ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: stickman on April 20, 2006, 04:07:10 pm
-
basically a debate about whether it is right or not.(im not sure if this would go under the gay marrige topic or not)
i think that it is "bad" or "wrong" because you cannot reproduce with another of the same sex.
debate please.
-
So, you're saying sex for any reason other than reproduction is wrong? Why?
What validates any act as "right" or "wrong", for that matter?
-
sex is another term for mating the reason it is enjoyable is that our brains release endorfins(sp) so the whole expierience is pleasing, we wouldn't do it if it hurt. sex has one purpose and that is reprodution it was not made to be enjoyed. most animals for example cannot mate whenever they want the only reason we find it enjoyable is because we can enjoy things on an intelectual level.
my reasoning is its biologically wrong, i find it morally disgusting as well but as you correctly pionted nothing can really be morally right or wrong, at least not universally.
-
Just because a guy likes another guy doesn't mean he has to have sex with him... It is unfair to call all homosexuals wrong, when not all participate in homosexual sex...
Plus, there are plenty of things that straght people do that won't allow them to reproduce. Oral sex and anal sex being prime examples. Why not complain about that being wrong too?
-
Just because something is "biologically wrong" doesn't make it wrong overall- surviving cancer is "biologically wrong", for example.
Surviving to- or even beyond- the menopause is "biologically wrong".
There is no end to things that can be judged biologically wrong.
-
My lack of intelligance is biologically wrong.
^^ thats another example for ya
-
My lack of intelligance is biologically wrong.
^^ thats another example for ya
Actually, making intelligent decisions not based on biological urges is biologically wrong. :P
-
It's unnatural in the sense that it doesn't have as aim to recreate, which is pretty much the most important goal in nature. I see little difference between homosexuality and incest, pedophilia or bestiality really. I'm not saying it's morally wrong though.
Now, I just know some of you might say "Hey, what about impotent people." Well, it's the natural attraction that is unnatural. Being attracted to a girl (as a man), whether or not she can have children, is natural (since your brain and hormones don't know she can't have kids). Being attracted to a person of the same sex, or to an animal, is generally, in biological development, strange (to say the least).
Homosexuality at its roots is a biological error. It's not natural. And hold your "Hey, but animals have homosexualtiy too." arguments away. It's still an exception that has no benefit for the well-being and procreation of the species, and thus, isn't a "good" thing.
-
I do not agreee with it, but it does not mean i do not acept it, if someone is gay, then thats what they are, but i wont ever do it myself...
-
The very need for this discussion is sickening to me.
People have different hormones. That's just who they are, get over it.
-
What I think is disgusting is that people are blaming all of this on hormones.
Don't you think there could be other reasons besides "simple biology" as to why they're gay?
-
I see little difference between homosexuality and incest, pedophilia or bestiality really. I'm not saying it's morally wrong though.
There's a huge difference: the other three are sexual acts, two of which are legally unconsenting and harmful. Homosexuality is a trait, not an act.
Well, it's the natural attraction that is unnatural.
"It's natural, and that's unnatural". Make up your mind, please.
Homosexuality at its roots is a biological error. It's not natural.
If it's biological, then it IS natural. Make up your mind, please.
And hold your "Hey, but animals have homosexualtiy too." arguments away.
Why? Why shouldn't you own up to their validity?
It's still an exception that has no benefit for the well-being and procreation of the species, and thus, isn't a "good" thing.
If you're thinking of telling us that you only want to have sex for the "well-being and procreation" of your species, that's untrue and you know it. First and foremost, we do it because we want to have sex, and whom we want to do that with is our own business.
It's also very short-sighted to say that gay people can't procreate, and don't rule out adoption as a benefit.
-
sex is another term for mating the reason it is enjoyable is that our brains release endorfins(sp) so the whole expierience is pleasing, we wouldn't do it if it hurt. sex has one purpose and that is reprodution it was not made to be enjoyed. most animals for example cannot mate whenever they want the only reason we find it enjoyable is because we can enjoy things on an intelectual level.
my reasoning is its biologically wrong, i find it morally disgusting as well but as you correctly pionted nothing can really be morally right or wrong, at least not universally.
Actually that is pretty wrong. First of all, it may be suprising to you, but there is homo/bisexuality in a lot of animal species. (I had an article but I can't find it... so don't belive me if you want :P)
I can garuntee you 100% though about this. One type of the great apes (there are 4 types of great apes), the 'Bonobo's'. Are known for having sex. That's what they do! They're an almost COMPLETELY non-violent race (they dont fight amongst themselves), and they have sex, all day long XD. They have sex for pleasure, they have sex for fun, they have sex when they find a stash of food, they have sex instead of physically fighting XD They have sex for any reason, they ENJOY IT. There is straight sex, gay sex, bi-sex, they don't care. Even the females will rub their genitals on eachother XD XD
So you can't say its only us 'enlightened humans' that enjoy sex, or have sex just for pleasure.
-
Bonobos also have sex to reinforce family bonds...
The reproduction issue again: overpopulation is a major problem affecting people on this planet. More people not procreating would be a good thing. If underpopulation became an issue, there's always IVF.
-
Bonobos also have sex to reinforce family bonds...
The reproduction issue again: overpopulation is a major problem affecting people on this planet. More people not procreating would be a good thing. If underpopulation became an issue, there's always IVF.
Whats IVF?
And no matter how much sex there is, I don't think that we're at risk for underpopulation ;) (unless theres nuclear war or something :()
-
In Vitro Fertilisation, Limey. Egg fertilised outside of the womb, and then put back in to implant.
-
In Vitro Fertilisation, Limey. Egg fertilised outside of the womb, and then put back in to implant.
Ah, thanks ;)
Its not like there will ever be a shortage of semen and eggs on earth, so we don't really have to worry :P
-
Well, there may be a shortage of them eventually, but it will have nothing to do with sexuality. Fertility rates have been dropping sinces records began.
-
I do not agreee with it, but it does not mean i do not acept it, if someone is gay, then thats what they are, but i wont ever do it myself...
Amen, I agree.
They're just different.
-
What I think is disgusting is that people are blaming all of this on hormones.
Don't you think there could be other reasons besides "simple biology" as to why they're gay?
Probably not...
I mean, it is all the classic nature vs. nurture arguement, but if social conditions have a major impact I think we would see a much more consistant pattern of who is gay and who is straight. Besides the fact that studies have shown that homosexuals do have different hormonal balances than heterosexuals...
-
What I think is disgusting is that people are blaming all of this on hormones.
Don't you think there could be other reasons besides "simple biology" as to why they're gay?
Probably not...
I mean, it is all the classic nature vs. nurture arguement, but if social conditions have a major impact I think we would see a much more consistant pattern of who is gay and who is straight. Besides the fact that studies have shown that homosexuals do have different hormonal balances than heterosexuals...
I hate to say it, but you're right. Though I think that ANYONE could be gay or bisexual, everyone is just raised straight, so that is what they know.
-
Homosexuality? WRONG?
Excuse me while I recover from the very ignorance of that statement.
Whatever the cause of homosexuality, that doesnt' mean that they have less rights than the rest of us.
Seriously. Don't tell me, "Homosexuality is wrong because they don't have sex to further the human race." Most people, when they have sex, don't have sex to further the human race. Ever heard of birth control? Ever heard of abortions? Hello? If you really believe that, take a moral stance against the entire world and tell them that they can't have sex, unless they are making babies. It's not going to happen. People have sexual urges. ALL people. People have sex. "You're not supposed to enjoy sex." Gee, biologically, we're not supposed to enjoy alcohol, or drugs, or music, or sitting in front of a computer pushing buttons on a keyboard. We're not 'supposed' to enjoy pretty much anything but eating, sleeping, killing, and screwing. Those are our prime instincts.
Homosexuals take enough crap from people who have unfairly decided that homosexuality is in some way 'wrong'. I know quite a few gay people, and being gay isn't really somethign that I think most of them would go out and decide to do of their own free will. It's pretty terrible when your parents hate you for being gay, or when people tease you all the time when the only thing you've done is be yourself.
I can see, now, how homosexual marriage could be a topic where a debate was possible...but I don't see how this one could be. You may as well start a topic that says, "Black People, good or bad?" People are people. Stop trying to find some reaosn to feel better about yourself for fitting into the majority, and just accept that some of us are different.
It's people who make statements like this that make me wish I weren't in the majoirty.
-
Homosexuality? WRONG?
Excuse me while I recover from the very ignorance of that statement.
Whatever the cause of homosexuality, that doesnt' mean that they have less rights than the rest of us.
Seriously. Don't tell me, "Homosexuality is wrong because they don't have sex to further the human race." Most people, when they have sex, don't have sex to further the human race. Ever heard of birth control? Ever heard of abortions? Hello? If you really believe that, take a moral stance against the entire world and tell them that they can't have sex, unless they are making babies. It's not going to happen. People have sexual urges. ALL people. People have sex. "You're not supposed to enjoy sex." Gee, biologically, we're not supposed to enjoy alcohol, or drugs, or music, or sitting in front of a computer pushing buttons on a keyboard. We're not 'supposed' to enjoy pretty much anything but eating, sleeping, killing, and screwing. Those are our prime instincts.
Homosexuals take enough crap from people who have unfairly decided that homosexuality is in some way 'wrong'. I know quite a few gay people, and being gay isn't really somethign that I think most of them would go out and decide to do of their own free will. It's pretty terrible when your parents hate you for being gay, or when people tease you all the time when the only thing you've done is be yourself.
I can see, now, how homosexual marriage could be a topic where a debate was possible...but I don't see how this one could be. You may as well start a topic that says, "Black People, good or bad?" People are people. Stop trying to find some reaosn to feel better about yourself for fitting into the majority, and just accept that some of us are different.
It's people who make statements like this that make me wish I weren't in the majoirty.
I agree 99% :D
-
I will say this right now: you have no right to say that homosexuality is wrong. At all.
It is a personal choice, and is none of your business at all. Gays love men because of the same reason we love women, only they've got it going the other way for some reason. It's not a choice they make, it's who they are. If you say that homosexuality is wrong, you're saying that these people can't be who they are. All because of your own dislike of it. I remeber this other guy who said that certain people were not right... he tried to get rid of them. What was his name again? Oh, yeah: Hitler. You're discriminating in the same way, only you're not killing them.
With gay marriage, you can debate it because there are many legal issues and certain moral ones that ariseon eithe side of the argument, but it's never against the people themselves. Saying homosexuality is wrong is against people though. You'll notice there are no laws against people being gay. THat's because the government understands that they're people, and that their love is their choice. They know that they can't outright ban it because 1) You can ban something and all of a sudden people aren't who they are anymore and 2) You can't ban something because it makes people who they are.
Finally, if you believe it's wrong because they can't make babies, well then go fight contraceptives, abortion, and anything else that dissallows pregnancy/birth. You'll have a tough time there. You can't say that they're not making babies, so it's wrong without saying that everyone who doesn't make babies when they have sex is in the wrong. Why? That's discrimination. Discrimination is bad.
Endning note: No one else has actually agreed with you, and there's 2 pages worth of posts against you. Do you maybe think there's a reason for that?
-
Endning note: No one else has actually agreed with you, and there's 2 pages worth of posts against you. Do you maybe think there's a reason for that?
ROFL 'coz you're all gay! j/k
Seriously though, after reading most of your comments, I have to say, the fact of being homosexual itself isn't wrong, bad, or anything. Still you have to push things to the extreme, what if the first men on earth were only attracted by men? There's always a balance in nature, and nature itself isn't perfect, far from it. There has been homosexuality for a lot of time on this planet, and I know it will persist until the end of humanity. Why? Because freedom is what makes a human, to be free to choose whatever you want to be and enjoy your life.
[off-topic] Oh and you might want to meditate this : Eat well, stay fit, die anyway. [/off-topic]
-
Seriously though, after reading most of your comments, I have to say, the fact of being homosexual itself isn't wrong, bad, or anything. Still you have to push things to the extreme, what if the first men on earth were only attracted by men?
They weren't. the point is moot.
-
i still think homosexuallity is wrong, its just the fact that its just wrong to see that.
-
homosexuality is wrong it isnt rite
-
I think you guys might need to say a little more and defend your argument instead of restating your point if you want it to float... >_>
Personally I think that being gay is fine. It's a natural thing that some people are gay and some are not, and they deserve the same rights as every other living breathing person, be they white or black, gay or straight, male or female, tall or short. Isn't that what the US is supposed to be about?
-
I think you guys might need to say a little more and defend your argument instead of restating your point if you want it to float... >_>
Personally I think that being gay is fine. It's a natural thing that some people are gay and some are not, and they deserve the same rights as every other living breathing person, be they white or black, gay or straight, male or female, tall or short. Isn't that what the US is supposed to be about?
I can feel some patriotic devotion here! We are not talking about the US, but about homosexuality in general.
-
I dont have a problem with it, Id never partake in it either. As long as they dont force thier ways upon me then I couldnt care less if the screwed anything with a pulse.
-
I see little difference between homosexuality and incest, pedophilia or bestiality really. I'm not saying it's morally wrong though.
There's a huge difference: the other three are sexual acts, two of which are legally unconsenting and harmful. Homosexuality is a trait, not an act.
Hmm, I worded that wrong. I did mean the act of sex.
Well, it's the natural attraction that is unnatural.
"It's natural, and that's unnatural". Make up your mind, please.
Being attracted to someone of the same sex, or to an animal, and such, is unnatural, in the fact that it's not a normal occurance in nature. It also does not have the main, biological reason of sex, to recreate.
Homosexuality at its roots is a biological error. It's not natural.
If it's biological, then it IS natural. Make up your mind, please.
See previous.
And hold your "Hey, but animals have homosexualtiy too." arguments away.
Why? Why shouldn't you own up to their validity?
1) I already explained that it's a biological "disorder".
2) Animals murder too? Murder is good because of that? Some animals are cannibalistic. Good? I'm silmply saying that just because it occurs in nature, it's not necessarily acceptable, to humans.
It's still an exception that has no benefit for the well-being and procreation of the species, and thus, isn't a "good" thing.
If you're thinking of telling us that you only want to have sex for the "well-being and procreation" of your species, that's untrue and you know it. First and foremost, we do it because we want to have sex, and whom we want to do that with is our own business.
Being attracted to people of the same gender still is something you usually can't decide on yourself. This attraction is, as I've mentioned before, against the main reason of sex. I do know that some animals have sex for pleasure or other reasons.
It's also very short-sighted to say that gay people can't procreate, and don't rule out adoption as a benefit.
I mean gay sex doesn't procreate.
My point remains; being attracted to a person/animal, that has, purely seen, no chance of recreation, is against the main goal of sex. It's not morally wrong or anything, but it still is a biological oddity, considering how genetics and evolution aim for the survival of the species.
Btw, I'm actually "pro" gay marriage or anything, so don't get me wrong. I have nothing against homosexuality and such, regardless of what I'm posting. :P (Goodnight, it's me, Dascu, don't be offended by what I say please) To be honest, I'm being the Devil's Advocate. (or whatever you call it)
I'm simply posting stuff that I've heard before, and I wonder how one counters this.
Oh, I forgot my main argument:
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
-
first off you can debate anything where there is a difference of opinions, i think that it is "bad" because it goes against nature. im not sure if homosexuality is genetic i think it is a desicion that the person makes and it is wrong to openly make fun of that person based on that reason because it is a minority technichally and they are still human. it is ok to be against on a moral or scienetific level because thinking what people do to set them apart from the group (i did not mean that to sound like they just do it to be different) isnt being against people its being against the actions of people.Finally you cant change morals and thiis is mostly a moral subject so noone change anyones mind here,but im glad i got to see ur guys' opinions that was the main piont for the topic.
i know i lost the debate i couldn't possibly fight all of you with my lack of information proven by many of your statments.
-
homosexuality is wrong it isnt rite
Why?
i still think homosexuallity is wrong, its just the fact that its just wrong to see that.
So something is immoral because it disgusts you? Wow... you know what? I think that rapsberries are disgusting. Maybe we ought to destroy the world's supply of raspberries! Oh no, wait....
im not sure if homosexuality is genetic i think it is a desicion that the person makes and it is wrong to openly make fun of that person based on that reason because it is a minority technichally and they are still human.
Homosexuality is not a choice. The choice is whether or not to openly admit it. To be attracted to another person involves both social conditioning (as to society's definition of beauty) and hormones. A gay man's hormones are reversed from normal, so that are actually attracted to men. That means it's who they are, not a choice. To say it is wrong or immoral is to say that they should not be who they are. And because it's who they are:
it isnt being against people its being against the actions of people
It is in fact against people. You're attacking who they are.
It is morally reprehensible to say that it is alright to discriminate against a group of people. That is what you are doing.
Finally you cant change morals and thiis is mostly a moral subject so noone change anyones mind here,
No, see, it's not a moral topic, it's an acceptance topic. Some people have trouble accepting those that are different from that majority. Also, you can change your morals. It normally happenes around/after puberty once you've attained the proper maturity to look at the world objectively and to decide things on your own. I can tell you for certain that pretty much everyone that's 18, maybe even 13, or older does not have the same moral stance on some things as they did either a couple of years ago or from when they were 6. Each individual person forms his/her own own conscious moral code based on reason and judgement. Without reason and judgement, morals would be merely instinctice and corrupt. In reading these, I was sort of hopin that your moral stance would change in regard to this topic. I'm not saying you can't be grossed out if you see 2 guys making out or something, because I think that it's nasty too, but just don't say they're wrong, and understand why they aren't.
-
Even if it was genetic...I wonder why nature intended people having these feelings. Theres no result of reproduction or anything. Which is something nature wants I guess. Homosexuality happens with a lot of animals. And it does with us. We should accept it as natural and stop making such a taboo about it.
-
Even if it was genetic...I wonder why nature intended people having these feelings. Theres no result of reproduction or anything. Which is something nature wants I guess. Homosexuality happens with a lot of animals. And it does with us. We should accept it as natural and stop making such a taboo about it.
I wondered the same and agree with you.
I don't mind people having their own sexual intentions as long as they don't insult me with them. I got to admit that I simply hate it if homosexual men talk to me. And I know that many people feel the same, even though they pretend they don't mind it. I also hate it to be proclaimed to be homosexual. Simply because I am not, and it's disgrading, since many people are not serious about gay men. Keep talking that those people are idiots and that I should ignore them, but since I live with them everyday, there's hardly a way I can avoid them. Another reason for disregarding is the fact that the proclamation is questioning my personality and existance as a heterosexual man.
-
This topic was completely unexpected. Anyhow, I try to keep this out of the 'gay marriage' debates that we have, but yes, I feel homosexuality is morally incorrect when acted upon.
Homosexuality? WRONG?
Excuse me while I recover from the very ignorance of that statement.
And what is ignorant about it? It's ignorant to think differently than you?
So first you're telling him that it's ignorance to think that someone is wrong when they are 'different', now you're telling him that it's wrong for HIM to be 'different'?
Whatever the cause of homosexuality, that doesnt' mean that they have less rights than the rest of us.
Agreed. They're people too, they deserve rights. Did he ever say otherwise? I think not...
Seriously. Don't tell me, "Homosexuality is wrong because they don't have sex to further the human race." Most people, when they have sex, don't have sex to further the human race. Ever heard of birth control? Ever heard of abortions?
You're implying that those are right. Maybe he doesn't believe that.
Hello? If you really believe that, take a moral stance against the entire world and tell them that they can't have sex, unless they are making babies. It's not going to happen. People have sexual urges. ALL people. People have sex. "You're not supposed to enjoy sex." Gee, biologically, we're not supposed to enjoy alcohol, or drugs, or music, or sitting in front of a computer pushing buttons on a keyboard. We're not 'supposed' to enjoy pretty much anything but eating, sleeping, killing, and screwing. Those are our prime instincts.
Say I have an instinct to rape someone. Should I act upon my natural human instincts?
Homosexuals take enough crap from people who have unfairly decided that homosexuality is in some way 'wrong'. I know quite a few gay people, and being gay isn't really somethign that I think most of them would go out and decide to do of their own free will. It's pretty terrible when your parents hate you for being gay, or when people tease you all the time when the only thing you've done is be yourself.
And I was just being myself, and following my animal (read: natural) instincts by raping the woman.
I can see, now, how homosexual marriage could be a topic where a debate was possible...but I don't see how this one could be.
Agreed, I mean, it's impossible to debate morality. Morals are definitive (may have exceptions, but you get what I mean).
You may as well start a topic that says, "Black People, good or bad?"
No, because note that he didn't say "homosexuals, good or bad" he said homosexuality.
People are people. Stop trying to find some reaosn to feel better about yourself for fitting into the majority, and just accept that some of us are different.
We don't have to accept people's actions, though.
It's people who make statements like this that make me wish I weren't in the majoirty.
You mean, minority? Because you just said he was in the majority... <_< >_>
I will say this right now: you have no right to say that homosexuality is wrong. At all.
Yet you have the right to say that homosexuality is perfectly fine? There's a falacy to be found in there (Srehp would be proud of me for using that word ^_^), it's like those who say "legalize marijuana, don't impose your morals on them!" but that's them imposing THEIR morals on us. Don't tell him he can't do exactly what you're doing (just on the other side of the debate).
It is a personal choice, and is none of your business at all.
It's his business to establish what he believes. It's his business entirely. It's NOT his business to discriminate, but is he doing that?
Gays love men because of the same reason we love women, only they've got it going the other way for some reason. It's not a choice they make, it's who they are.
Prove it.
If you say that homosexuality is wrong, you're saying that these people can't be who they are. All because of your own dislike of it.
Yeah, I know... just like paedophiles who act with the conscent of the child... it's who they are! They're just acting upon natural instincts!
Is self-control such a bad thing? Maybe paedophilia's just as genetic as homosexuality! Why don't we say that's fine? Because it is viewed as morally wrong, and we feel the kids are not old enough to conscent.
I remeber this other guy who said that certain people were not right... he tried to get rid of them. What was his name again? Oh, yeah: Hitler. You're discriminating in the same way, only you're not killing them.
Or taking away rights. He's merely saying it's immoral. And you're telling him that it's perfectly fine/moral. I don't get it.
With gay marriage, you can debate it because there are many legal issues and certain moral ones that ariseon eithe side of the argument, but it's never against the people themselves. Saying homosexuality is wrong is against people though.
Why?
You'll notice there are no laws against people being gay. THat's because the government understands that they're people, and that their love is their choice. They know that they can't outright ban it because 1) You can ban something and all of a sudden people aren't who they are anymore and 2) You can't ban something because it makes people who they are.
It's probably just because the government understands that it's a freedom, that we should not infringe on, unless it is affecting us DIRECTLY.
Finally, if you believe it's wrong because they can't make babies, well then go fight contraceptives, abortion, and anything else that dissallows pregnancy/birth. You'll have a tough time there. You can't say that they're not making babies, so it's wrong without saying that everyone who doesn't make babies when they have sex is in the wrong. Why? That's discrimination. Discrimination is bad.
He's not saying that homosexuals are bad. He's saying homosexuality is bad. IE. Abortion is generally bad. Not the people who abort.
Endning note: No one else has actually agreed with you, and there's 2 pages worth of posts against you. Do you maybe think there's a reason for that?
Because many of the mature people are probably sitting out (not that you people aren't mature, I'm just saying that many of them are likely sitting it out). That's my guess.
If it's biological, then it IS natural. Make up your mind, please.
Never heard of a biological disorder? It's an abnormal (read: unnatural) occurance. IE. being born without a limb. Not supposed to happen, does sometimes.
Btw, I'm actually "pro" gay marriage or anything, so don't get me wrong. I have nothing against homosexuality and such, regardless of what I'm posting.
And you are making a strong arguement. It seems that many of these people in here have a siren that goes off in their head (thank you liberal media) when they see something like this. "A minority could be offended!" But since when does anyone flip out about a homosexual saying that hetorosexuality is wrong? We all just roll our eyes because we have grown up. It's not worth debating. There's nothing wrong with thinking that homosexuality is wrong. There is a problem with discrimination and holding major bias against them becuase of it (use righteous judgement, not promiscous).
I wonder how one counters this.
Well... no one's been able to do it! ;)
-
Personally and morally, I see no issue with homosexuality or homosexuals. I <3 gays :D
I have to say though: Everyone has just as much right to be AGAINST homosexuality, as those who are PRO homosexuality. I think people should be able to think and say whatever they want. Though to act apon these things I DO NOT APPROVE OF. ;)
Also possum, the part about rape: Rape isn't consensual, but homosexuality is. :/
-
Also possum, the part about rape: Rape isn't consensual, but homosexuality is. :/
Clearly, but that was not a part of my point. My point is to be found in the text, not the subtext.
Anyhow, I think it's very important to understand that regardless of what we think, it's important to treat everyone like people. They might be doing something that I feel to be immoral, but that's no reason for me to discriminate against them or anything.
-
Oh, I forgot my main argument:
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Oh, really? Were you there? Proof please.
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
I think he meant how very few people believe in the bible as a literal account of events.
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
Because in a modern world, to present proof for things, the bible is not a credible source.
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
Because in a modern world, to present proof for things, the bible is not a credible source.
True, but much of law is still based on it.
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
Because in a modern world, to present proof for things, the bible is not a credible source.
True, but much of law is still based on it.
Yes, but that doesnt make it a credible source :/
-
I think its funny that his 'main point' is stating that its how the 'bible said it really was'... Which is complete BS, because not everybody believes in the bible >_>
Well... I fail to see the sense in that... because not everyone DISbelieves in the bible...
Because in a modern world, to present proof for things, the bible is not a credible source.
True, but much of law is still based on it.
Actually the Bible is a credible source. But at the moment, I will only give you as much evidence as you gave me when saying that it was not credible, in other words none.
At the moment its my word against yours. Now its time to back up our word.
Yes, but that doesnt make it a credible source :/
-
Redding, explain how the bible is a credible source?
The most recent entry in the bible is almost 2000 years ago. Most of it was not written down until centuries after the events that it depicts happened. Much of it is, by any reasonable view, embellished in the least, if not entirely fictional.
-
I'm sure a lot of the earlier stories are fictional, but a lot are actual events that were just highly exaggerated with God and morals sutck in.
In a debate, the Bible is not a credible source since not everyone believes what it says. Unless the debate is on the bible itself, like "Debate the relevance of this passage" or something, where the only real credible source might actually be the bible. Otherwise, the Bible can serve only as a basis for one's beliefs, but not an actual grounds for prooving them. If people disagree with this and try to use the Bible as undeniable proof, I will have to resort to changing my religion to Monkolism, based around the Purple Flying Monkalopomus, holder of the Greem (it's a colour, but not green) Emblem of the Tonsil. I will write a religious text, inserting passages wherever I need, cite them, and they will be proof that I am right. Proof just as valid as that which the Bible would demonstrate.
-
Exactly. All religions should have exactly the same relevance in a debate.
My religion is a very liberal view of buddhism. It says any kinda sexuality is cool, so long as it's consenting and doesn't harm anyone.
So, unless you're gonna flame my religion, don't use your religion in the debate, pretty much.
Find another argument, s'il vous pl??it.
-
I can care less who screws who, its pissing me off that we have to hear about gay people on tv all the time. Do what you got to do but stop spreading it and wanting attention!
-
These are all fine opinions, however not one of them have been backed up, sure you can say the Biblical books were written centuries after the events happened, but guess what, thats a highly misinformed statement. While the gospel of Judas was written 300 years after Christ, it is not considered a reliable source. However the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, were all written within 40-100 years after Christ.
Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.
Similarly with the Bible. There were still thousands of eye witnesses of Jesus Christ, after he had risen from the dead. So if someone were to write a book on the events and teachings of Jesus' life, and these events were all fiction, highly exagarated and false. Then those eye witnesses would have spoken out, and not taken those books seriuosly.
Yet the early church wanted an accurate account of Jesus' life, because just like how we dont wanna believe lies and a made up fairy tale, neither did those people, remember they were human beings. Thus people like you and me who wanted an accurate account of Jesus' life, went around asking the thousands of eye witnesses of Jesus' life, what exactly happened. Those people got all those storys, found out that alot of them were the same (ie more than one person had the same recolection of the same event) and then proceded to write them down into a book.
These 4 gospels we have, have the same story in them, not one of them contradicts the other, yet they were all written by different people, who had no knowledge of each others work. Which shows that these events were not twisted by their authors.
Now the church, hungry for the truth, wanted to know Jesus' teaching, so they ordered heaps of copies, so that each church could have their own. Now being reasonable human beings, wanting to know the truth, they did not twist the word in the original manuscripts, rather made sure the copies were exactly the same.
This happened for centuries. So that although the earlies copies of the books of the new testament that we have are from 125 AD, those copies when they were made, if they had been edited in any way, would not have been used by anyone as the original copys would have still existed when those copies were made, and so the people would have rejected that later copies if they were edited in any way or form.
And then hundereds of more were made, so that the earliest copies we have, compared with later ones (ie ones made 100 or 300 years after the earliest copy we have) are exactly the same in every form.
And heres a quick table on the percentile of difference between manuscripts, keeping in mind that all these manuscripts were found in different areas, and are from different time periods.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Redding/ev2.png)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Redding/ev.png)
Keep in mind that the other books on these tables are considered accurate, yet have alot less copies around of them, and have alot more lines in doubt.
Now ofcourse, for each english version of the Bible, the translators go back to the original greek and hebrew manuscripts, to ensure accuracy, and to ensure that nothing in the Bible has been twisted or is fake.
-
There is man and woman...... THere are 2 species, not more the reason there are 2 species is so they can relate and make love not for the species to ignore and just love there own type.... Seriously who'd (guy) wanna make love to another guy with a DICK would you
Dont mind me its 5:04 am and im soooo freakin tired
-
Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.
Depends on if the book was published as truth or a fictional story. I would totally read the book either way.
ANYWAYZ
Last time I checked Jesus showed up to tell people to love each other regardless of how they act, so wtf does the bible have to do with Homosexuality?
-
There is man and woman...... THere are 2 species, not more the reason there are 2 species is so they can relate and make love not for the species to ignore and just love there own type.... Seriously who'd (guy) wanna make love to another guy with a DICK would you
Dont mind me its 5:04 am and im soooo freakin tired
First of all Men and Women are not different species, are you kidding me? And just because YOU dont like penis doesnt mean that other guys dont like it. Its not 'un-natural' just because YOU think its wierd.
-
The bible is not a history book. First off, you say that the gospels were written 40 some-odd years after Christ's death. Back then, most people didn't llive to be 40 years old, so anyone that might have seen Jesus alive would have been very young at the time.
Similarly with the Bible. There were still thousands of eye witnesses of Jesus Christ, after he had risen from the dead. So if someone were to write a book on the events and teachings of Jesus' life, and these events were all fiction, highly exagarated and false. Then those eye witnesses would have spoken out, and not taken those books seriuosly.
Not if they were all dead and/or illiterate they wouldn't have. Which they pretty much all were. Also, thousands of people report seeing UFO's all the time! QED UFO's must exist!
Now the church, hungry for the truth, wanted to know Jesus' teaching, so they ordered heaps of copies, so that each church could have their own. Now being reasonable human beings, wanting to know the truth, they did not twist the word in the original manuscripts, rather made sure the copies were exactly the same.
Prove it. You believe the Church seeks the truth, I believe they seek their truth. The church changed the writings drastically from their original manuscripts. I don't know why, possibly a power thing, but they did. The church is an organization, and no organization is free from corruption. I actually saw a documentary taday that spoke about the church and how they would do that, especially to the roles women played. Especially that of Mary Magdelen. The church removed a few of the books speaking of her, but Muhammed Ali found them.
Now ofcourse, for each english version of the Bible, the translators go back to the original greek and hebrew manuscripts, to ensure accuracy, and to ensure that nothing in the Bible has been twisted or is fake.
And who's to say those are the originals?
One thing you have to remember also, is that even if they were accurate accounts, people would do two things: they would write about what they saw, and they would exaggerate. The problem with the first is the limited scientific understanding that these people had. For example, new evidence has come to light that there was a massive cold front that swept across the area around the time Jesus would have walked on water. Living in an almost desert-like environment, how many of them do you think knew about or ever saw ice, let alone knew that it was frozen water. THey saw Jesus walk on it and thought "Wow! HE walks on water!" which is technically true. When whats-his-face tried and fell into the water, nearly drowning, it could easily have been a thin patch that he fell through. Someone who had seen all this and didn't know what ice was would easily interpet Jesus's act as a miracle.
Then there's the second point - exaggeration. This era was before books or plays were common and used for entertainment. People would amuse themselves by telling stories. Which do you think is more entertaining:
A) "I saw the Romans kill this rebellious Jewish guy for believing too much in his God."
or
B) "And the Son of God was crucified for our sins, shouting out with his final breath "Father! Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing!"
Obviously people would pay attention to the latter, no? Both of those alone can easily refute the literal validity of many of the passages.
Next, your argument for the bible encompases the New Testament. What about the Old Testament? Who was still around from THOSE events after they were written? Did Cain and Abel write stories about their parents' early lives? Practically all of the anti-gay passages I've seen were from there. What time frame were THOSE written in? Did people still have accurate accounts of what happened when they were written? Probably not
One finally thing I really have to say is that your charts are almost irrelevant. They compare the bible first to the Illiad. It seems to be so unreliable! May that be because it's meant to be a fictional tale? What does it have to do with the Bible? Answer: nothing. The same goes for the other chart. Maybe if you replaced Caesar, Plato and Aristotle with the Talmud, the Torah and the Koran we'd be in business. However this is not the case. Those charts make the assumption that the Bible is fact, when there is no conclusive proof that it is actuall completely so. Oh, and also the math is somewhat wrong. The timespan assumes that all the earliest copies were obtained of texts written at the end of the time period from which it would have been written. In reality, it should go fro mthe start since if our earliest copies of the New Testament are from 125 AD, who's to say they weren't from the originals written in 40 AD rather than 100 AD. This gives a new timespan of 25-90 years. First of all, not only is there ample time within since 40 AD to exaggerate the event unnoticed by anyone since they would all be dead or illiterate up until 100 AD, but then there's a possibility that someone had at least 90 years to change things. Most people TODAY don't live to be 90.
You have no proof besides a belief that the church has never changed, added or removed anything from any of the Biblical text to suit their needs. In fact, it would be almost foolish to believe that it wasn't the case. I'm not saying that what you believe is wrong, jsut that you have no proof of anything. I personally believe that Jesus lived. I think there's actual archeaological evidence of that. In my opinion though, he wasn't actually the Son of God. He was just a very religious, jewish man. After all, did he not say that we are all God's children? It wouldn't be odd for him to call God "Father" if he truly believed that. I also believe that he was a genius, able to observe his environment and make quick conclusions. This would allow him to understand the behaviour of people very well, and he would be able to formulate wise "teachings" based around these observations. There's no doubt his "teaachings" were quite profound and usually worth following, they just weren't exactly "holy". Thanks to his genius and his acute powers of observation, he could easily have become a great healer as well, figuring out what sorts of herbs and remedies could cure various illnesses. HE could have also, in the previous "walking on ice" example, have assessed the nature of ice and figured where it was safe to step. Today, if you step onto a frozen pond, you'll know "Ok, i can step here, but it's cracking here so I won't go there". Why couldn't Jesus have been able to figure that out?
So, unless you can come up with tangible proof that everything the Bible says is completely and totally true, especially that which it says about the "evils" of homosexuality, then maybe you cuold use it. Until then it is off-limits and a basis for anything but the reason of your beliefs. Facts cannot be drawn from it.
-
Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.
Depends on if the book was published as truth or a fictional story. I would totally read the book either way.
ANYWAYZ
Last time I checked Jesus showed up to tell people to love each other regardless of how they act, so wtf does the bible have to do with Homosexuality?
Although you are right in saying Jesus said love everyone. Jesus also taught us not to be tolerant of sin. Homosexuality being a sin, one of many mind you, is something that a Christian shold not be tolerant of, doesnt mean they shouldnt love the person, but they should not be tolerant of their sin, because that is misleading, and defeats the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth to pay for our debt of sin.
Let me assure that the Bible was not written as a fictious book, rather a collection of eye witness accounts.
Oh and for you information, people did live past 40 back that, and to add to that the other gospels were written hundereds of years after Jesus' death and resurection.
Oh and one more thing, all previous so-called messiahs before him do not have a religion following them 2000 years later, infact as soon as their leader was killed, the followers scatered.
Yet that did not happen with Christians, they were willing to be persecuted, and killed, all in the name of Christ. I mean for there to be more records of a jewish guy from a despised race (jews were despised back in that time by the romans and other races), than there are records on the great roman emperors of that time, clearly says that theres something more to this Jesus, than what the majority of people who have never read a Bible, and think they know more of what happened 2000 years ago, than the eye witnesses of the day.
By the way, the Da Vinci Code is fiction, none of it is truth, not even the parts that say "FACT", and as for Jesus being married, not even the gnositc gospels say that, they just say the mary gave Jesus a kiss on the cheek, which was a common greating for men and women to do back inthat day.
If you want to know the truth about the da vinci code, go here -- http://www.challengingdavinci.com/
-
Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.
Depends on if the book was published as truth or a fictional story. I would totally read the book either way.
ANYWAYZ
Last time I checked Jesus showed up to tell people to love each other regardless of how they act, so wtf does the bible have to do with Homosexuality?
Although you are right in saying Jesus said love everyone. Jesus also taught us not to be tolerant of sin. Homosexuality being a sin, one of many mind you, is something that a Christian shold not be tolerant of, doesnt mean they shouldnt love the person, but they should not be tolerant of their sin, because that is misleading, and defeats the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth to pay for our debt of sin.
People have the right to sin if they want. If they know it's a sin, and they keep doing it, then you're really not going to be able to do much for them.
-
Homosexuality being a sin, one of many mind you, is something that a Christian shold not be tolerant of, doesnt mean they shouldnt love the person, but they should not be tolerant of their sin, because that is misleading, and defeats the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth to pay for our debt of sin.
Tell me why Homosexuality is a sin. I can pretty much guarantee that any biblical quote you find will meet the fate of the others - interpretation. Things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally. Priests and devout catholics I havfe spoken to have said the same thing. It's mostly metaphorical in fact.
Oh and one more thing, all previous so-called messiahs before him do not have a religion following them 2000 years later, infact as soon as their leader was killed, the followers scatered.
What, like Judaism? Yeah that dissipated fairly quickly.
Yet that did not happen with Christians, they were willing to be persecuted, and killed, all in the name of Christ. I mean for there to be more records of a jewish guy from a despised race (jews were despised back in that time by the romans and other races), than there are records on the great roman emperors of that time, clearly says that theres something more to this Jesus, than what the majority of people who have never read a Bible, and think they know more of what happened 2000 years ago, than the eye witnesses of the day.
First off, I've read most of the Bible. Not all of it, I have no need for that. Second, Jesus was a rebel. THat's why he was remembered. Messiah or not, he was very smart, very influential, and well, not stubborn, but determined. If it weren't for these qualities, Christianity wouldn't have even formed beyond the apostles, if at all. He wasn't constantly converting people over by performing miracles, in fact he didn't try to convert people over to christianity since that would go against what he stood for and would imply that he had an ego large enough to want others to worship him. No, he merely stood up for what he believed in. Through influence, he was able to amass followers to see the wrongs of the Roman Empire of the time. These followers lived on and spread, which is partly why Christianity grew so rampantly. All of this does not point to messiah, just a great man. If it did, then people Like Martin Luther King, Vlademir Lenin and Joshep Stalin and hell, if the Nazis had won, even Hitler, would have been considered messiahs because they managed to rise against the majority (although the latter 3 through fear), fight for what they believed to be right and true, and through influence gained followers. Yeah, Hitler was a pretty bad guy, but he had most of Germany behind him at the start. Stalin and Lenin are still somewhat revered for the way that they shaped Russia. MLK is practically an American legend! Not because they were holy though, but because they held the same qualities Jesus would have as a rebel with a cause.
Either way, just because a religion survives doesn't make it completely factual. Buddhism is much older, as is Judaism. Is everything they say completely and literally true as well?
Oh and for you information, people did live past 40 back that, and to add to that the other gospels were written hundereds of years after Jesus' death and resurection.
I didn't say they never did, just that most didn't.
-
I want to see the quote. Chances are it's exploitable.
-
If you ask me, such a topic shouldn't be discussed.
You know... flame wars and stuff, Equal Rights crap here and there. >.o
-
Now that may seem like a long time, but in historical standards, 40-60 years after an event occured is a small time period. Think of it this way, someone writes a book on world war 2, WW2 happened 60 years ago, yet there are still survivors from WW2, so if someone wrote a book on the war saying that the germans really won the war, that the holocaust never happened, do you think that book would be taken as a reliable source? I think not, as all the survivors of the war would object, because they know that is not the truth, the would not want something written down and taken as truthful if it were not.
Depends on if the book was published as truth or a fictional story. I would totally read the book either way.
ANYWAYZ
Last time I checked Jesus showed up to tell people to love each other regardless of how they act, so wtf does the bible have to do with Homosexuality?
Although you are right in saying Jesus said love everyone. Jesus also taught us not to be tolerant of sin. Homosexuality being a sin, one of many mind you, is something that a Christian shold not be tolerant of, doesnt mean they shouldnt love the person, but they should not be tolerant of their sin, because that is misleading, and defeats the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth to pay for our debt of sin.
People have the right to sin if they want. If they know it's a sin, and they keep doing it, then you're really not going to be able to do much for them.
Im not saying anything about people having rights to sin or not, im saying that Jesus did not teach tolerence of sin, thus when the statement was made "Jesus taught Christians to be tolerant" I am rebutting by saying, he taught Christians to love their neighbour and their enemies, but not sin, he never taught tolerence of sin. So this really doesnt refer to non christians, it just is in answer to that statement.
-
Tell me why Homosexuality is a sin. I can pretty much guarantee that any biblical quote you find will meet the fate of the others - interpretation. Things in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally. Priests and devout catholics I havfe spoken to have said the same thing. It's mostly metaphorical in fact.
Ok ill tell you why. Firstly because God created Female for man, so that they could become one in flesh and in spirit. Also its breaking one of the first commands, which was to fill the earth.
But onto some more specific ones.
Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
This was a law in the old testament, obviously death does not apply these days because Jesus came, however, the seriousness of the sin still does apply, so that why I'll quote some passages from the New Testament.
Romans 1:21-27
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator???who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.
1 Corinithians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
These verses just establish that in the living God of Christianity's eyes, homosexuality is a sin. Maybe its not in your eyes, but in the God that is revealed in the Bible, it very much is.
Oh and also, what makes a catholic priests opinion that the Bible is metaphorical, a fact? Because the Bible in factual evidence is a history book, and I know that there are many more people that will tell you the Bible is not just a metaphore for life, but rather Gods word, and actual events acuratly recorded.
What makes his opinion more qualified that Biblical scholors, or people who study ancient history, or other ministers from other churches? Nothing does, its just a sadly mis-informed opinion, that you take to you liking.
-
Quoting biblical text as fact is stupid.
And So-Uth TheDarkJay Say-eth that we must all strip naked and have-eth thou selves an orgie.
.
..
...
.....
Where is the orgie? I want my Orgie! DON'T MAKE ME DAMN YOU TO ETERNITY IN MY TOILET!
-
Quoting biblical text as fact is stupid.
I can pretty much guarantee that any biblical quote you find will meet the fate of the others - interpretation.
henceforth I replied to that post, in posting biblical verses as requested.
And opinion on the Bibles accuracy does not equate to fact. The Bible as an historical document is more accurate than any other acient piece of writing, and yet these other pieces of writing are taken seriously.
ie
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Redding/ev2.png)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Redding/ev.png)
If thou useth these two facts, that the Bible is in the same stateth as it wasth when it wereth writtenth. THen thou can cometh to the conclusion, that the Bibel we hath now, is the same as it was back then.
Then we move on to seeing whether or not the evens in books of the Bible are real, ie can be backed up by other sources.
Well lets take Tacitus, no serious historian would say that Tacitus's accounts of history were questionable, so lets see what he had to say about Christianity.
So Tacitus the ever careful historian pinpoints Christ???s execution as to
(1) time (AD 30),
(2) place (Judaea)
(3) circumstance (treason).
And he explains how these ???Christians??? came to be in Rome in the year 64.
No serious scholar known to me doubts Tacitus??? account.
In Annals xv.44 Tacitus explains where these ???Christians??? came from. The ???founder of the name Christian??? was ???Christ???. This ???Christ??? had been executed thirty years earlier in Judaea in the time of Tiberius by Pilate the governor of the province.
But the ???sect??? did not die with its founder (as most movements did). It sprang up again in Judaea and spread to Rome where it had become an ???immense multitude??? (as Tacitus called it).
Tacitus, though, was sickened at the punishment meted out to these wretches. Crucified by the thousands and then daubed with pitch and set alight. Tacitus had been a member of the Roman Senate and himself governor of a major province. He had access to imperial records. Tacitus knew what he was talking about.
So we know that Christ really did die on a cross.
Tacitus is a hostile witness. He hates Jews and he hates Christians. His corroboration of the outlines of Christian history is the more valuable because he is hostile.
-
Redding, don't double post.
Also, I'm not sure how much your charts are going to help. I mean, I believe the Bible, but you cannot prove it to someone who does not want to believe. Fact. Just look at those who crucified Christ.
Also, you're not taking into account the translation of the languages. There are multiple things that could be taken out of the words in the original language(s) that could be found in the Bible. So while it might translate perfectly in an objective sense, the translation could be subjective to poor word-usage (that's why the Bible I read provides alternative translations--makes a lot more sense).
EDIT: Also, not meaning to be deragatory, but your chart is not comprehensive of the Bible that you are using (you're using a modernized version?) so many of the lines that you are using are in question. Not saying it's an incorrect simplification, just saying that it could be in many cases, ESPECIALLY with there being alternate translations for certain words in the Bible.
-
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Redding/ev.png)
You mean there were 18,000 copies of the New Testament after 30 years?
And who issued those copies? As Alex mentioned, the Church edited out a lot of stuff in the Bible. It's not too hard to destroy old documents at a time like that and then alter some stuff in it. Especially if you're the government. Just check WWII.
Or the Exodus. There's no solid proof of such an event. How on earth could 10 massive plagues occur without any written sources apart from the Bible? An entire slave system must've collapsed. Pure miracles happened. Yet there are simply no hieroglyphs in Egypt, possibly the most advanced nation of that time, depicting anything regarding Jewish slavery or the Exodus.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-05.html (search for Exodus to reach the story)
-
Yeah, the Moses story is entirely false, or least from a historical standpoint.
The Egyptians recorded everything- their triumphs, their failures- yet not a single mention of the Jewish being their slaves or any mass escape of slaves.
Not the debate here, mind.
-
There is man and woman...... THere are 2 species, not more the reason there are 2 species is so they can relate and make love not for the species to ignore and just love there own type.... Seriously who'd (guy) wanna make love to another guy with a DICK would you
Dont mind me its 5:04 am and im soooo freakin tired
Oh God please be kidding...
You can't just debate that, "Man and Woman were made for each other"...it's not a reliable argument, because it's based off religion. You can't prove that men and women were made for each other, therefore you cannot say it is 'wrong' for a gay person to do as he likes, as logically there is no one who set the rule book on what is 'right' and 'wrong'.
And for the God's sake, Male and Female are not two different species!
Don't post so late at night...ever...seriously, that's gotta be one of the worst debate views i've ever heard (yes, ever worse than the time you claimed to have disproved Darwin).
I have absolutely no problem against homosexuality, I believe it is thier choice to do as they please and it is simply discrimation to tell them otherwise (boy do I sound like a n00b, but I don't have time to write a longer message).
-
Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
If you are gay, lying with a man wouldn't be the same as lying with a woman. Besides, technically that's impossible with the organs down there.
Leviticus 20:13
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
See above.
Romans 1:21-27
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator???who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.
Never states what this indecent act is. Hell, they could be ripping off each other's noses for all I know.
1 Corinithians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Homosexual offense is not defined. Once again, it could be two gay guys ripping off each other's noses. Does society decide what this offense is?
Oh and also, what makes a catholic priests opinion that the Bible is metaphorical, a fact? Because the Bible in factual evidence is a history book, and I know that there are many more people that will tell you the Bible is not just a metaphore for life, but rather Gods word, and actual events acuratly recorded.
What makes his opinion more qualified that Biblical scholors, or people who study ancient history, or other ministers from other churches? Nothing does, its just a sadly mis-informed opinion, that you take to you liking.
This may or may not be a good point. But I feel as though it belongs in another debate.
-
Comrade Kesha. Since you're actually reading this, I'd like to refer you to the King James version. It's a more accurate translation, and should answer many of your questions. If you'd like, I could get you a link to an online version.
-
Please do, as it would be much appreciated. :)
-
Okay, here's Romans 1:
http://scriptures.lds.org/rom/1
And just so you know, the footnotes are accessible for different translations of the word. Possible alternate contexts for the words. This can also provide further explanation, although it's somewhat theoretical. Either that or they are referencing stuff related to my religion (in which case, just ignore).
Anyway, and here's the Old Testament:
http://scriptures.lds.org/ot/contents
New Testament:
http://scriptures.lds.org/nt/contents
-
Alrighty then... Bible time :D
First I'll go with your Leviticus ones. The simple answer as to why this isn't necessarily always true is because it can be interpreted as being only in the case of Lust, which is one of the Deadly Sins. In blind lust, a man could go and have sex with anything that moves, so this chapter tries to cover anything that someone could have lustful sex with. Either way, it never says that a man cannot love another in a non-physical way.
Now here's a good one. Whenever people quote something, it always comes out of context. I find it funny that just a few verses down, you get these:
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the aland is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye shall therefore akeep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27 (For all these aabominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be acut off from among their people.
30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable acustoms, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
All of that basically says that these rules apply to the Jews, and the Jews only. Also, it applies only to the promised Holy Land. He has said that they will be separate from the other nations. The rules, therefore, do not apply to anyone else. Only Jews and Christians (which are really just Jew V.2.0, now with added Messiah!) who reside in the holy land. You can't go around imposing this ban on others if the Bible tells you not to, right?
Now for Romans:
Comrade Kesha is right in saying that it doesn't say that it never shows what an indecant act is specifically. THere's more to it though. The passage refers to pagans and how they have hightened themselves to God's level in knowledge. They make idols and worship things like trees, animals and bugs. They worshipped the things He made more than He himself. This is the part that describes their punishment
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.
28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 - Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Right there in the middle of verse 27 it says the word "lust". Not just lust, but burning lust! When it says that women changed their natural use o that which is against nature, it can easily mean sex for pleasure, for lust, since that is not the natural purpose of sex. The same lust goes for man on man. It never says anything about actual love though. God has punished them by not allowing them to love anyone. They cannot love their women, and can't even turn to men as an alternative. They have gone against God and will never forget it.
Corinthians time:
First off, what version Bible are you using? The KJV never says anything like "homosexual offenders". Next, what is an offender? Maybe it's a rapist acting again out of lust. Just like that male prostitute before it. There's no doubt it speaks about gays, but it's likely that it's specifying only the lust, sex without love or cause, rather than the true love the two could meet.
You interpret it your way, I'll interpret it mine. As far as I'm concerned, it never says that two men can't love each other. You can't claim yours is the only correct interpretation. You have no proof of what it literally means, since I can obviously quite easily refute it simply as being lust. Also, you can't go off and impose your interpretation of your religion on someone who may very well have neither.