This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
According to the Bible, homosexuality is not a sin.
Uh?
18: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The ten commandments don't mention homosexuality either. If god is omnipotent then he never makes mistakes, so the only true bible is the original one and any 'revisions' are heresy.
On the contrary, the 10 Commandments were given to Moses after He determined that the Hebrews were unworthy of the higher commandments.
Do you know Christianity, at all?
Post by
Eccentrica
Yes, I know people like to quote the later amendments to the bible. My assertion stands that ANY amendments to it are heresy as god is supposedly omnipotent and therefore makes no mistakes.
Post by
Monday
Yes, I know people like to quote the later amendments to the bible. My assertion stands that ANY amendments to it are heresy as god is supposedly omnipotent and therefore makes no mistakes.
Unless, of course, He seeks to reveal His Word gradually to His prophets.
Also, what is your definition as "later amendments?"
Post by
Eccentrica
Nope. It did it once, it was good. It said it once, it was good. Recall vainglory is a cardinal sin. It's rather vain for any person to claim they know the mind of god or that god bothered to talk to them.
Some guy claiming to have had a conversation with god 1,000 years ago is no less of a delusional psychotic than some guy claiming to have had a conversation with god last week.
Post by
Monday
It's rather vain for any person to claim they know the mind of god or that god bothered to talk to them.
I did not claim to know the mind of God. I stated what His prophets have said throughout the centuries. As for the second part... I honestly have no words. I believe utterly and surely that God reveals His Word through His prophets.
Nope. It did it once, it was good. It said it once, it was good.
This sentence means nothing. Clarify what you mean by the "original bible."
Post by
Eccentrica
The original writings have been dated by scholars to 625 BCE, anything after that must be false.
I was not accusing you of being guilty of what your belief system determines to be a sin, but the 'prophets' you speak of.
Post by
Monday
The original writings have been dated by scholars to 625 BCE, anything after that must be false.
This premise posits that God does not exist and thus any additions beyond the original (and, thusly, the original itself) are false.
However, I believe in God and that He reveals His Word to His prophets on this earth. I believe that there is a prophet on the earth today, and that he acts as the mouthpiece of God.
However, saying that the original is the only true one assumes that God does exist and speaks to humanity, which means that all later scriptures are true. Additionally, assuming that homosexuality is a "sin" moves on the assumption that God does in fact exist and that He reveals His Word. This also assumes that all scripture is true as written by Him.
Overall, you speak as an atheist would, thus I find it absurd that you would posit any to be true in the first place and act upon them.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The original writings have been dated by scholars to 625 BCE, anything after that must be false.
Quite the tangent for the news thread, but biblical dating is a very dense topic and that is a very contentious number you just threw out as if it were fact.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Now to keep the news thread going:
Indian entrepreneur to open clinic which will offer $800 heart surgeries
.
Post by
Eccentrica
The original writings have been dated by scholars to 625 BCE, anything after that must be false.
Quite the tangent for the news thread, but biblical dating is a very dense topic and that is a very contentious number you just threw out as if it were fact.
Prove that it isn't.
Overall, you speak as an atheist would, thus I find it absurd that you would posit any to be true in the first place and act upon them.
My beliefs are not under discussion nor should I have to present credentials to you or anyone else. I find it absurd that some people think they can rewrite the bible to suit their own purposes, claim it is the word of god, and claim that god is omnipotent out of the other side of their mouths.
If god is omnipotent then god is never ever ever wrong. If god is never ever ever wrong then the first edition of the bible represents gods word in full. Any revisions, additions and deletions are therefore heresy and those who do those revisions, additions and deletions are heretics.
Either god is omnipotent or god is not. If god is not omnipotent and therefore the bible required amendment, then anything in it is quite possibly wrong.
If anything in the bible is quite possibly wrong, any suppositions you make about what is 'against the word of god' or 'evil' or a 'sin' stands a damned good chance of being wrong as well.
And if your suppositions are wrong then your arguments are invalid.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually, Eccentrica, you're the one making a positive claim about the Bible - the burden of proof is upon you.
Post by
Monday
If god is omnipotent then god is never ever ever wrong. If god is never ever ever wrong then the first edition of the bible represents gods word in full.
Non sequitur. Omnipotence != revealing one's word in full. I see no evidence that He must have released His Word in full in His first revelations. He revealed more doctrine as it was needed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Prove that it isn't.
That's not a reasonable way of approaching the issue. I suggest you start a new thread about biblical studies and provide at least a paragraph or two outlining your position. I will be happy to join in and discuss the topic with you in that environment.
Post by
Eccentrica
Actually, Eccentrica, you're the one making a positive claim about the Bible - the burden of proof is upon you.
You're quite right.
Rogerson, John W (2003). "Deuteronomy". In James D. G. Dunn and John William Rogerson. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802837110. pages 153-154
Post by
Eccentrica
If god is omnipotent then god is never ever ever wrong. If god is never ever ever wrong then the first edition of the bible represents gods word in full.
Non sequitur. Omnipotence != revealing one's word in full. I see no evidence that He must have released His Word in full in His first revelations. He revealed more doctrine as it was needed.
How do you know beyond what others have said or claim? How can you on one hand claim that the bible as you have it in your hand is the unarguable word of god which cannot be amended or changed or second guessed, and yet claim the bible was amended 'as needed' over the millenia?
Either it can be changed as needed or it can't, and who determines how and why it can be changed?
Post by
MyTie
No, Adamsm. Thinking that homosexuality is a sin is not bigoted. Go look up the definition of bigoted. Go on. Use google.
It really is MyTie; especially since it's suppose to be 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but so many people use that as an excuse to throw hateful hurtful comments at the homosexual population...such as the speaker for article you linked; look above at the portion I quoted.
Well, what is "sin", according to a Christian? It's the exact same thing as saying something is wrong. So, what you are telling me, is that if I say that someone is wrong, that makes me hateful, and therefore, a bigot. Well, let's take a second and think. Could it be, that there may be something hypocritical in telling someone they are wrong, for the simple act of telling someone else that they are wrong? Bigot is an label, used to intimidate others. Bigot means completely intolerant of someone based on a number of things, religion and sexual orientation are on the list. I am very tolerant to homosexuals, and their viewpoints here, despite thinking their viewpoint is wrong. However, I never try to intimidate them out of their position. But, when someone tries to slander me by using the word "Bigot" (inaccurately), they are not tolerating me and my beliefs. In essence, it is a hypocritical, an inaccurate, usage of a word to do the very thing that is being condemned. No matter what the case, you, and all of us, should be a lot more careful than to call people bigots. You are doing the very thing that that article I linked is talking about.
Post by
Eccentrica
Prove that it isn't.
That's not a reasonable way of approaching the issue. I suggest you start a new thread about biblical studies and provide at least a paragraph or two outlining your position. I will be happy to join in and discuss the topic with you in that environment.
I apologize, I didn't see your post with a new news article.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes, because people just enjoy it when someone tells them that something they cannot control makes them a sinner. To me, it is a hateful comment, and does fall under that term.
And sorry MyTie, but to me personally, that article was full of it; same as most of those who try to use the veil of Religion to hide behind as they make hateful, insulting and just plain vicious remarks about a specific group.
Post by
Monday
If god is omnipotent then god is never ever ever wrong. If god is never ever ever wrong then the first edition of the bible represents gods word in full.
Non sequitur. Omnipotence != revealing one's word in full. I see no evidence that He must have released His Word in full in His first revelations. He revealed more doctrine as it was needed.
How do you know beyond what others have said or claim? How can you on one hand claim that the bible as you have it in your hand is the unarguable word of god which cannot be amended or changed or second guessed, and yet claim the bible was amended 'as needed' over the millenia?
Either it can be changed as needed or it can't, and who determines how and why it can be changed?
Quite simple, really. I believe that God has spoken to prophets on the earth and that more scripture has been released as needed and will continue to be so.
I claim that the Bible can only be amended by those who have been willed by God to do so. Who those are, I won't get into, since I'd rather not get into yet another religious argument of that sort, especially with your very aggressive and highly close-minded style of thinking.
Yes, because people just enjoy it when someone tells them that something they cannot control makes them a sinner.
Not many groups actually claim that being homosexual is a sin in and of itself. The vast majority merely claim that homosexual acts are sins. There is a huge difference.
Post by
MyTie
Yes, because people just enjoy it when someone tells them that something they cannot control makes them a sinner. To me, it is a hateful comment, and does fall under that term.
And sorry MyTie, but to me personally, that article was full of it; same as most of those who try to use the veil of Religion to hide behind as they make hateful, insulting and just plain vicious remarks about a specific group.
Well, I haven't done that.
I've just said what the Bible says, that homosexuality is a sin. Further, beyond that, I've said they should be tolerated, and allowed to make their own life decisions with free will, and free from persecution, like God intended.
Now, if you want to go and apply the label "bigot" to that position, be clear about it. Go ahead, and clearly label that a bigoted view. Be the intimidating factor in that. Say it one more time, for the benefit of everyone watching.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.