Alright, I'll try to clear things up. Keep in mind that I'll be using my interpretations on the Bible, which are definitely not the same as every Christian's.

 

At the back of one of my Bibles, there is an index, with a list of passages regarding various topics. Under "Homosexuality", there are three sections.

 

Romans 1:18-32 is the first. "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

 

I don't really have a response to the first sentence. Even if heterosexuality is "normal" and "natural", that doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong. As for the second, the keyword is "indecent." It doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality is indecent. Just as heterosexuality can be indecent (Having "unholy sex", etc.), so can homosexuality.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is the second. "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

I think I've brought this up in this thread before, and it's pretty similar to the first passage. "Offenders" is the keyword, and once again, it doesn't necessarily mean homosexuals are offenders. It could mean homosexuals who offend, the same way heterosexuals can offend.

 

I really can't find anything in the third passage to do with homosexuality, though it does mention sexual impurity and stuff like that. It's 1 Timothy 1:9-11, if anyone was wondering.

 

(And there is a verse in Leviticus that I somewhat remember but isn't listed. I'll try to find it)

 

 

 

So it boils down to interpretations. Interpreted one way, it's easy to see why some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. And they may be right, who knows. However, interpreted one way, homosexuality may not necessarily be a sin. I may be right, I may be wrong.

Those churches are wrong, it's not in any of the commandments.

 

 

 

Not all churches are christian, I agree its not in there but Im not good versed well enough in scripture to say where that comes from.

 

 

 

It's Leviticus.

 

 

 

Le sigh. More encouraged flaming against the Church and it's followers. I wish we'd leave them out of this.

 

 

 

Edit: We share 50% of our genes with bananas because we're both carbon-based lifeforms. Don't get so impressed by genetic statistics unless you actually know the extreme difference small protein changes in the helix makes.

 

More specific it is the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah (Which I have no clue if those are the correct spelling) where god rained his wrath down upon the town of Sodom which was full of homosexually sodomites who were destroyed, this is taken by some to mean that god hates homosexuals.

 

 

 

1. I thought wrath was one of the 7 deadly sins (for some reason the 7 deadly sins make their way into all my discussions today)

 

2. The phrase "raging homosexual sodomites" are describing the population of the town, not the problem. If the bible said "the town was full of estrogen-ful black girls" would people take it as god hates black girls?

 

3. The town could have been worshipping other gods for all we know. They could have been extremely proud of their town, really lazy, really greedy, eat a lot, I guess there was already a lot of lust, took anger out on random people (and had a lot of it), and really envied Gomorrah. (In case you're wondering that is all of the 7 deadly sins.)

You know what I hate? People who say homosexuality is a sin and don't give any evidence just "God said so."

 

 

 

Also, doesn't God love everyone? Then He has to loves gays and terrorists. He just might not approve of what they do.

You know what I hate? People who say homosexuality is a sin and don't give any evidence just "God said so."

 

 

 

Also, doesn't God love everyone? Then He has to loves gays and terrorists. He just might not approve of what they do.

 

 

 

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept.

 

 

 

To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture.

 

 

 

I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke.

 

 

 

And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short.

The capitalization of God's pronouns always piss me off for some reason... :?

 

 

 

I don't think He'll approve.

You know what I hate? People who say homosexuality is a sin and don't give any evidence just "God said so."

 

 

 

Also, doesn't God love everyone? Then He has to loves gays and terrorists. He just might not approve of what they do.

 

 

 

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept.

 

 

 

To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture.

 

 

 

I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke.

 

 

 

And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short.

 

Yes, but "he said so" isn't a valid argument. I could say that "god said" heterosexuality is a sin just as easily as you can say the opposite.

I dont think it matters whether or not you capitalize god/God. Most religious people choose to capitalize God I choose not to capitalize god generally because I dont believe in any religions model.

I dont think it matters whether or not you capitalize god/God. Most religious people choose to capitalize God I choose not to capitalize god generally because I dont believe in any religions model.

 

 

 

I meant the capitalization of God's pronouns (Him, His, He).

You know what I hate? People who say homosexuality is a sin and don't give any evidence just "God said so."

 

 

 

Also, doesn't God love everyone? Then He has to loves gays and terrorists. He just might not approve of what they do.

 

 

 

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept.

 

 

 

To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture.

 

 

 

I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke.

 

 

 

And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short.

 

Yes, but "he said so" isn't a valid argument. I could say that "god said" heterosexuality is a sin just as easily as you can say the opposite.

 

 

 

That's why I don't make it an argument, luv, but don't hate on those of us who believe it in our hearts to be true. I know it doesn't hold water, and that's why I don't make that argument, but at least have a shred of respect and don't stab me (by insulting my God) when I'm very gracefully letting down my walls. (Not arguing.)

You know what I hate? People who say homosexuality is a sin and don't give any evidence just "God said so."

 

 

 

Also, doesn't God love everyone? Then He has to loves gays and terrorists. He just might not approve of what they do.

 

 

 

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept.

 

 

 

To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture.

 

 

 

I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke.

 

 

 

And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short.

 

Yes, but "he said so" isn't a valid argument. I could say that "god said" heterosexuality is a sin just as easily as you can say the opposite.

 

 

 

That's why I don't make it an argument, luv, but don't hate on those of us who believe it in our hearts to be true. I know it doesn't hold water, and that's why I don't make that argument, but at least have a shred of respect and don't stab me (by insulting my God) when I'm very gracefully letting down my walls. (Not arguing.)

Don't insult your god because it insults you?

But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short

My sounds kind of like an insult to, everyone who does not believe in god. You can't insult like that and then not expect some feedback.

Yes, don't insult my God because it insults me. I'm not insulting you by saying that any attempts to decipher the mind of God would be futile, for, if God truly does exist, then indeed, any attempts to decipher His mind, would, in fact, be futile.

I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture.

 

 

 

Sorry to butt in on a tangent, but that's not true. Social laws and rules seem to be based on biology. Take social exchange (reciprocation) as an example. This paper suggests that, although humans are usually poor at following the violation of conditional rules ("if P, then Q"), they're significantly better at it when it takes the form of a social contract.

 

 

 

Consider "if you travel to Boston, you use a cab" as an ordinary conditional rule, while "if you protect my family, I'll give you food" is a social contract. Logically they're identical, but for some reason we notice the latter form much better.

 

 

 

Why can we recognise the violation of the latter much better? There has to be some reason, and that's because it's hardwired into our brains to detect cheaters. There's a significant disadvantage when we can't detect when a fellow human rips us off, so natural selection favours the ability to detect them. This paper I linked to looks at the consistency of the effect, and it finds that Amazonian hunter-gatherers detect cheaters at a level indistinguishable from Harvard students, indicating an overarching, learning-independent neurobiological phenomenon.

 

 

 

Fascinating stuff.

I'm afraid I'm not much of a psychologist, Mr. Warrior.

 

 

 

Oh well. I don't want to argue semantics here. It always makes me frustrated. Since religions is a question of faith and not facts, it's infinitely hard to write out how those two inter-mingle, and I've already done so plural times - to no avail to stemming the inflow of liberal rebuttals and essays.

 

 

 

Religious arguments just get everybody steamed up, because the 'non-religious' person attacks on a very personal basis, while the religious person is generally called a 'bigot' if they attack said non-religious person on an equally personal level.

I'm afraid I'm not much of a psychologist, Mr. Warrior.

 

 

 

Oh well. I don't want to argue semantics here. It always makes me frustrated. Since religions is a question of faith and not facts, it's infinitely hard to write out how those two inter-mingle, and I've already done so plural times - to no avail to stemming the inflow of liberal rebuttals and essays.

 

 

 

Religious arguments just get everybody steamed up, because the 'non-religious' person attacks on a very personal basis, while the religious person is generally called a 'bigot' if they attack said non-religious person on an equally personal level.

 

 

 

It's just tough sometimes to have a serious debate with a very religious person.

 

 

 

Often times, the conversation ends when the "God says so" is thrown out there. It makes for a one-sided debate. I've experienced this personally in my life. One of my co-workers (who happens to be my boss) is very religious. We often get into debates on serious subjects, mainly about abortion.

 

 

 

I put a lot of effort into explaining my point of view on the subject. I'm not trying to convince her to side with me, but I do make very logical arguments about being pro-choice. After all of this, she looks at me and says, "It's a sin." And that's that.

 

 

 

That's the problem I think most people have with religious people: more often-than-not, they don't seem to comprehend the fact that not everyone believes in their deity.

 

 

 

But I'd never call a religious person a bigot just for being religious.

Yeah, well, not everybody is as open-minded, but at least I acknowledge that 'God said so' isn't a legit argument. It's enough for me to believe in the case, but it certainly isn't enough for anybody I'd be trying to convince.

"Right or Wrong" implies that there is a correct answer.

"Right or Wrong" implies that there is a correct answer.

 

Kind of the way things have been made. If anyone wants to have a stance on anything anymore then it has to be right or wrong.

Edit: We share 50% of our genes with bananas because we're both carbon-based lifeforms. Don't get so impressed by genetic statistics unless you actually know the extreme difference small protein changes in the helix makes.

 

Wtf. Since when were bananas alive?

Edit: We share 50% of our genes with bananas because we're both carbon-based lifeforms. Don't get so impressed by genetic statistics unless you actually know the extreme difference small protein changes in the helix makes.

 

Wtf. Since when were bananas alive?

 

 

 

please tell me that was sarcasm, please

Nope!

 

 

 

Bananas are actually machines.

 

 

 

Machines designed to KILL YOU.

Ahh, bananas are machines eh? They do have two parts: peel and the fruit inside. Together, they can also perform work by helping you slide across the floor faster.

I guess your right, humans are machines of the bio mechanical type after all

 

 

 

wow I feel like a nerd (lets see who recognizes that statement)

Ahh, bananas are machines eh? They do have two parts: peel and the fruit inside. Together, they can also perform work by helping you slide across the floor faster.

 

 

 

Inevitably leading to your inexorable death.

 

 

 

As for Mr. Canniball...I have no idea where that came from. o.O

Err...

 

call me ignorant,but wtf have bananas to fdo with bieng gay? :?

Err...

 

call me ignorant,but wtf have bananas to fdo with bieng gay? :?

 

 

 

Hello Friend,

 

 

 

Banana was once used by hindu god of love Parvati to satisfy oneself. Many then believe that banana sacred food and should only be eaten with eyes closed.

 

 

 

On the topic: In india homosexualls really bad, but only if out in public. We lock up bad man in basement of temple if found guilty.

 

 

 

Good Luck Bro.