Christianity and Homosexuality

No, science does not disprove God. Nor does it disprove that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. How it was done is what is up for debate. And, archaeology has not disproven the Exodus from Egypt. Archaeologists continually find new cities and new information. Your false logic that the absence of proof is proof of absence is amusing. There actually is lots of archaeology information proving the Exodus. You simply refuse to acknowledge this information. Aside from your blathering, homosexual behavior is unnatural and sinful.

 

You assert the Bible is the word of God therefore, you need to prove your own assertion.

Science does not disprove God. Rather is disproves the Fairy Tales presented by the Bible. Man evolved from more primitive primates. There is no way you can shoe horn this fact into the Bible story of creation.

DNA, DNA Sequencing, and fossils, and radiometric dating prove that the Genesis creation myth is false.

The Exodus story is fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture.

As far as sin goes, if you cannot prove the Bible is the word of an invisible magic man in the sky who cares what the Bible says.

Given that the Bible promotes slavery, the selling of ones daughter as a sex slave, genocide, and so forth why would anyone look to the Bible as a basis for morality.

 

What the hell? I didn't MAKE any claims about Matthew 25!

Apparently you already know:

I am what?

 

How does it "CONDEMN" them? The Bible condemns ANYONE who is not a Christian.

"With the passage of time, some words change in meaning. There are many English words that have a different meaning today from their meaning in the past. We will cite a few examples of words found in translations of the past that do not have the same meaning today." https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...on4-why-so-many-translations-of-the-bible.cfm

 

If I have no position on homosexuality, or indeed "ANYTHING", then why the hell did you say that you don't share my "position on homosexuality?"

 

Oh. Does the Bible say something about anti-discrimination laws?

Yes, and you are correct. It would be TOTALLY unacceptable for a Christian to agree with the decision to fire someone for being gay, or for being black.

 

No. The vitally important message of Matthew 25, and the below statement, are totally non-contradictory:

The Bible says that EVERYONE, homosexual or heterosexual, are sinners, unless they have salvation.

I think that you mean, we are ALL sinners, apart from homosexuals. Given that you said:

 

So what you are saying is that previous versions of the Bible were incorrectly translated but this version is the true one...

F***ing absurd.

If it was once wrong it cannot be trusted as a source of the word of God — unless you are saying the word of God changes (or is incorrect)?

 

No, what I am saying is that over time, some words change in meaning.

 

If words changed that means what the bible previously said was not translated correctly.

How are you sure this meaning is the accurate one?

Do you believe the word of God changes over time? If it doesn’t how do the words that represent it change?

 

No it doesn't.

 

So how can two translations “men who lay with boys” and “men who lay with men” both be accurate? Do you agree those two things — child rape vs consensual adult relationships — are vastly different?

I see you have had to start editing down my posts to remove the more inconvenient parts — is this typically how you “destroy” others?

 

"Men who lay with boys" or "child rape?"

The parts which I cut out would only be relevant if I accepted that the Bible is incorrectly translated.

 

No, there is no evidence that man evolved from primitive apes. Not one shred of evidence. DNA sequencing is a myth. Fossil dating has been proven to be highly inaccurate. And, the movements of Israelites has no bearing on the Exodus events. What you are doing is the mistake that most make and that's taking observational science and recreating your own theory based on your own prejudiced starting point of atheistism. I have plenty of evidence that proves your assertions wrong.

 

Evolutionary Biology is real. It is taught in science programs at real universities.

Have you attended a real college or university?

If you have evidence that Evolutionary Biology is a fraud, present your evidence.

 

I know it's taught in our current progressive atheist universities. Shock, shock. No, evolutionary biology has never been proven to be true as well. The fact is, Darwin wasn't trying to prove this either. He was interested in the survival of the fittest. Certainly, human beings were not capable of surviving amongst the stronger and more aggressive animal kingdom. Yet, here we are. Now, do I believe in some form of evolution. Sure! We were once all just energy of intelligence floating around the cosmos. Our Heavenly Parents had spirit children and placed our intelligence energy in these spirit bodies of much finer material than earth bodies. But, bodies nevertheless. Then, we evolved even more when our Father in Heaven revealed his plan of salvation and eternal happiness to us while in our heavenly home. We would evolve by coming to this earth to receive our physical bodies that we would need to become as our Heavenly Parents are, glorified human beings. So, we were placed in our growing bodies while in our mother's bellies. We have evolved into gods in embryo. After our physical death, we will be separated for a time from our physical bodies but reunited in the resurrection of the body and spirit to a new immortal being. Some with the capabilities of becoming gods of our own universes and procreate this same evolution with our own spirit children. The evolution of mankind.

 

Evidence for the above claims is what exactly?

 

Children cannot consent. Thus child rape

If it changes from boys to men wouldn’t you say that is a change? Or do you believe they are the same?

You must have “missed” my prior post — or are you waiting to get back to your desktop so you can “destroy” me again?

 

Given the posters history it probably has something to do with Latter-day Saints.

 

Makes sense.

• I was in my room one night.
• Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
• Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
• He tells me an amazing story.
• He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
• On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
• These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
• Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
• Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
• Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
• I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
• And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
• I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

 

At the time of writing?

Men lying with boys was obviously more common at the time of writing. Today, men lying with men is more common than it was back then. You also have to ask yourself, if it meant men lying with boys, why didn't it include men lying with girls? Was one acceptable but not the other?

Which post do you think I missed?

 

@WillReadmore , perhaps you are OUT!

 

It doesn’t matter what was more common — it matters what was written. How does the passage change from boys to men?

Do you agree those are substantially different age groups?

As to why girls were not included — have you read the Bible? Females in general were basically considered property, there are numerous penalties for women that did not apply to men — that it was applied to girls isn’t that much of a stretch.

 

And as for the lack of 'age of consent' in the Bible?