Holy Bible condemns homosexuality? YES!

First of all: Sources of all kinds can be wrong. I said over 90% because that's what I've read in various books so far. And the number is about 93-94%-ish in most cases. So I think 90% is a fair number. Second: There are scientists outside the US. So a US based servay can be wrong too, because America is one of the more religious countries in the world. One out of 6 people in the world today still lives in a communistic country. So they by law are are Atheists - that doesn't mean they don't have glorify Mao or some other politician like he was God. So it's a bit wrong to call them Atheists if they believe that their ruler is a God-like representation on earth.

In other words: It's hard to find accurate numbers anyhow, because peoples are so different around the world, and what we consider Atheist might not really be Atheist... The most important thing is, that you look for global informations in all walks of life. So this 90% number I said, I read reports about in German, English and Slovene. If they print it across the board in many countries, it sounds more likely that it's right. If I look for anti-religious views I don't wanna look at the homepage of one or the other position on it, but rather find the most objective middle. So I don't think looking for religious Informations the Vatican (or any homepage with "faith" in their domain-name) is a good source, just like "darwin" in a domain name would throw me off.

I'm not a biologist, I'm not a scientist (yet). My field is history. And since I've worked with history the past couple of years, and I'm writing my thesis, I find it hard to believe a content of a book which I know is not accurate 100% based on historic evidence. If the planet was really 5000 years old we shouldn't find older things. And if this part is not accurate (of how something started) why should everything else be? And I have to admit that I have at my university only one friend who considers himself Christian. But he's retired and he stepped out of the church to avoid paying for it. He actually believes in a God. But he's the only one in 5 years to come to mind.

I don't think I have a professor who's really a church-goer or a believer.

I have not read much about Maximilian Kolbe, but I'll do some research, and we'll talk about him in a few days ok?

 

You lost your arguement in your opening statement above, since your brother has Not sinned against you, hence you are not in a position to take offense.
Next!

 

Well, when you have a group of people who are trying to change man made laws because they wish to break God's natural laws is a major problem for those of us with a moral compass. Proof that some of our laws are written with God in mind.

It is what it is.,

 

It's about sin in general. You have a log in your eye, but you're more interested in the speck in other people's eye. I'm not trying to derail, just point out my opinion of why people are so into arguing about the one sin that most of them don't commit. I'm not agrueing about the topics, just why homosexuality is a much bigger deal here and elsewhere. Yes I do know about legislation to make gay marriage legal. Talking about sin in a discussion of the Bible is totally relevent. I don't think God sees one sin as worse than another.

 

Women burning with lust for one another .. Sounds exciting .. where do I get a ticket to get into that party !

 

Agh yeah, as homosexuality is listed in a sin, the Bible verse pretty much states I should say as much.

I am glad you are selectively choosing to ignore things in the Bible, indeed the entire message of sexuality in the Bible in order to facilitate ... your emotions.

So, you lose, I win and all that ... whatever.

 

The point is that the message of the Bible is on sexuality in general - in short WE control it. It does not control me. Its just as wrong for a young man and woman to go out and sleep around heterosexually as it is homosexually. The fact that homosexual act, in and of itself, is a sin ... its still a sexual sin. Just like adultry, or beastiality, or incest, or ... any of the other sexual sins listed thousands of years ago.

As I am following those other commandments (you'll just have to take me at my word), how exactly am I being hypocritical by saying that homosexuality is a sin? How am I being hypocritical by saying that we should no more encourage homosexuality then we should promiscuity, incest, or adultry by favoring such behavior with tax breaks. It makes no sense.

Indeed, when we caste aside the blinders of fear put in place by those screaming bigot and look at the homosexual community, we see that it is not exactly a rosey picture. We know that many young men in particular are lead in homosexual relationships as a result of emotional trauma and abuse.

http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

But we should ignore that?

We shoudl also ignore the fact that that the homosexual community is a highly sexualized community, with all of the potential pit falls that are associated with such a lifestyle choice. The import being:

If you want to disagree, fine. Be as gay as you want to be - more power to you. However, when you start saying your way requires advocacy, encouragement, and support ... you may want to put more effort into that request that, "Or else I will call you a bigot."

Join the anti-communist revolution or I will call you a communist? Worked for McCarthy, eh?

 

Who invented sin...? Who put that in our Bible?

 

NEURTAL - Welcome back and I am happy you made it back safely.... Love you homie...

 

Irrelevant as to whether its there or not. It was put in at the same time that Beastiality and incest were put in there, for some reason the others remain ... bad. Homosexuality, is now good? Why exactly?

 

You're already on the Dancefloor.

 

Because The Bible says to follow “Man’s Law” and homosexuality is not against “Man’s Law”… The other two are…. If homosexuality was against the law, then I would be against it, but it is not….

 

Also, it does matter who put "sin" in The Bible! It is VERY IMPORTANT!!!! The history of The Bible will give you a better look at what God's Word truly is compared to what man "wants" you to believe what God's word is...

If you are a follower, there isn't nothing more important to know what God actually wants from you instead of what "man" wants from you. And you do know that "man" is corrupt and evil right?

 

The Bible categorically states that homosexuality is a sin. If man made a law that said lying was OK, would it be? And homosexuality was against the law for quite some time.

 

The Old Testament says that "men should not lie with men as they would with a woman".

So??

And women was left out. Is G-d pro-lesbo???

 

Now let's parse that out. "Lie" means to "not tell the truth". So clearly this isn't anti-gay; it just says that men shouldn't lie to each other the way they lie to women.

Couldn't be clearer.

 

Telling lies is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Completely different... IF you follow The Bible, then you follow mans law. Is it okay to be a homosexual and practice homosexuality? What does The Bible say about following "man's law" and what does the blood of Jesus signify?

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...rYDYAg&usg=AFQjCNHRdJDV3vxMGSmnFjylKZPvnE1Ctg


'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the LORD.

English Standard Version (©2001)
You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Never give your children as sacrifices to the god Molech [by burning them alive]. If you do, you are dishonoring the name of your God. I am the LORD.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And you shall not let any of your children pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

American King James Version
And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

American Standard Version
And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Moloch, nor defile the name of thy God : I am the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
And thou shalt not give of thy seed to let them pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.

English Revised Version
And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Webster's Bible Translation
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

World English Bible
"'You shall not give any of your children to sacrifice to Molech; neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am Yahweh.

Young's Literal Translation
And of thy seed thou dost not give to pass over to the Molech; nor dost thou pollute the name of thy God; I am Jehovah.


Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Molech - See the note at Leviticus 20:2-5.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Pass through the fire to Molech - The name of this idol is mentioned for the first time in this place. As the word מלח molech or melech signifies king or governor, it is very likely that this idol represented the sun; and more particularly as the fire appears to have been so much employed in his worship. There are several opinions concerning the meaning of passing through the fire to Molech.

1. Some think that the semen humanum was offered on the fire to this idol.

2. Others think that the children were actually made a burnt-offering to him.

3. But others suppose the children were not burnt, but only passed through the fire, or between two fires, by way of consecration to him.

That some were actually burnt alive to this idol several scriptures, according to the opinion of commentators, seem strongly to intimate; see among others, Psalm 106:38; Jeremiah 7:31, and Ezekiel 23:37-39. That others were only consecrated to his service by passing between two fires the rabbins strongly assert; and if Ahaz had but one son, Hezekiah, (though it is probable he had others, see 2 Chronicles 28:3), he is said to have passed through the fire to Molech, 2 Kings 16:3, yet he succeeded his father in the kingdom, 2 Kings 18:1, therefore this could only be a consecration, his idolatrous father intending thereby to initiate him early into the service of this demon. See Clarke's note on Leviticus 20:2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,.... The name of an image or idol, according to Aben Ezra, who observes, that their wise men interpret it as a general name for everyone whom they made to reign over them; and it is right, he says, that it is the abomination of the children of Ammon, and so the same with Milcom, 1 Kings 11:5; and with Baal, as appears from Jeremiah 32:35; and they are both of much the same signification, the one signifies a king, the other a lord; and perhaps is the same with the Melicarthus of Sanchoniatho (y), who is also Hercules; to whom Pliny says (z) that the Phoenicians offered human sacrifices every year: of Molech; see Gill on Jeremiah 7:31, Amos 1:13; by "seed" is meant children and offspring; and because the word "fire" is not in the original text, some, as Aben Ezra observes, explain the phrase, "let to pass through", of their causing them to pass from the law of God to the religion of Molech, or of devoting them to his service and worship; but the word "fire" is rightly supplied, as it may be from Deuteronomy 18:10; and the same writer says, the phrase to pass through is the same as to burn; but though this they sometimes did, even burn their infants, and sacrificed them to idols, 2 Chronicles 28:3; yet this seems to be something short of that, and to be done in the manner, as Jarchi and other Jewish writers (a) relate; who say, the father delivered his son to the priests (of Molech) and they made two great fires, and caused the son to pass on foot between the two fires, which was a kind of a lustration, and so of a dedication of them to the idol; though it must be owned that both were done; yea, that both the phrases of passing through the fire, and of burning, are used promiscuously of the same, see 2 Kings 16:3; compared with 2 Chronicles 28:3 and also Ezekiel 16:20; and they might be both done at different times, or the one previous and in order to the other; and perhaps they might cause the child so often and so long to pass through the fire, as that at last it was burnt and destroyed:

neither shall thou profane the name of thy God; who had given them children, and to whom they ought to have devoted them, and in whose service they should have trained them up to the honour of his name; but instead of that profaned it, by the above idolatrous and cruel usages:

I am the Lord; who would avenge such a profanation of his name.

(y) Apud, Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. p. 38. (z) Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 5. (a) Ben Melech in loc. Kimchii Sepher Shorash. rad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jesus does not condem it, has nothing to do with my emotions one way or the other, you lose once again. I am positive you also ignore portions of the Bible or do you believe you can sell your chidren into slavery, have several wives, practice killing animals as sacrifice,........

 

THe Bible is pretty specific about man's law verses God's laws.

What you write there is an attempt at rationalizing. And a poor one.

There are Christian groups making an ecclessastical case in support of homosexuality. suporsingly, no one ever referrences their work. Why?

To atheists religion is the problem, not part of the solution - its little more than a chance to say, "nanner, nanner, nanner you and your religion suck!" The goal is less about doing what is 'best' for homosexuals, than contrasting themselves as unbogoted defenders of vitrue against nefarious theocracy. Delusions of grandeur.

To homosexuals, IMHO, the avoidance is simply a cop out. Its easier to scream bigot then it is to adopt a reasonable appraoch, to address the sometimes accurate complaints levelled at the homosexual community. Thus far, no one has really put pressure on the homosexual community to do much other than make sexual choice into a civil right, rather than a consequence. However, as they have made in roads, the ever present hegelian dialetic is kicking in, and the antithesis is coming out ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/u...ight-against-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all

If gay marriage is really what is wanted, that side would do well to tone down the hyperbole and de-couple itself from the ravaging anti-Christian antics of militarized atheism ... and start actually making a case that marriage, like it does in its heterosexual counter-parts, will provide a stablizing action within that community and BENEFIT society. They are not doing that though ... and until they adopt reason, rather than boogey man tactics of screaming bigotry, they can count me out.

 

Right, because another atheist has greater insight into what Jesus wants than an Apostle? Right.

Additionally, Jesus DOES give us some instructions about marriage and the proper roles of family does he not? And certaintly if his intention matched yours, of apparently encouraging homosexuality, he would say so right? Only he does. In the parable of the adulterous woman, adultry is still a sin is it not? All the other sexual sins listed with adultry are this considered to still be in effect. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, "Go forth and sin no more ... unless you are lesbian, and then its all good."

You aren't even making a case - that is why you lose.

Uppity atheism at its finest. I am right because I am blindly dumping some arguement I read off of an atheist web site onto the forum. So what if its been rebutted a thousand times already, the three monkeys of atheism (See no evidence, Hear no evidence, Speak no evidence) remains in effect.

 

I am a Christian, not an atheist, so one more time you have lost. Assuming only make You look foolish, but then again you are probably used to it.

 

You're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that a sexual sin is no worse than a nonsexual sin in the bible (at least as I understand it), so to elevate one particular type of sin above others, you're twisting things around. Even in the Rom 3 reference, if you read down farther, you'll find that Paul is just as indignant about Jews who gossip and rob temples (I'm not quite sure what "robbing temples" refers to, BTW) which suggests that IMO that while homosexuality is indeed a sin, so are lots of other things like gossip. So my understanding is not so much that homosexuality is OK, but that all sin is equally as bad. It's as bad for your soul to be gay as it is for you to wear a garment made of two types of fabric, or to eat pork or to gossip. Not "It's OK", but "We're all in the same boat".

 

And you are Jealous !

 

Sure you are.

So are several other atheists on this forum.