Holy Bible condemns homosexuality? YES!

To a perfectly holy God, all sins are equal. Perfect holiness is what Christians are commanded to strive towards. Your obsession with ranking sins is itself a violation of God's commandments. Ironically, this particular violation is one for which a movement exists attempting to justify it. Your own sin is one that is being widely promoted in modern times and excused, JUST LIKE GAY SEX! And as long as you refuse to repent because you have been convinced it is not a sin, you remain just as guilty, in God's eyes as the homo caught in that exact same trap, and until you realize that it is a sin and repent for it, you have no hope for salvation.

 

So if the Bible doesn't expressly call something good, it's bad? Really?

I wonder what God thinks of Tivo. Or NASCAR.

You'd think if being gay was such a big deal to God, then Jesus would have talked about it more.

 

Well of course God loves NASCAR. They say a prayer before every race.

 

But it's not expressly approved of in the Bible. Per Neutral's logic, that means NASCAR is as bad as being gay.

 

Well of course God condemned gays. That's all over the Bible. Don't you mean Jesus?

 

The classic "God hates gays" Bible verses are from Leviticus 18:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NIV

It's a strange chapter. It's mostly about sexual behavior, but all the behaviors are condemned equally. So the following are all apparently on the same moral footing:

1. Homosexuality;
2. Incest;
3. Bestiality;
4. Adultery;
5. Having sex during your period.
6. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek.

Does anyone see some flaws in the moral equivalencies here? Is having sex during your period really as bad as, say, adultery? And isn't *killing your children for human sacrifice* pretty much hands down the winner of bad things?

And what's even more awesome is that the human sacrifice bit isn't condemned because it's morally repulsive to slaughter kids -- it's condemned because it's venerating a different god. The God of the Israelites was apparently pretty self-centered.

 

Not as self centered as atheists.

Does anyone else see the flaw with simply declaring something moral and than insulting people who do not agree with your assessment?

Arrogance indeed.

 

The Holy Bible also tells you to stone your smart mouth kid to death.

Please pardon me if I don't follow all biblical commands unconditionally. I think I will now go and have a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich.

 

Does it?

Because NASCAR is listed as a sin is it? JUST LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY?

As per atheist logic, there is no need to referrence actual evidence and strawmen will suffice.

 

And even if you can explain away Leviticus 18, let's not forget that it's just one chapter in a whole book of "shalt nots." And most of them are very weird by modern standards. Let's look at Chapt er 19, for example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19&version=NIV

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

20 If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[a] Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

23 When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the Lord your God.

26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

Do not practice divination or seek omens.

27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.


Like I asked the OP: Why should we pay attention to Leviticus 18, when we ignore Leviticus 19?

 

That is most, eh?

And what we fail entirely to mention is the difference between the Low Law, or Mosaic Law, and the higher law or clarifications as given by Jesus. Adultry is STILL wrong, but not punishable by stoning. Homosexuality is STILL wrong, but not punishable by stoning. What is certainly isn't, whether religious or otherwise, is the exact same thing with the exact same effects as heterosexual marriage.

Partial quotes and deliberate ignorance of our faith is not a very good reason to demand that religious people accept your morality without actually supporting YOUR morality.

 

You said: "Show me the part where he says its good and should be accepted."

I responded that that's a lousy basis for condemning something, since the Bible is silent on many, many things -- like NASCAR.

If you now agree that the simple absence of affirmation is not sufficient basis to assume something is condemned, can we move on to you showing me where God -- not Paul -- condemned homosexuality? We can then explore the problems surrounding those verses.

I've given you one example already -- Leviticus 18 -- along with the problem of trying to use it to say God hates gays.

 

They killed him for denouncing WHAT things?

haha, I doubt you haven't lied since being a kid, but you're ignoring the obvious point, which is that there are all types of sin that you are committing on a daily basis. You have lustful thoughts, I'm sure, and Jesus said that even THINKING those things is as bad as actually doing them. So, if you have a single dirty thought about a woman you're not married to, if you're married or she's married, it's as bad as adultery. And either way, it's a sin, and I'm sure you're doing other sins on a regular basis, no matter how small YOU consider them because you like to cherry pick. Pretty much everything is a sin, so don't be a holier-than-thou hypocrite.

And how am I a hypocrite?

You're right, it is what it is - not what you cherry pick from it in a self righteous manner.

Uh, are you telling me you don't know that Jesus calls divorce a sin? lol

Let me educate you on both divorce and adultery, since you've already committed adultery in your heart.

 

So your contention is that all the stuff in Leviticus is still wrong, we just don't kill people for it. Is that correct?

So, for instance, mixing grains in a field, or fibers in a coat, is a sin?

And so is cutting the hair at the sides of your head or clipping off the edges of your beard?

 

LOL. Yea the whole thing seems pretty silly. I'm not sure how anyone can believe that stuff.

But since they do, I am satisfied only pointing out their errors within the confines of Christian theology. Of course gay is a sin. But piling on the gays as if that's the only sin is also a sin. And it is one which they attempt to justify and refuse to acknowledge as a sin. Very dangerous since that attitude undermines any hope of salvation.

Christians like Neutral and 4horseman believe that they are smarter than God and can disregard His Word where it suits them. Woe.

 

The Bible is so subjective that you can justify just about anything by it. How many versions of the Bible are out there? How many differing inclusions and exclusions of canon? How many different sects of Christianity are there?

To use the Bible as the definitive on anything just seems ridiculous to me given that Christians are so divided on the point of Biblical canon. Not to mention that the Bible contradicts its self allover the place and different interpretations are often used to reinforce mans views not God's (IMO).

A Bible in the hand of a humble Christian is a powerful force for good... but in the hand of a poser (most Christians IMO) it becomes a justification for man made hate devoid of God's will. Again just my opinion.

 

Paul is an apostle of God kiddo. His words are in the Bible for a reason, and we are not going to reject his teaching, which also say, "Don;t sacrifice your children," because an atheist doesn;t consider Paul to be a discerning enough source on the word of God. The people who created Biblical Canon, disagree ... as do all Christians who accept these teachings as authentic in their representation of God.

Its your own deliberate ignorance that stands in the way.

Just as, when something is expressly banned in both old and new testaments, somehow isn't a sin because an atheist wants to twist other people's clearly expressed faith to make a lciam that something is actually moral ... without demonstrating why its actually moral.

Its called being an overt hypocrite.

 

As the writer Anne Lamott wrote:


You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

 

Oh, that is what we are doing, when we remind people that homosexuality is indeed a sin, we are picking and choosing. Because lying is not a sin now? That is what we are claiming?

Atheists just don;t like it when people disagree with them, and they resort to petty pot shots when they are clearly wrong. Because for atheists, having to acknowledge you are wrong is about the eqivalent of having to renounce faith in a Christian. Gotcha.

 

Don;t let actual religious stances get in the way of yoru hate fest.

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

Right, the ready resort to, "If you don;t agree with me, its because you are a bigot - even as I deliberately misquote you and your position, its actually YOU, not ME, never me, that is the bigot."

Now do you understand why I resist the whole gay marriage thing? Pretty much the same reason I resist other forms of emotional blackmail ... like McCarthyism, and the Islamophobic BS that dumped out there far too often.

Ignorance and belittling of others is a BAD basis for policy.

 

You have already expressed a belief in evolution, which clearly goes against the Word of God. You believe you are smarter than God and can ignore His Word where you see fit.

If I were you, and I actually believed that stuff, I would not be arbitrarily blotting out certain parts of God's Word which were inconvenient in my human opinion. God's opinion would be all that mattered to me.

LOL I love Christians who interpret the "Be Christlike" command as a justification for their own blasphemy.

 

He's still a man, and not a perfect one like Jesus. His words are not as authoritative as God's own.

Um.... the bit about sacrificing kids came from Leviticus, not Paul.

The Bible is meant to be studied and *thought* about -- especially because it is self-contradictory in many places, allegorical in others, and clearly historical (i.e., describing past practice, not prescribing current behavior) in yet others. It is not a "Because the Bible says so" user manual.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I haven't asserted anything was moral/immoral except for human sacrifice, and I don't think I need to explain why that's immoral. I did suggest that "sex during period", "human sacrifice" and "being gay" are not equally immoral, but again, I don't think that requires much explanation.

Mostly, I'm asking how you square the circle of citing the Bible when it supports your beliefs (Leviticus 18, for example) while ignoring it when it becomes inconvenient (Leviticus 19).

If you could give a concrete example of my hypocrisy, it would help me understand what you're trying to say.

 

Undoubtedly, but if the only reason YOU think he is wrong is because you want him to be? And given that we have specific guidance from Jesus himself about fakiles and the gender roles of mothers and fathers, it stands to reason that Paul is no more wrong about homosexuality then he is about the scrifice of children.

That you want him to be? Well, attempt to make a case that he is ... and you will see why his tecahings made the cut to be in the Canon.

Irrelevant. They are both wrong.

Atheists often do this, but what they ignore is context, and actual demonstrated changes in verses. Such as ... lower and higher law and the specific circumstances that are .. ignored.

Yes, when your intent is to deliberately obfuscate something through deliberate ignorance and ever changing standards, then you can indeed confuse anything ... at least for yourself.

And that point has already been conceeded, when, I specifically, put it in the same category as adultry and beastiality, where you will find it listed in Leviticus as well will you not?

Again, you are using partial quotes and abject silliness to not make a case.

Why ANYONE would support gay marriage on such a spurious basis is beyond me ... unless of course the whole point is that the issue has a lot of religious support against it and atheists, being driven by nihilism, will just blindly support anything than gives them a tool to bash religion on.

Which would explain the utter and complete failure to actually make a case that homosexuality is moral, that it is actually the equal of heterosexual marriage, and thus should be treated that way.

That has been answered. You simply skipped the answer repatedly. Adultry is no more acceptable now than is homosexuality. Its you claiming that it SHOULD be treate ddifferently ... for reasons everyone has to guess at ... and accept or be called a bigot.

No thanks.

If you would read the English it would not be a problem.

 

No it does not.

As the story of genesis is allegorical, expressed as vision in times when men lacked the capacity to even begin to explain these things, as its in the correct order or evolution and the Big Bang, accepting the MORE DETAILED scientific example does not conflict with my faith in the slightest. Indeed, the entire Catholic Church disagrees with your silliness.

Like I said, atheists have a terrible time admitting when they are wrong, but by assuming that all Christian, indeed a book loaded with symbology and parable, should be taken as literal means you are not wrong and I am?

It means you are being deliberate ignorant and offensive for ego issues. Simple as that.

 

That you are willing and able to disregard certain passages from a book, and also insist that everyone else should obey the particular passages from the same book with which you agree is a massive absurdity. Massive arrogance.