we go in the next. God cannot make anyone gay or straight. Gay people have either a testosterone Imbalance (males) or they have too much (Females). Now, prove to me why, if god makes soimeone gay, that person was nopt simply the other sex?

[Craig]

First God was not wrong: the being that defines the parameters of morality can never be "wrong" if for no other reason than the fact that he has exclusive authority and power to define right and wrong.

Let's step back for a minute, and perhaps you can start by providing conclusive evidence as to why God, and not any other of the ultimate divine realities, is correct.

Even atheist typically follow christian values because they are a part of the culture they grew up in. Throw away religion and our culture has no other system of beliefs to help define right and wrong.

The problem with this statement is that it presupposes that an absence of the Christian religion means that morality cannot exist. Simply because people lack faith in God does not mean that they cannot or will not choose to follow a system of morality. As long as parents continue to install values and a system of ethics into their children, and this in turn is reproduced, our society will have a form of morality.

[Machiavelli]

Some of the things that I said in my original post were misinterpretted so let me clarify.

Gays will not cause the destruction of mankind. That's not what I said and its not what I meant. All that I said was that in the historically when homosexuality becomes very popular it has negative effects on the community as a whole. Yes in the past SOME communities were put at danger of being wiped out due to the fact that homosexuality was widespread. Thats not an opinion, its a historical fact.Though this is no longer a threat there are still negative impacts to widespread homosexuality in a community.

Let's step back for a minute, and perhaps you can start by providing conclusive evidence as to why God, and not any other of the ultimate divine realities, is correct.

I'm not saying that my arguement applys only to God, what I'm saying is that humans cannot claim that they trust in a divine infallible power as Christians do and then claim that God is wrong because Christians beleive that God defines right from wrong. The same thing applys to all faiths that believes that a divine being defines right and wrong.

The problem with this statement is that it presupposes that an absence of the Christian religion means that morality cannot exist. Simply because people lack faith in God does not mean that they cannot or will not choose to follow a system of morality. As long as parents continue to install values and a system of ethics into their children, and this in turn is reproduced, our society will have a form of morality.

This is not what I said. I said that the RELIGION is necessary for the definition of right and wrong. Any religion can do this, not just the christian religion. Also your statement claims that parents can install values and ethics into their children, but without religion where will these values come from? Science? Or will the parents just make up the values as they go along? Without religion we have no values to instill in our children. Thats the point, you throw out religion, and you throw out whatever values or culture has left.

[allan]

Third: At the time that the book of Levitcus was written, homosexuality was so wide spread in some areas that the survival of the community was endangered because of the lack of reproduction. What this means is that to the people writing the book their was more than just religion at stake, so even if you denounce God the validity of the advice is still sound.


In other words, God does not denounce homosexuality, the idea that homosexuality is bad was dreamed up by those who wrote the book of Leviticus because they saw an alarming decline in their population. God was just a convenient poster boy for their beliefs. So, we still have no convincing evidence that God is against homosexuality -- instead we have an interpretation written by a group with an admitted bias.

[Craig]

I'm not saying that my arguement applys only to God, what I'm saying is that humans cannot claim that they trust in a divine infallible power as Christians do and then claim that God is wrong because Christians beleive that God defines right from wrong. The same thing applys to all faiths that believes that a divine being defines right and wrong.

In other words, atheists cannot claim that God is wrong? Is that what you are saying?

I'm not saying that my arguement applys only to God, what I'm saying is that humans cannot claim that they trust in a divine infallible power as Christians do and then claim that God is wrong because Christians beleive that God defines right from wrong. The same thing applys to all faiths that believes that a divine being defines right and wrong.

I chose to specifically refer to the Christian religion as there are some Christians who insist that their belief is the only possible source of morality, and all other religions must be false. Since I did not know if you believed such an assertion, I added the word "Christian". However, I include other religions as unnecessary to morality, just as I include Christianity. For starters, in absolute terms, there is only one correct religion, (or at least it is reasonable to doubt the possibility of two or more correct religions), and therefore the others are the construct of man. That being the case, it was also men who came up with the other conceptions of morality, since their appeal to a higher divine power is mistaken. Ergo, humans can and do have systems of morality independent of any religion. From a socio-biological framework, it is logical that human beings would create ethical and moral systems as they are in the interest of the individual and the species as a whole.

[Craig]

Our FREE ****ING AGENY!!!! GET IT THROUGHJ YOUR HEADS!!!

Our free ****ing agency? Perhaps you had forgotten the time God hardened the pharoah's heart? That is a good example of God's free will granted to man, is it not?

[eugene40]

In other words, God does not denounce homosexuality, the idea that homosexuality is bad was dreamed up by those who wrote the book of Leviticus because they saw an alarming decline in their population. God was just a convenient poster boy for their beliefs. So, we still have no convincing evidence that God is against homosexuality -- instead we have an interpretation written by a group with an admitted bias.


Excellent post,,, my compliments,,,, and it is the truth,,,, GOD didn't dictate the bible,,, It was written by men as a means of control over an ignorant populace to keep them in line with what they thought was right and wrong.
If there is a GOD and he gave us FREE AGENCY a you put it. And he knows everything,, he knows when we are born when we die he knows that I will spap my fingers right........ now then he knew that people were to be gay,,, he knew that when they were about to be born that they were going to be gay. And if he is against it,, then pray tell why does he let them be this way. why didn't he in his infinite wisdom didn't he limit this,,,, why didn't we here about it before christianity came to pass,,, It existed in every civilized society before christianity was even "thought up"
Now we know how you all feel about about gays,,, but a lot of us that are leading this argument against you people,,, are not gay.... So what do you think of us straight people that suppor gays.

[Independent]

Rebecca Hagelin
May 19, 2004

For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate over the redefinition of marriage. God is never wrong, but humans usually are. In the case of homosexuality, humans are slowly learning to understand God. Please be aware that the bible was written by humans, not God. The bible represents how some humans understood God, but it does not properly define who God really is and what she really believes. Each individual human must attempt on their own to understand who God really is and what she really believes in. In other religions, this could be defined as "enlightnment". The bible is a tool that can assist one in understanding God, but it is far from perfect and has many flaws because it was written by humans who are often wrong.

The main question here is, can humans accept the fact that they are often wrong and that God is not wrong? Can humans accept the fact that their understanding of God may be wrong? I think that it is important that people analyse themselves before accusing others whom they don't understand as being wrong.

[cpwill]

in the case of homosexuality, as in the case of adultery and sex with animals; God has made His Opinion clear.

i put forth to you that God being both the creator of humankind and Omniscent, if our opinion differs with Gods' then it is highly unlikely that it is His that is wrong.

it's sort of like if i, knowing virtually nothing about cars outside of the very basics; were to get into an argument with the man who designed and oversaw the production of my truck. which one do you think would be the expert opinion?

[Texsand]

First God was not wrong: the being that defines the parameters of morality can never be "wrong" if for no other reason than the fact that he has exclusive authority and power to define right and wrong.First you haven't proven there is God. Exclusive power and authority sounds as much of a dictatorship as what Hitler had in Germanhy.


Second: The Bible repeatedly denounces homosexuality (read Levitcus) not just once or twice, God makes a pretty clear stand on this one.

The Bible also denounces eating shellfish and pork, had any lately? Have any clothing that cotains a cominbation of fibers such as polyester and cotton? Have two or more different plants in your yard again a big no no and the topper is if you break one law you've broken all the law according to the OT which means if you've had any shellfish or pork lately you are just as guilty as the murderer or oop even the homosexual.

Third: At the time that the book of Levitcus was written, homosexuality was so wide spread in some areas that the survival of the community was endangered because of the lack of reproduction. What this means is that to the people writing the book their was more than just religion at stake, so even if you denounce God the validity of the advice is still sound.

I'm sure you can cite a source proving that homosexuality was so rampant that man's survival was threatened. The practice that was prevalent at the time Leviticus was being orally passed down as nothing of the OT was put in writing until around 900 BC at the very earliest, was the practice of using Temple prostitutes used in fertility rites for both the field and the female. And that is where you would find homosexual activity. The men went to male Temple prostitutes and surprise surprise that is exactly what most bibical scholars today believe was the impetus behind homosexual prohibition in Leviticus. The Jews weren't to defile themselves with pagan rituals.

Fourth: Stepping back from religion a little bit, love is learned. Simple as that. Just because one man might find other men attractive doesn't mean that if they spend time with a woman that they couldn't fall in love and have a heterosexual relationship.

Indeed stepping back from religion a little bit one can indeed understand that love is non gender specific. That two people of the same gender can love one another with the same love a heterosexual couple has. What a concept. In fact the real sin the bible probably speak of is the act of sex regardless of gender without love.

Fifth: If you want to throw out God's law on social issues (and once you throw it out on gays, the rest will follow. Its a slippery slope arguement I know, but it is supported by histor), what will we use to define morality? Whatever feels good? Even atheist typically follow christian values because they are a part of the culture they grew up in. Throw away religion and our culture has no other system of beliefs to help define right and wrong.
Well if your premise here is supported by history please by all means cite your sources. Odd there are plenty of cultures that don't have the bible that have survived just fine and will continue to do so. The morality and the bible are completely mutually exclusive as has been shown time after time in thread just such as this. I wonder what Jesus what think of Machiavelli's premise of the end justifying the means. Maybe a new nick is in order but then taking note of the massive amount of lies and deceptions practiced by the religious right I have no doubt what their motto is.

[MikeD4o7]

God also made his opinion very clear about his dislike for pork and witches as well.

[cpwill]

First you haven't proven there is God. Exclusive power and authority sounds as much of a dictatorship as what Hitler had in Germanhy.

first, i thought the topic of this thread was homosexuality within the context of an existant God (IE; "was God wrong" presupposes the existance of God). Secondly, God's power is not exclusive, He has shared it with you and i. thirdy, attempting to compare hitler's reich with God's kingdom is an analogy so flawed as to be faulty on a level literally beyond comprehension.

The Bible also denounces eating shellfish and pork, had any lately?Have any clothing that cotains a cominbation of fibers such as polyester and cotton? Have two or more different plants in your yard again a big no no and the topper is if you break one law you've broken all the law according to the OT which means if you've had any shellfish or pork lately you are just as guilty as the murderer or oop even the homosexual.

lol, you sound like you got your list from the good drmizer, he used to post the same thing repetitively.

but here's your answer; Jewish Law Code no longer applies, that would be the entire point of the new testament; to free men from such codes so that they could come to salvation. in ascertaining the correctness/incorrectness, therefore, of the homosexual act we must see where in the bible is it presented; is it solely found in the law codes, or is it a present thread that is continuous in both the Old and New Testaments? Is it in keeping with church tradition? Does it make theological sense? in all these questions the answer comes back in favor of the act of homosexuality being a sin :shrug: look, i don't like this stuff. quite frankly, i'd prefer a universalist God who just wants us to be decent friendly people, however, my wishes hardly alter reality.

I'm sure you can cite a source proving that homosexuality was so rampant that man's survival was threatened. The practice that was prevalent at the time Leviticus was being orally passed down as nothing of the OT was put in writing until around 900 BC at the very earliest, was the practice of using Temple prostitutes used in fertility rites for both the field and the female.

both appear to have existed, and both are condemned in the OT text.

And that is where you would find homosexual activity. The men went to male Temple prostitutes and surprise surprise that is exactly what most bibical scholars today believe was the impetus behind homosexual prohibition in Leviticus. The Jews weren't to defile themselves with pagan rituals.

then explain other references to the behavior, especially as they occur in the new testament, as well as the tie-in of homosexuality to adultery and bestiality; the OT text clearly defines homosexuality among the sexual sins; if it is also listed among the ritualistic sins, then i am unaware of it.

Indeed stepping back from religion a little bit one can indeed understand that love is non gender specific. That two people of the same gender can love one another with the same love a heterosexual couple has. What a concept. In fact the real sin the bible probably speak of is the act of sex regardless of gender without love.

A) this is a debate taking place within the context of religion, hence it's placement in the religion forum. arguing the need to "step back from religion" is admitting defeat within the context provided;).
B) love was hardly considered a prerequisite for marriage in the old testament. the thesis is flawed.

Well if your premise here is supported by history please by all means cite your sources. Odd there are plenty of cultures that don't have the bible that have survived just fine and will continue to do so.

in particular i would label chinese culture as having had a fairly continuous culture for well over a millinium up until the very beginning of the 20th Century.

The morality and the bible are completely mutually exclusive as has been shown time after time in thread just such as this. I wonder what Jesus what think of Machiavelli's premise of the end justifying the means.

as an individual who is defined by the fact that he allowed an evil to be done so that good could triumph, i think he would at least allow for it's legitimacy on a situational basis.

Maybe a new nick is in order but then taking note of the massive amount of lies and deceptions practiced by the religious right I have no doubt what their motto is.

that's me all right.... lyin to ya left and right:):rolleyes:

[Independent]

in the case of homosexuality, as in the case of adultery and sex with animals; God has made His Opinion clear.

i put forth to you that God being both the creator of humankind and Omniscent, if our opinion differs with Gods' then it is highly unlikely that it is His that is wrong.

it's sort of like if i, knowing virtually nothing about cars outside of the very basics; were to get into an argument with the man who designed and oversaw the production of my truck. which one do you think would be the expert opinion?It is the humans who made it clear that they were against homosexuality, when they wrote the Bible, not God whom they misunderstood. The New testament attempted to fixed some human flaws of the old testament, helping us to understand that we should love and accept other human beings, rather than attempting to force them to not share love.

[cpwill]

that's correct, humans wrote the texts, however, the New Testaments' message of love was not (as perhaps you are suggesting?) one of absolute tolerance for misbehavior, but rather of forgiveness for that behavior. no one is saying the bible teaches anyone to hate anyone, we're simply saying that the bible teaches that God designed sexuality to work in a certain way, and that homosexuality is a perversion of that way, as is adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, general lust, etc.

[Albert]

CP,
I believe that the central mistake is reading the New Testament as a fixed document. I have been struggling with Revelations for 5 years now without success. I finally decided to read all of John’s writings including the Gnostic Texts and while I’m still mightily confused about the details I believe that the writers of the New Testaments never intended for the writing of the Good News to end.

The other issue that I believe requires examination is the Old Testament equating of affliction with sin. The prevailing thought of the time was that the presence of affliction was evidence to the presence of sin. Unfortunately many of our contemporaries retain this belief.

[Independent]

that's correct, humans wrote the texts, however, the New Testaments' message of love was not (as perhaps you are suggesting?) one of absolute tolerance for misbehavior, but rather of forgiveness for that behavior. no one is saying the bible teaches anyone to hate anyone, we're simply saying that the bible teaches that God designed sexuality to work in a certain way, and that homosexuality is a perversion of that way, as is adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, general lust, etc.
If God allowed animals to practice homosexuality, then why should the same rule not apply for humans too? Humans are, afterall, animals.

Same-sex behavior DOES exist in the animal kingdom, for a number of reasons. Usually, it's either playful antics, or dominance behavior to assert hierarchy. For one male to mount, or attempt to mount, another male is a very powerful way to communicate his higher position in the "pecking order" of the community. But if you bring in a female in heat, suddenly the male-male behavior is abandoned in favor of the female.
Probe Ministries (http://www.probe.org/docs/e-homosex11.html)

[Independent]

I think that if God made the brains of some people different from other people, then we need to accept and tolerate the work of God. Why should one rebel against the work of God simply because of a book written by humans? There must be a reason why God decided to change the structure of the brain in animals (including humans).

Gay sheep may shed light on sexuality
Liberated Christians (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html)

Of course, some religious folks may say that some people were born "unnormal" and thus we should not tolerate their "unnormal" behavior. Yet, Jesus taught us that we should love and tolerate even thouse who are "unnormal". Maybe the reason why God created humans differently is to test our ability to love, tolerate and accept her different creations. My guess is our ability to tolerate the activities of people with different brain structures is what will prove if we are worthy to go to heaven.

[Independent]

First, on the matter of intelligence: We humans do have the ability to consider all the options before choosing the wrong one; our brother animals, meanwhile, are burdened neither by free will nor poor judgment.

Second, the notion that there are no "gay" dogs or cats — and by extension no gay fish, birds or snakes — invites additional scrutiny.

Some scientists assert that nearly 450 species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Others hesitate to use the word "homosexual" because they find it anthropomorphic. But there is no dispute that animals do engage, freely and frankly, in same-sex contact.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0304/07animals.html)


Humans are obviously very wrong with their idea that God is against homosexuality and have a long journey ahead to become as correct as God.

We need to attempt to look beyond the flawed human understanding of God in hope that we may learn to understand God. Unfortunately, humans prefer to believe flawed human logic rather than being tolerant of God's creations and this is demonstrated by silly religious wars in the mideast. This world would be a much better place if people focused on tolerating God's creations rather than destroying them or creating laws against them. One of the most absurd examples of flawed human logic is the forbidden trade of God's natural plants. Humans will never understand God and they often kill those who rebel against flawed human logic hoping to understand God.

[Texsand]

[QUOTE]
first, i thought the topic of this thread was homosexuality within the context of an existant God (IE; "was God wrong" presupposes the existance of God). Secondly, God's power is not exclusive, He has shared it with you and i. thirdy, attempting to compare hitler's reich with God's kingdom is an analogy so flawed as to be faulty on a level literally beyond comprehension.



lol, you sound like you got your list from the good drmizer, he used to post the same thing repetitively.

but here's your answer; Jewish Law Code no longer applies, that would be the entire point of the new testament; to free men from such codes so that they could come to salvation. in ascertaining the correctness/incorrectness, therefore, of the homosexual act we must see where in the bible is it presented; is it solely found in the law codes, or is it a present thread that is continuous in both the Old and New Testaments? Is it in keeping with church tradition? Does it make theological sense? in all these questions the answer comes back in favor of the act of homosexuality being a sin :shrug: look, i don't like this stuff. quite frankly, i'd prefer a universalist God who just wants us to be decent friendly people, however, my wishes hardly alter reality.
No Jesus himself said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The fact is Dr. Mizer was right you have broken all the law if you break one part of it. There are some serious questions about what the passages in Leviticus are referring to and most scholars agree that it is referring to the exploitve sex of fertility cults not the love that two people of the same gender can express. So the answer isn't as clear as you make it out to be. It's clear to you from the persepctive of homophobia that you will sit and deny till the comes home. A universalist God, I assume you know that is what the term Catholic means, universal. And I think that is precisely what God wants us to be else why would Jesus tell us not to just love our neighbor and those who love us but to love our enemies as well.


both appear to have existed, and both are condemned in the OT text.



then explain other references to the behavior, especially as they occur in the new testament, as well as the tie-in of homosexuality to adultery and bestiality; the OT text clearly defines homosexuality among the sexual sins; if it is also listed among the ritualistic sins, then i am unaware of it.


There were still ritual pagan temple right being performed in Paul's day and the guess what there were still fertility rites incoporating sex with temple prostitutes.



A) this is a debate taking place within the context of religion, hence it's placement in the religion forum. arguing the need to "step back from religion" is admitting defeat within the context provided;).
B) love was hardly considered a prerequisite for marriage in the old testament. the thesis is flawed.

Well you are so right about love not being a prerequisite for marriage in the OT sense but system of patriarcy it bred is still affecting the lives of millions if not billions of people. Don't be looking for a second coming anytime soon until more people can live what was taught by Jesus. He told us what to do and I'd say we're flunking the course badly. I somehow don't see a God that is that co-dependent to come do it all for us. And anymore than a parent can stop their child from suicide neither can God stop mankind from destroying themselves and the earth he gave to us to be steward of not dominion over. If it takes stepping back from religion to weed out the exetremists then that is what needs done. Otherwise we'll just keep barrelling towards the Armageddon that some think will mean rapture and a quick easy way out. WRONG.


in particular i would label chinese culture as having had a fairly continuous culture for well over a millinium up until the very beginning of the 20th Century.

Yes well there weren't nukes till then were there now.


as an individual who is defined by the fact that he allowed an evil to be done so that good could triumph, i think he would at least allow for it's legitimacy on a situational basis.

I believe he said that his followers were to take up there crosses and follow him which means they lay down their lives as well.

that's me all right.... lyin to ya left and right:):rolleyes:
No just lyin to yourself CP if you're lying to anyone at all. You want to call love a sin that's your problem not mine.

[DeathMonkey]

first, i thought the topic of this thread was homosexuality within the context of an existant God (IE; "was God wrong" presupposes the existance of God).


It is homosexuality within the framework of Christian dogma. It presupposes nothing about God or belief in one. "Was God Wrong?" is a leading statement asking if Christian dogma supports an anti-Gay agenda. Like many of Patriots posts, once you dig through the obvious bias and laughably one-sided language, lol, there is actually a point worth discussing.

Since I beleive God doesnt exist and that Christian dogma and Biblical rhetoric exists soley to control a large section of the population, and is a foul, xenophobic, corrupt parcel of lies designed to maintain a Patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic culture wherein the elders of the various Churches can maintain the enormous power they have had for centuries, then I feel I still stay on topic when I say that Patriots post and the subsequent replies illustrate my point completely.

In this context, Christian dogma is a convenient excuse for oppression, much like the anti-semitism of pre-war Germany (pre-Hitler - he didnt start it, he just seized on it as a tool for power). I think this analogy is apt, because if you read the political writings at the time, they are filled with "scientific proof" that the Jews were "an abomination, unnatural, animals: etc.

Whatever the true meaning of Jesus' words, people take them to mean whatever crap they need to justify. In this case, homophobia. No one really cares about God and Jesus, because if they did, they would see that there is no compassion or tolerance in Christian rhetoric. Its all cheap lip service, and, quite frankly, makes me vomit when I hear Christs name being used to incite hate, intolerance, murder, war, oppression, which, it seems is all it seems to be good for these days. Between Biblical rants against Muslims, Gays, Planned Parenthood, Democrats, etc I dont see what the great morality is that this invective brings to the table.

As an outside observer, I dont understand how a God of "compassion, love, and forgiveness" can inspire such awful treatment of fellow human beings. God may not be wrong, but you people certainly are.

[BFPierce]

Gale Force-if you don't believe God created gay people, then where did they come from? God made all the rest of us, but gay people came from somewhere else? How did they do that. Or maybe, you espouse the long since discredited moronic theory that gays make a conscious decision to be gay. Can you tell me why anyone would make that choice, given the high degree of anti-gay fervor that exists in the world? Why would someone choose to be hated by right wing idiots? Why would someone choose to be something that causes them to be discriminated against in nearly every area of life like employment, housing, marriage, etc. And, if you do believe that gays made a specific choice to be gay, then it is reasonable to conclude that heterosexuals make a similar choice. How about tell us about the time you decided to be straight?

[Texsand]

It is homosexuality within the framework of Christian dogma. It presupposes nothing about God or belief in one. "Was God Wrong?" is a leading statement asking if Christian dogma supports an anti-Gay agenda. Like many of Patriots posts, once you dig through the obvious bias and laughably one-sided language, lol, there is actually a point worth discussing.

Since I beleive God doesnt exist and that Christian dogma and Biblical rhetoric exists soley to control a large section of the population, and is a foul, xenophobic, corrupt parcel of lies designed to maintain a Patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic culture wherein the elders of the various Churches can maintain the enormous power they have had for centuries, then I feel I still stay on topic when I say that Patriots post and the subsequent replies illustrate my point completely.

In this context, Christian dogma is a convenient excuse for oppression, much like the anti-semitism of pre-war Germany (pre-Hitler - he didnt start it, he just seized on it as a tool for power). I think this analogy is apt, because if you read the political writings at the time, they are filled with "scientific proof" that the Jews were "an abomination, unnatural, animals: etc.

Whatever the true meaning of Jesus' words, people take them to mean whatever crap they need to justify. In this case, homophobia. No one really cares about God and Jesus, because if they did, they would see that there is no compassion or tolerance in Christian rhetoric. Its all cheap lip service, and, quite frankly, makes me vomit when I hear Christs name being used to incite hate, intolerance, murder, war, oppression, which, it seems is all it seems to be good for these days. Between Biblical rants against Muslims, Gays, Planned Parenthood, Democrats, etc I dont see what the great morality is that this invective brings to the table.

As an outside observer, I dont understand how a God of "compassion, love, and forgiveness" can inspire such awful treatment of fellow human beings. God may not be wrong, but you people certainly are.
You have said it all!! A standing ovation Bravo!!:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[cpwill]

CP,
I believe that the central mistake is reading the New Testament as a fixed document. I have been struggling with Revelations for 5 years now without success. I finally decided to read all of John’s writings including the Gnostic Texts and while I’m still mightily confused about the details

ah, well then the answer to this problem is education. the bible should not be read academically (that is, to understand) in a vacuum. for example; when you say "all of john's writings", are you aware of the fact that there are at least 3 separate authors in the NT that go by the name John? the revelatory john is not the john of the gospel, and the letters are split between two different johns. gnostic texts, similarly, would have a different author as well.

I believe that the writers of the New Testaments never intended for the writing of the Good News to end.

:confused: it hasn't, more christian books come out every year.

The other issue that I believe requires examination is the Old Testament equating of affliction with sin. The prevailing thought of the time was that the presence of affliction was evidence to the presence of sin.

and the entire book of Job is a rejection of this concept.;)

Unfortunately many of our contemporaries retain this belief.

it's not entirely without basis; if you are not living your life as your life is meant to be lived, it makes sense that things would be out of kilter. it's sort of like if you eat incorrectly you can hardly claim to be too suprised when you become unhealthy. not that this rule necessarily always holds true; there are many very good people who are suffering, and many very rotten people who appear to be doing just fine.

[Texsand]

ah, well then the answer to this problem is education. the bible should not be read academically (that is, to understand) in a vacuum. for example; when you say "all of john's writings", are you aware of the fact that there are at least 3 separate authors in the NT that go by the name John? the revelatory john is not the john of the gospel, and the letters are split between two different johns. gnostic texts, similarly, would have a different author as well.



:confused: it hasn't, more christian books come out every year.



and the entire book of Job is a rejection of this concept.;)



it's not entirely without basis; if you are not living your life as your life is meant to be lived, it makes sense that things would be out of kilter. it's sort of like if you eat incorrectly you can hardly claim to be too suprised when you become unhealthy. not that this rule necessarily always holds true; there are many very good people who are suffering, and many very rotten people who appear to be doing just fine.
You don't refute the argument at all then that people have problems because they sin, with your last statement and their problems in life are due to the fact they have sinned. The circular reasoning will make you dizzy.

[cpwill]

If God allowed animals to practice homosexuality, then why should the same rule not apply for humans too? Humans are, afterall, animals.

among the animal kingdom "God" also "allows" polygamy, Rape, incest, and the eating of one's own children. unless you are willing to accept the "naturalness" of this as applies to humans, i think the argument is flawed. we may be animals, but we need not be beasts.

I think that if God made the brains of some people different from other people, then we need to accept and tolerate the work of God.

agreed.

Why should one rebel against the work of God simply because of a book written by humans?

you are asking why we consider the bible to be an authority on the nature and will of God?:confused:

Of course, some religious folks may say that some people were born "unnormal" and thus we should not tolerate their "unnormal" behavior.

actually i think all religious (christian) folks say this; it is called the Doctrine of Original Sin, that we are all born sinful creatures.

Yet, Jesus taught us that we should love and tolerate even thouse who are "unnormal".

that's correct he did. however, he also taught that marriage was between a man and a woman, and that loving an individual doesn't mean having tolerance (that is, saying it's okay) for all their actions. quite the opposite, in fact.

Maybe the reason why God created humans differently is to test our ability to love, tolerate and accept her different creations. My guess is our ability to tolerate the activities of people with different brain structures is what will prove if we are worthy to go to heaven.

switch around "tolerate" for "love", and you are very close, with the exception that no one can ever "earn" heaven.

[cpwill]

You don't refute the argument at all then that people have problems because they sin, with your last statement and their problems in life are due to the fact they have sinned. The circular reasoning will make you dizzy.


oh please, how does the assumption that if people do something incorrectly they will get incorrect results become circular reasoning?

[cpwill]

No Jesus himself said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The fact is Dr. Mizer was right you have broken all the law if you break one part of it.

if one wishes to accept only the OT text, that is correct, however, if one chooses to accept the NT text as well, then one will notice such things as the letters of Paul and the book of Acts, which take issue with your claim here.

There are some serious questions about what the passages in Leviticus are referring to and most scholars agree that it is referring to the exploitve sex of fertility cults not the love that two people of the same gender can express.

most scholars? :rolleyes: which scholars. Anderson?
the clear opinion of the homosexual lifestyle as presented in the Old Testament is not only mentioned in several different contexts, it is also listed among the sexual sins.

So the answer isn't as clear as you make it out to be. It's clear to you from the persepctive of homophobia that you will sit and deny till the comes home.

no because homophobia requires fear, i find your blanket charge of bigotry to be not only rude and insulting, but also an indication to me that i am winning this debate. when one is forced to resort to such comments, one has usually lost.

A universalist God, I assume you know that is what the term Catholic means, universal.

no, actually, i mean universalist in the context of the modern psuedo-christian movement, this idea that "all spiritual paths are just as legitimate" refusal to define a faith etc.

And I think that is precisely what God wants us to be else why would Jesus tell us not to just love our neighbor and those who love us but to love our enemies as well.

this makes no sense; how does the charge to love even one's enemies somehow translate into having no problem with the fact that they are killing you? the two separate.


both appear to have existed, and both are condemned in the OT text.

There were still ritual pagan temple right being performed in Paul's day and the guess what there were still fertility rites incoporating sex with temple prostitutes.

that's correct, in particular Paul had this problem when dealing with the Corinthians (which is why so much of the 4 letters contained in the NT is on sexual purity) as it was a town largely of ex-soldiers and sailors with a fairly large temple to Aphrodite on Acrocorinth (which today houses the remains of a 13th century Frankish fortress, it's absolutely beautiful and if you're ever in greece i highly reccomend you go there; the scenery was something out of Lord of the Rings). i apologize, i thought that part of the discussion was limited to the Old Testament.

Well you are so right about love not being a prerequisite for marriage in the OT sense but system of patriarcy it bred is still affecting the lives of millions if not billions of people. Don't be looking for a second coming anytime soon until more people can live what was taught by Jesus.

:confused: Jesus said that no one knows the time of His coming, that while he was on earth not even he knew. i highly doubt that the timing of the Second Coming is dependant on us...

He told us what to do and I'd say we're flunking the course badly.

indeed, and as per part of this debate i'd point out that part of what he told us what to do involved defining marraige as between a man and a woman "for this reason God created them male and female, so that they might be joined".

I somehow don't see a God that is that co-dependent to come do it all for us. And anymore than a parent can stop their child from suicide neither can God stop mankind from destroying themselves and the earth he gave to us to be steward of not dominion over.

be careful on you'r applications of could v. would...

If it takes stepping back from religion to weed out the exetremists then that is what needs done.

:rolleyes:no, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater; sort of like if i were to say that because priests who are pedophiliac are harming children of the same gender, all homosexuals must be pedophiliacs and should be punished so under the law.

Otherwise we'll just keep barrelling towards the Armageddon that some think will mean rapture and a quick easy way out. WRONG.

lol, the only thing the rapture would let me out of right now would be a particularly nasty exam coming up that i am woefully understudy'd for:-)
as for the "barrelling towards Armageddon", that time has been fixed, and we are "barreling" towards it irregardless of our actions. the only way to cease would be to find a way to travel backwards through time.

Yes well there weren't nukes till then were there now.

?? what does this have to do with chinese civilization?

I believe he said that his followers were to take up there crosses and follow him which means they lay down their lives as well.

if necessary, yes.

No just lyin to yourself CP if you're lying to anyone at all. You want to call love a sin that's your problem not mine.

i don't "want to call love a sin"; i simply recognize that incorrect application of sexual love is a sin, as defined both biblically and within church tradition, and holds up under common sense.

[Independent]

among the animal kingdom "God" also "allows" polygamy, Rape, incest, and the eating of one's own children. unless you are willing to accept the "naturalness" of this as applies to humans, i think the argument is flawed. we may be animals, but we need not be beasts.Is it appropriate to compare the love between two adult folks with rape, incest or the eating of one's children? cpwill, how can one compare love between two adult folks with such things? The only difference between two homosexual and two heteral sexual adults loving each other is reproduction, not incest, rape, or the eating of one's children. Given the current over-populated state of the world, reproduction is not necessary. Thus, if one ignores reproduction issues, then there is no important difference between two hetero-adults or two homo-adults loving each other.

[MikeD4o7]

Is it appropriate to compare the love between two adult folks with rape, incest or the eating of one's children? cpwill, how can one compare love between two adult folks with such things? The only difference between two homosexual and two heteral sexual adults loving each other is reproduction, not incest, rape, or the eating of one's children. Given the current over-populated state of the world, reproduction is not necessary. Thus, if one ignores reproduction issues, then there is no important difference between two hetero-adults or two homo-adults loving each other.


Very true... there is no reasonable difference whatsoever. The excuse that it's not "God's way" is referred to simply because there's absolutely no reasonable objections to homosexuality that pan out logically.

Sort of like "don't eat pork".

Of course there's no logical reason for this... at least not nowadays. The whole thing came about because back when it was written, people were getting very sick from eating improperly cooked pork... so of course it came down as "a command from God". It's very interesting how there's an anthropological reason for all belief systems.

[cpwill]

Is it appropriate to compare the love between two adult folks with rape, incest or the eating of one's children?

no it is not, which is one of the reasons why i rejected your "animals-do-it-so-it-must-be-natural-and-correct" thesis.;)

cpwill, how can one compare love between two adult folks with such things? The only difference between two homosexual and two heteral sexual adults loving each other is reproduction, not incest, rape, or the eating of one's children.

if one is not considering the spiritual factor (or the health concerns) then this is correct.

however, this debate is specifically about considering the spritual factor, and so in this context, it is not.

[Albert]

ah, well then the answer to this problem is education. the bible should not be read academically (that is, to understand) in a vacuum. for example; when you say "all of john's writings", are you aware of the fact that there are at least 3 separate authors in the NT that go by the name John? the revelatory john is not the john of the gospel, and the letters are split between two different johns. gnostic texts, similarly, would have a different author as well. .
I believe that is subject to debate. The Style of Revelations, The Acts of Peter and the twelve Apostles www.gnosis.org/naghamm/actp.html and the The Apocryphon of John www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html have similarities where as John’s Gospel seems more reserved and less metaphoric. Yet it has been suggested the mystical qualities of John’s Gospel may have been heavily influenced by John’s writings.

What I was implying was that the debate we read in the letters of the Apostles was not suppose to be definitive so much as a framework for the advancement of our faith.

Certainly if a person abuses their body they would seem to suffer a just affliction. I equate the contemporary prejudice towards homosexuality much the same as the people in the time of Jesus considered Lepers. Unless someone can bring evidence that homosexuality is in fact simply a choice and not a predisposition how can I judge their conduct on moral grounds?

[cpwill]

the author of revelations barely even knew greek, furthermore, it was written well after the gospel of John. i am unfamiliar with apycrypha texts, and can't comment on them, but i do know that a central theory concerning the GJohn continues to elude scholars today. the tone, text, and theology of the GJohn v. the letter-writing Johns are completely different as well, specifically as concerns the end times.

on the choice; i have never said, nor do i hold the opinion that being attracted to members of the same sex is a choice. it is the fufillment of that attraction via the act that is a choice, and is the wrong one. lepers did not have a choice to contract leprousy, homosexuals have the choice on whether or not to engage in homosexual acts, the same as a heterosexual man has the choice whether or not to engage in adultery, even if he doesn't have the choice whether or not to be attracted towards his secretary.

[MikeD4o7]

on the choice; i have never said, nor do i hold the opinion that being attracted to members of the same sex is a choice. it is the fufillment of that attraction via the act that is a choice, and is the wrong one. lepers did not have a choice to contract leprousy, homosexuals have the choice on whether or not to engage in homosexual acts, the same as a heterosexual man has the choice whether or not to engage in adultery, even though he is attracted towards his secretary.


Yes, but in this analogy... the heterosexual doesn't even have a wife. As I understand it, the options you leave for homosexuality are "sin" or celebacy? Considering that homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex... isn't it more reasonable to conclude that they should seek loving relationships between consenting adults with the ones they're attracted to?

[Texsand]

no it is not, which is one of the reasons why i rejected your "animals-do-it-so-it-must-be-natural-and-correct" thesis.;)



if one is not considering the spiritual factor (or the health concerns) then this is correct.

however, this debate is specifically about considering the spritual factor, and so in this context, it is not.
Excuse me but you have stepped into some deep water spiritually CP by making the judgement that the love shared by two homosexuals is somehow evil or sinful. I think you better go reflect on that for a long while. You have no way of knowing what is in the heart and that is where God dwells. However it's real typical of the cannards that fundamentalists consistently throw around that amounts to nothing but a lot of self serving nonsense.

[Independent]

no it is not, which is one of the reasons why i rejected your "animals-do-it-so-it-must-be-natural-and-correct" thesis.;)
I agree with your argument on that point. :)

[cpwill]

Yes, but in this analogy... the heterosexual doesn't even have a wife.

:confused: yes he does, thats' why he's committing "adultery"

As I understand it, the options you leave for homosexuality are "sin" or celebacy?

not entirely. the options i leave for someone who has the desire to participate in homosexual acts is to either do it or not, with engagement leading to sin, the same as myself, who has the desire to participate in premarital sex with any number of the beautiful young women on my campus; i have the options of participating (and thus committing a sin) or not. homosexuals have gotten married to members of the opposite gender, and even produced children before.:shrug:

Considering that homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex... isn't it more reasonable to conclude that they should seek loving relationships between consenting adults with the ones they're attracted to?

again, however, we are left with the analogy of the man who wants to cheat on his wife.

[MikeD4o7]

I think the problem I have with the cheating on the wife analogy is that adultery obviously harms somebody. The wife is being betrayed. Two consenting people of the same sex performing an act of love doesn't harm anyone. I don't think that homosexuals have the choice to just "go straight"... so it seems like the only real option that christianity offers them is celebacy.

[cpwill]

Excuse me but you have stepped into some deep water spiritually CP by making the judgement that the love shared by two homosexuals is somehow evil or sinful.

indeed, however, as i am fairly confident in both my theologican and biblical backing on the matter i am unafraid to label what God considers to be a sin a sin. however, again, don't mistake the attraction for the act.

I think you better go reflect on that for a long while.

i have spent not a little time thinking on this issue, actually, as no doubt you can tell from this debate; just as you have obviously spent some time thinking about it.

You have no way of knowing what is in the heart and that is where God dwells.

what, knowing what's in your heart? that's correct, ultimately only you and God (and possibly not even you) know that.

However it's real typical of the cannards that fundamentalists consistently throw around that amounts to nothing but a lot of self serving nonsense.

which, even though it is nothing but a lot of self serving nonsense, i notice you are apparently unwilling to answer, taking instead my responses to independants posts, posting it en masse, and then failing to meet my points with counterpoints but rather avoiding them alltogether?;)

[cpwill]

I think the problem I have with the cheating on the wife analogy is that adultery obviously harms somebody.

not if the wife doesn't find out it doesn't.

Two consenting people of the same sex performing an act of love doesn't harm anyone.

so you would have no problem, then, with polygamy, incest, adultery, or even (assuming you're not about to edit and add the word "adults") "cross-generational relationships". ?

I don't think that homosexuals have the choice to just "go straight"... so it seems like the only real option that christianity offers them is celebacy.

there is plenty of history of homosexuals marrying members of the opposite sex, and even producing children; i wouldn't say therefore that the only option left to them is celibacy; however, celibacy is not necessarily all that bad; we also advise celibacy for individuals who find themselves attracted only to 11 year old boys, rather than participation in a relationship with "the people they love".

[Larani]

indeed, however, as i am fairly confident in both my theologican and biblical backing on the matter i am unafraid to label what God considers to be a sin a sin. however, again, don't mistake the attraction for the act.


Oh blibbersmaker. CP is truly respect your faith but a simple study of Anthropology and will produce much evidence that all your talking about is personal perceptions and beliefs that you have based on the bible.

I remember reading about one culture, one of the Island cultures can remember exactly which one. Where the Father sleeps with the daughter on the night of her period. Was this girl damaged from the act Answer NO why because it was accepted thus she was accepted by her tribe. In fact one could say she was more validated as a individual in the tribe.

You see as individuals what does damage to us is our perceptions not necessarily the act. We create evil, we define it.and then we express it and when we do we ostracize individuals, we shame them and guilt them try to convince them to feel bad about their actions.

Now I am not saying that some actions are not self-destructive but we need to stick to the rational reason why we have determined that such actions are self-destructive and just teach responsibility if a individual partakes in such behavior and the risk they take and if possible what can be done to minimize their risks not only for their benefit but for our benefit as well.

[Texsand]

:confused: yes he does, thats' why he's committing "adultery"



not entirely. the options i leave for someone who has the desire to participate in homosexual acts is to either do it or not, with engagement leading to sin, the same as myself, who has the desire to participate in premarital sex with any number of the beautiful young women on my campus; i have the options of participating (and thus committing a sin) or not. homosexuals have gotten married to members of the opposite gender, and even produced children before.:shrug:



again, however, we are left with the analogy of the man who wants to cheat on his wife.
No CP you are left with your analogies and your judgements. Something I believe JC said not to do. You'll be judged as you judge very simple really.

[MikeD4o7]

not if the wife doesn't find out it doesn't.


Oh come on... this is just nitpicking. It's a betrayal of trust and it's dishonest... both things I'm sure we can agree are immoral.

so you would have no problem, then, with polygamy, incest, adultery, or even (assuming you're not about to edit and add the word "adults") "cross-generational relationships". ?


Well, lets look at each one of these seperately. I will say beforehand, and this isn't going to be a likable premise... that with the exception of adultery, none of those are "immoral" per say...

Polygamy:
IF somehow there could be a relationship with multiple partners without the natural adverse psychological effects that are going to be there... then I say it's alright. However, that's very seldomly going to be the case. First of all you have power issues. Whether it's two men and one woman or the other way around... whichever person is the only person of that sex "sharing" the other partners almost inevitably has a certain dominance in the relationship. Dominance in a relationship is not good. That's not even to mention the highly likely issues of jealousy and favoritism that's going to occur. So polygamy isn't necessarily immoral, but it's an undesirable form of relationship... and it usually only happens in societies where there's a huge imbalance of equality between men and women. In a society where men and women are treated equally, I don't believe that it would be a problem.

Incest:
Interesting thing about incest is that one of the very very very few universal features of human cultures is that incestual relationships are taboo. To be perfectly honest though, I can't put my finger on it... I don't fully understand why we all feel that we shouldn't fall in love with our brothers and sisters, but every society in the world feels the same way. It could be something about life-long familiarity repelling attraction or it could be something else entirely. I think that this falls in the same category with polygamy though in the fact that it's not necessarily immoral (nobody is NECESSARILY harmed), but it also seems to carry inevitable adverse psychological effects. Perhaps it's biologically based considering the increased chances of birth defects? I don't know really... but once again I think this falls into the category where in a healthy society, this is always going to be an extremely rare occurence, and if in those instances where it does occur, the people manage to somehow sidestep the problems it comes with... it's not immoral... but I don't think that's very likely.

Cross-generational-relationships: Like the first two, but much easier to explain. Not immoral, just generally not going to be a healthy relationship. Physical attraction, things in common, etc etc... this just usually doesn't work. When we think of these relationships we automatically think of gold-diggers, because that's generally how these things come about. However... IF two people from different generations can genuinely fall in love and have a healthy relationship... I don't see it as being immoral.


There you have it... now if I ever run for office there's a whole slew of scandal for my conservative opponent to dig up on me.


there is plenty of history of homosexuals marrying members of the opposite sex, and even producing children; i wouldn't say therefore that the only option left to them is celibacy; however, celibacy is not necessarily all that bad; we also advise celibacy for individuals who find themselves attracted only to 11 year old boys, rather than participation in a relationship with "the people they love".


Nature vs Nurture I suppose. I guess some homosexuals can conform to societal norms even against their own instincts? Either way, I know that not ALL can... and to those people the only option is celebacy... which you're right, is not all that bad if it's a choice... but people can't help if they're attracted, or even if they fall in love sometimes... the complete suppression of otherwise very healthy feelings that could lead to a very healthy relationship is... well, unhealthy.

As to child molesters... Aside from the often-repeated fact that a child cannot willingly consent therefore somebody is being harmed with pedophilia... there is something else. A healthy, loving relationship has to be built on mutual respect and mutual understanding... this simply isn't possible with pedophilia, which is part of what makes it so wrong and predatory... the understanding of the very situation is not even there with both parties.

[Larani]

Polygamy:
IF somehow there could be a relationship with multiple partners without the natural adverse psychological effects that are going to be there... then I say it's alright. However, that's very seldomly going to be the case. First of all you have power issues. Whether it's two men and one woman or the other way around... whichever person is the only person of that sex "sharing" the other partners almost inevitably has a certain dominance in the relationship. Dominance in a relationship is not good. That's not even to mention the highly likely issues of jealousy and favoritism that's going to occur. So polygamy isn't necessarily immoral, but it's an undesirable form of relationship... and it usually only happens in societies where there's a huge imbalance of equality between men and women. In a society where men and women are treated equally, I don't believe that it would be a problem.

Actually power and control exist even in Heterosexual relationships between Husbands and Wives, in fact it is the marriage bond that actually allows such control to exist and what causes so many cases of Adultery. I know many will argue but once the Bond is formulated neither partner has the opportunity to freely choose to engage in sex with another individual hence the term monogamy, this dynamic then causes the person with the least desire to be put in the position of having power and control over the sexual relationship. The only option left to the individual without the control is either Divorce, Rape or Adultery and this is why the latter is so often employed.


Incest:
Interesting thing about incest is that one of the very very very few universal features of human cultures is that incestual relationships are taboo. To be perfectly honest though, I can't put my finger on it... I don't fully understand why we all feel that we shouldn't fall in love with our brothers and sisters, but every society in the world feels the same way. It could be something about life-long familiarity repelling attraction or it could be something else entirely. I think that this falls in the same category with polygamy though in the fact that it's not necessarily immoral (nobody is NECESSARILY harmed), but it also seems to carry inevitable adverse psychological effects. Perhaps it's biologically based considering the increased chances of birth defects? I don't know really... but once again I think this falls into the category where in a healthy society, this is always going to be an extremely rare occurence, and if in those instances where it does occur, the people manage to somehow sidestep the problems it comes with... it's not immoral... but I don't think that's very likely.

Earlier I posted a comment on incest and I think its relevant here. I quote myself," I remember reading about one culture, one of the Island cultures can remember exactly which one. Where the Father sleeps with the daughter on the night of her period. Was this girl damaged from the act Answer NO why because it was accepted thus she was accepted by her tribe. In fact one could say she was more validated as a individual in the tribe"

Now obviously this Tribe was unaware of the scientific evidence to support that incestuous pairings result in birth defects, but clearly no Psychological Damage was done because from the child perspective it was encouraged and was accepted and thus she was accepted as the New Women that she was. You see acceptance or lack there of is what causes the Psychological damage, especially to people who in their mind cannot find logical reasons for their lack of acceptance. Think of what it must be like to be Gay in our society. From their perspective they think and feel OK and yet they are sent a contradictory message from the majority in society that their are Bad, Evil and that something is wrong with them, Is it any wonder so many go nuts or commit suicide.

[MikeD4o7]

Actually power and control exist even in Heterosexual relationships between Husbands and Wives, in fact it is the marriage bond that actually allows such control to exist and what causes so many cases of Adultery. I know many will argue but once the Bond is formulated neither partner has the opportunity to freely choose to engage in sex with another individual hence the term monogamy, this dynamic then causes the person with the least desire to be put in the position of having power and control over the sexual relationship. The only option left to the individual without the control is either Divorce, Rape or Adultery and this is why the latter is so often employed.


True, power and control do exist in monogamous relationships... but I think it's matter of degree. In a polygamous relationship, I think a certain level of dominance by the person who "has more than one spouse" is inevitably going to be at at least a certain level. I think that in a one-on-one relationship, there's always going to be the danger of a power struggle, and it on some minute level it might even be inevitable... but I don't think it's not necessarily going to be on the same scale as polygamous relationships.

Earlier I posted a comment on incest and I think its relevant here. I quote myself," I remember reading about one culture, one of the Island cultures can remember exactly which one. Where the Father sleeps with the daughter on the night of her period. Was this girl damaged from the act Answer NO why because it was accepted thus she was accepted by her tribe. In fact one could say she was more validated as a individual in the tribe"

Now obviously this Tribe was unaware of the scientific evidence to support that incestuous pairings result in birth defects, but clearly no Psychological Damage was done because from the child perspective it was encouraged and was accepted and thus she was accepted as the New Women that she was.


What I said earlier I had learned from an anthropology book from a class I took a while ago. I don't think that the author was unaware of incestual sex rituals like that one, but that he was making the point that incestual relationships are taboo in every culture. I don't know for sure though, that's just speculation.

You see acceptance or lack there of is what causes the Psychological damage, especially to people who in their mind cannot find logical reasons for their lack of acceptance. Think of what it must be like to be Gay in our society. From their perspective they think and feel OK and yet they are sent a contradictory message from the majority in society that their are Bad, Evil and that something is wrong with them, Is it any wonder so many go nuts or commit suicide.


I agree very strongly that lack of acceptance is a major cause of psychological damage, and I especially agree with it in respect to homosexuality in our culture. The point I was making with polygamy and such is that they are situations or types of relationships that I think are more prone to being psychologically unhealthy because of their nature. I can't think of anything inherent about homosexuality that would make it prone to such damage... which is why I completely agree that it's due to lack of acceptance. However, I can see problems that I think would be more likely to arise in polygamous relationships... jealousy and dominance, for example.

[Gale_Force15]

I am going to say this for the last time; keep in mind I am Mormon so this may not fit together completely with the traditional Gospel.

WE HAVE FREE AGENCY!!! It allows us to do whatever we want. In no way can god change our minds for us. He can kill us i.e. lightning, hurricane, etc. But it is up to us what we choose. God Cannot tell us what to think. He can only suggest. Gays have made their choice totally of their own accord. Its this damn blame society crap that makes them think they have no choice. DONT BLAME GOD FOR WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS DECISION!!!!! God put us on Earth so that we could find out is if we are good or Evil by being exposed to both. Why do you think he put the tree right in front of Adam and Eve with a friggin' DO NOT TOUCH sign on it? Because he wanted them to start the chain reaction that would lead to the Angels to recieve a Mortal Body and learn what good and evil is. Homosexuals have all the choice in the world.

[Texsand]

indeed, however, as i am fairly confident in both my theologican and biblical backing on the matter i am unafraid to label what God considers to be a sin a sin. however, again, don't mistake the attraction for the act.



i have spent not a little time thinking on this issue, actually, as no doubt you can tell from this debate; just as you have obviously spent some time thinking about it.



what, knowing what's in your heart? that's correct, ultimately only you and God (and possibly not even you) know that.



which, even though it is nothing but a lot of self serving nonsense, i notice you are apparently unwilling to answer, taking instead my responses to independants posts, posting it en masse, and then failing to meet my points with counterpoints but rather avoiding them alltogether?;)
CP I've not only answered your cannards but shown how the bible is usually misinterpreted by those who have not bothered to learn the contexts or the times in which the bible was written. It's you that have ducked and dodged the issues by throwing a bunch of what I call junk religion that is self serving. Your response to most of the posts by myself and others consists of no real substance as usual with those who thin, their religious view are in keeping with what amounts to a branch off of Judaism and have no real inkling of what Judaism is.

It's obvious to me you've spent not near enough time thinking about the issue of homosexuality nor what God's intent is in regard to homosexuals,but then you'd just say who can know the mind of God and the next time you needed point to the bible and say that it represents the mind of God.

I don't think it's up to you to determine what the sins of others are. That was the whole point of the story of Jesus and the harlot about to be stoned again pointing to the fact that Jews believe if you break one law in any way you break them all and you better know that's why no one threw a stone at her. The fact is there are atheists that live lives closer to the one that Jesus lived.

[Fasdf]

Can I just make my own bible and prove whoever I want to be wrong? Any objections?

[Gale_Force15]

Can I just make my own bible and prove whoever I want to be wrong? Any objections?

Fasdf, don't make a mockery of religion. if it weren't for the bible the world would not have any morals.

[cpwill]

Oh blibbersmaker. CP is truly respect your faith but a simple study of Anthropology and will produce much evidence that all your talking about is personal perceptions and beliefs that you have based on the bible.

i'm not positive where anthropology comes in, this is a discussion on the religious aspect of homosexuality, so i'm unsure exactly what you mean on this.

I remember reading about one culture, one of the Island cultures can remember exactly which one. Where the Father sleeps with the daughter on the night of her period. Was this girl damaged from the act Answer NO why because it was accepted thus she was accepted by her tribe. In fact one could say she was more validated as a individual in the tribe.

oh, so whatever the culture finds acceptable is then alright?

[Craig]

We Have Free Agency!!!

Since you seem to insist upon shouting it out, I am going to insist that you respond to my comment from earlier on regarding the subject. Until you have a solid refutation of my remark, the "free agency" that you insist upon mentioning means nothing.

[Fasdf]

Fasdf, don't make a mockery of religion. if it weren't for the bible the world would not have any morals.
Hello? The bible is a book. Not everyone even knows what the bible is, very few even bother to read it. Not everyone is so pathetic that they need the rules on how to live in writing.

[cpwill]

CP I've not only answered your cannards but shown how the bible is usually misinterpreted by those who have not bothered to learn the contexts or the times in which the bible was written.

really? where? you've repeated the bit about the temple prostitutes a couple of times; i pointed out that the injunction against homosexuality wasn't located in the section of the text that deals with alternate religious services (injunctions against "high places", baal, etc.) but rather smack dab in the list of the sexual sins; rape, bestiality, incest, etc. you're answer to that was to repeat (again) the fact that temple prostitutes existed. you claimed that "many" historical or Old Testament scholars believed that this was the source of the injunction against homosexual acts, but when i asked you who they were, you've so far failed to name even one.

you brought up the point that temple prostitutes existed in NT times in greece, i agreed and expounded upon your point.

It's you that have ducked and dodged the issues by throwing a bunch of what I call junk religion that is self serving.

excuse me, but i fail to see how the ORTHODOX theology that i have used here is somehow "junk" religion or self serving. i would point out that, of the two of us, you have much more of a stake in the ultimate resolution of this issue, and that as your argument both goes against 2,000 years of church tradition, both the old and new testament scripture, as well as every major theologian to ever address the issue, and depends on a fairly round-about way of attempting to explain possibly one reason why homosexuality might have been considered incorrect (although the reason barely holds up, if that was the problem then why didn't the writer simply say "don't go to the temples", as he does so many times within the text? or even "don't go to the homosexual temples", that would have been enough. but he did not, he clearly identified homosexuality at large to be problematic, he placed no qualifiers whatsoever). keeping in this in mind; it would seem that if one of us's theology is self serving, and i gain nothing from my victory, whereas you would gain the ability to do what you want to without having it labled "sin" from yours, that perhaps it is not me;). furthermore, i find the switch from discussing the issue to the personal level both disturbing and humerous. honestly, i'll admit, i thought better of you.

Your response to most of the posts by myself and others consists of no real substance as usual with those who thin, their religious view are in keeping with what amounts to a branch off of Judaism and have no real inkling of what Judaism is.

so are you now attacking christianity at large??? if you wish to discuss the writing of the OT, i'd be more than happy to do so, in particular i'm fascinated by the blending of the JEDP sources (in particular i always get a kick out of the duderonomistic historian view point), the language alteration, the descriptions of God, the origin of the prophets, the actual collections of the writings in exile (also the birth of the talmudic/rabbinical movement), the motivations of the later speakers, the three Isaiahs', etc. did a bit of research once on the Saul/Davidic switch from a tribal confederation government (and it's corresponding theology of the "judges") to that of a united kindgom, and the textual and theological alterations that you can find because of the basic switch in worldview, but i'm afraid i've forgotten most of it.:o

It's obvious to me you've spent not near enough time thinking about the issue of homosexuality

why, because i don't agree with you?:rolleyes:

nor what God's intent is in regard to homosexuals,

well until you show me a decent reason not to, i'm going to continue to trust the experts, and the words of Jesus. silly me, trusting Jesus as an authority on the nature of God.

but then you'd just say who can know the mind of God

ultimately, nobody; however, he has given us a heckuva lot of insights; we call them "revelations", and the "fullest revelation" (that is, the best look into the nature of God) would be in the person of "Jesus". lesser revelation would come in the form of scripture and Holy Spirit.

so yeah, i feel fairly confident in my backing on this issue; furthermore, i have no problem stating that

and the next time you needed point to the bible and say that it represents the mind of God.

because, to the best extent that we have, it does. that doesn't mean that you can simply take anything you want out of it nilly willy; you still have to educate yourself on it, delve into the word, and read the histories and the experts; but it does mean that if you're looking for something to base a Godly theology on you won't find any better source.

I don't think it's up to you to determine what the sins of others are.

that's right. however, when God determines something is a sin, that means i'm not going to argue with Him.

That was the whole point of the story of Jesus and the harlot about to be stoned again pointing to the fact that Jews believe if you break one law in any way you break them all and you better know that's why no one threw a stone at her. The fact is there are atheists that live lives closer to the one that Jesus lived.

A) you can't have a relationship with someone you don't believe in.
B) you'll notice Jesus does not say the adulterouss' actions are correct, he says he forgives her.

[Larani]

i'm not positive where anthropology comes in, this is a discussion on the religious aspect of homosexuality, so i'm unsure exactly what you mean on this.

Yes I know the Thread title "Was God Wrong" but since I tend to view things with only my own perceptions God only knows I cannot fathom his / hers or its I tend to look at things through rational and logical positions.


oh, so whatever the culture finds acceptable is then alright?

That generally is the case YES. and if a culture finds for whatever reason that what was acceptable is overtly destructive and hence a mistake the culture generally learns from it and changes/evolves with the times. Sometimes though Cultures and their Offspring's can carry over and continue mistakes for Centuries even a Millennium or more, but we always maintain hope that in the end they will learn don't we and they do learn something new everyday, ah the blessings of a young race.

[Texsand]

really? where? you've repeated the bit about the temple prostitutes a couple of times; i pointed out that the injunction against homosexuality wasn't located in the section of the text that deals with alternate religious services (injunctions against "high places", baal, etc.) but rather smack dab in the list of the sexual sins; rape, bestiality, incest, etc. you're answer to that was to repeat (again) the fact that temple prostitutes existed. you claimed that "many" historical or Old Testament scholars believed that this was the source of the injunction against homosexual acts, but when i asked you who they were, you've so far failed to name even one.

A) you can't have a relationship with someone you don't believe in.
B) you'll notice Jesus does not say the adulterouss' actions are correct, he says he forgives her.
A. You have no clue as to what I believe in CP or why I believe it and it's not something I'll ever go into on this forum. B. I never referred to what Jesus said. I was referring to the culture that surrounds Jewish law. Which is if you break one iota of the law you've broken all of it.

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."

The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.

Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.

Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?

To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.

The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid. The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic preachers and teachers. The Gay and Lesbian minority in our society today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not "know" and control.

Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia) and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed against a small group of isolated strangers (like Gays and Lesbians today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or anywhere else in the Bible.

Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19. Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. Neither should we.

[Texsand]

Continued http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?

Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.

Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"

If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.

Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!

The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.

[cpwill]

Yes I know the Thread title "Was God Wrong" but since I tend to view things with only my own perceptions God only knows I cannot fathom his / hers or its I tend to look at things through rational and logical positions.

ah, well then, outside of spirituality (and, to a lesser extent, health issues) i have to agree, there is no reason to oppose homosexuality.

That generally is the case YES. and if a culture finds for whatever reason that what was acceptable is overtly destructive and hence a