Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

57,216 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#95959 Jan 23, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>are some people born gay? I believe medically that yes some people are. Maybe some are confused and don't know what they are but then the point is: Even if you consider it a sin, how do you treat gay people?
What I don't understand is straight people who claim to know better than gay people what makes them gay, and who furthermore can't choose to be gay themselves. That is truly the height of cluelessness.

As for how homophobic Christians treat gay people, they adopt the hypocritical and disingenuous "love the sinner, hate the sin" stance. When they can't even rationalize why being gay would be a sin in the first place.

Since the homophobic Christians are on the same wrong side of history as the Christians who defended slavery and opposed interracial marriage and women's suffrage, I leave it to the more enlightened Christians who see the writing on the wall to explain to those who cling to the past why it's fine to be gay from both a Biblical and secular perspective.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95960 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I asked you where in the Bible it says that Levirate marriage has expired. You just can't find anything, so you off-handedly claim that the NT replaced the OT...while still cherry-picking the OT when it suits you. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.
You must think that seeing as how they had Levite marriage 3000 years ago under a Theocratic government they should still have it today and if it becomes obsolete you assume God is inconsistent? Under Christianity there is a boatload that becomes obsolete including animal sacrifice, circumcision, diet restrictions and all the ceremonies associated with such practices? I have no control over your fixed hostile conclusions except to point out the God of Scripture is unchanging.
I gave you the passages....are you afraid to see what they say?
I looked them up and not the first time i seen them. What is your source? Evil bible or some atheist website? It is your explicit claim God orders rape. Now show me in any of these verses where God orders rape.
Numbers 31:7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.
The Samuel verse does not work because it does not explicitly say they are raped. All them circumstances David brought on himself by his affair with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of the husband. You are jumping to hasty conclusions and ignoring context. These are rudiment unforgivable mistakes. Had to erase Samuel. Out of space.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95961 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
Numbers 31:7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
That is Moses, Not God. Your claim was explicit. God orders rape. Explicit claims require explicit evidence. All you have is myopic implied assumptions void of historical context. Females were conditioned for arranged marriages and they were to have children. You must assume arranged marriages is the equivalent of rape. That is ramming an alien 21st century assumption into an ancient culture. Fail.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#95962 Jan 23, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You must think that seeing as how they had Levite marriage 3000 years ago under a Theocratic government they should still have it today and if it becomes obsolete you assume God is inconsistent?
God approved of Levirate marriage. What changed? You can't point to anything in the Bible that came back and refutes it. And even if something did refute it, why was it valid then but not now? That's inconsistent.
Under Christianity there is a boatload that becomes obsolete including animal sacrifice, circumcision, diet restrictions and all the ceremonies associated with such practices? I have no control over your fixed hostile conclusions except to point out the God of Scripture is unchanging.
You yourself just described how God changed it mind.
I looked them up and not the first time i seen them. What is your source? Evil bible or some atheist website? It is your explicit claim God orders rape. Now show me in any of these verses where God orders rape.
My source was the Bible, and if you read the excepts, God's commandment of rape is described. It's really that simple. I mean, I can cut and paste the text again if you want, but I can't force you to read and grasp what it says I guess.
The Samuel verse does not work because it does not explicitly say they are raped.
Yeah actually it does. God personally brings the rape victims to the rapists, and then kills innocent children. How much more explicit than that can you get?

I mean seriously, doesn't this immoral stuff bother you at all?
All them circumstances David brought on himself by his affair with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of the husband. You are jumping to hasty conclusions and ignoring context. These are rudiment unforgivable mistakes. Had to erase Samuel. Out of space.
Oh right, all those women deserved rape and the children deserved murder because of David. Are you serious???

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95963 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.
That is another warning from God in which the Israelites brought on themselves. To obey brings blessings to disobey means curses. Part of all that meant women were ravished as in all wars up to and including today. Besides i already addressed that earlier which you ignored. The Israelites were warned time and again but did not change and even got worse. Much of their crimes had to do with abuse of power towards the poor. Neglect. They had a host of offenses and eventually judgement came down.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#95964 Jan 23, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is Moses, Not God. Your claim was explicit. God orders rape. Explicit claims require explicit evidence. All you have is myopic implied assumptions void of historical context. Females were conditioned for arranged marriages and they were to have children. You must assume arranged marriages is the equivalent of rape. That is ramming an alien 21st century assumption into an ancient culture. Fail.
Um, No, God commands Moses, and in the last verse even explicitly tells Moses to keep the virgins (and murder all the men and non-virgin women).

I really don't see how you can say you take morality seriously when you dismiss this stuff as happening a long time ago, or that rape, murder, or slavery is ever excusable under any circumstances. And they were not arranged marriages, they were rapes. Not that arranged marriages where one or both parties are not consenting is much better. Again, why was this behavior excusable for any culture, ancient or otherwise? I just don't get how you can think that way. Or how you can claim that God is always consistent on the one hand, and excuse every kind of moral horror as "oh, that happened in the past, so it's OK". Well, if it was OK in the past but not now, that is not consistent, is it?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95965 Jan 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain why they exist in every single culture in human history.
I bet you can't do it. Here comes the scoff...
Smirk.
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't answer my questions?
Your question is based on a false premise.

Now answer mine.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95966 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
My source was the Bible, and if you read the excepts, God's commandment of rape is described. It's really that simple. I mean, I can cut and paste the text again if you want, but I can't force you to read and grasp what it says I guess.
You need to explain from your verses where God orders rape. You have not done that. You made an explicit claim and now you need to show where God orders rape explicitly. All you are doing is spamming now. Rape rape rape. And that is all you really can do because you cannot back anything up. These tactics work on Topix but in a live debate you would be laughed off the stage.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95967 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, No, God commands Moses,
Where? Where does God command Moses to rape females?

wilderide wrote:
Numbers 31:7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
and in the last verse even explicitly tells Moses to keep the virgins (and murder all the men and non-virgin women).
Not seeing God commanding Moses to rape women per your explicit claim.
I really don't see how you can say you take morality seriously when you dismiss this stuff as happening a long time ago, or that rape, murder, or slavery is ever excusable under any circumstances.
It happens today. What are you doing about it? The fact being you use these things to discredit scripture and ignore them today. You don't give a rats ass about rape. Why don't you just admit it? Instead you prefer to address these issues 3000 years ago and effectively ignore it happening today. Your opposition is as effective as hand wringing. Your so fixated on the alleged sins of the ancients and blind to your own hypocrisy.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#95968 Jan 23, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You need to explain from your verses where God orders rape. You have not done that. You made an explicit claim and now you need to show where God orders rape explicitly. All you are doing is spamming now. Rape rape rape. And that is all you really can do because you cannot back anything up. These tactics work on Topix but in a live debate you would be laughed off the stage.
I did show where, and you said it was excusable because it was God and it was a long time ago and they deserved it. What were you making excuses for if what I said was there was not there?

And you still have not explained how things can be so markedly different in the past (with the condonement of God) and yet consistent to today.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#95969 Jan 23, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Where? Where does God command Moses to rape females?
You obviously don't want to read for context, so let's drop it.
It happens today. What are you doing about it? The fact being you use these things to discredit scripture and ignore them today. You don't give a rats ass about rape. Why don't you just admit it? Instead you prefer to address these issues 3000 years ago and effectively ignore it happening today. Your opposition is as effective as hand wringing. Your so fixated on the alleged sins of the ancients and blind to your own hypocrisy.
When you start to tell me what I'm thinking and what my values are is when you truly have no idea what you are talking about. I take morality very seriously, and that includes a repugnance of rape, and ideologies which condone it.

I'm not worried about the alleged sins of the past because most likely they never really happened anyway, or at least I hope not. My point, again, is that you keep claiming God's morality is the same as it ever was when the Old Testament clearly proves that theory wrong. The OT is a collection of some of the most morally repugnant writings of any known religion. And that is part of the reason I enjoin everyone to read the Bible and understand what it says, in order to repudiate it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95970 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
If God is consistent, why is there an Old and New Testament?
Progressive Revelation.

http://www.bsmi.org/download/kimble/Biblical_...
There you go being insulting again. And making (inaccurate) presumptions about my knowledge of the Bible. And making ludicrous claims that I hate God. I hate God in the same way you hate Osiris.
You are in denial. I don't see you accusing Osiris of rape. You desire to throw all these accusations out against God straight out of Dawkins. Your logic about God is akin to blaming a judge for sentencing a murderer to life imprisonment. A long time ago i asked you some basic questions about the Bible and you could not answer them.

King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain?

Give me two examples of slave revolt in the Old Testament? Now i even printed the answer to that one on Topix.

Any first year Theology student could answer both of those questions.
I would really prefer to have a civil debate; no one gains anything otherwise.
Your civility is skin deep.
What I find objectionable is religion and magical thinking. It's not specific you your particular deity. Humans need to embrace critical thinking skills and evolve past religions and myths. Such things only have relevance as an indication of how societies thought and what they valued. But they are also infantile and false.
And you are the purveyor of truth? Over Jesus? You know more than the ancients?
You'd like to pretend that much of what the Bible says either isn't there or doesn't apply anymore because society has progressed beyond the Bronze Age and yet the Bible has not.
You make excuses for things like slavery! And rape! No one can morally rationalize such things. And what about the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and infanticide? Are those excusable too? Give me a break.
Do you have to be so sarcastic?

You have at least two explicit examples of rape in the Old Testament. Name them. Name the fate of the rapists?
You still don't get it. Or maybe you simply don't want to. Atheism has nothing to do with morality.
Agree. Let me add atheism explains nothing.
You might as well say "Sure you can be moral and a pharmacist or you can be a slave owner and a pharmacist or you can be a moral nihilist or anarchist and be a pharmacist. You can bang your sister and be a pharmacist and as long as everybody is happy and nobody knows and everybody goes to extinction what does it matter?"
Not if the pharmacist is Christian. It is apples and oranges. Since atheism assumes there is no God then there is no accountability to God. If man escapes human justice he is home free. That means there is no real justice for victims. Justice is arbitrary. Its counter intuitive to human sense of justice.
You claim you are big on slavery being wrong. Yet you only address slavery within the context of Scripture. 3000 years ago. Since you do not believe your rights come from God then you must believe your rights come from men or governments. A giant step backwards.
In other words, atheism has nothing to do with ethics and morality.
Agreed. That means you can change your mind any time. What is to stop you? You can reevaluate your position on slavery.

You are enslaved to your homosexuality and by extension Satan. It is the cruel form of slavery somewhat depicted in the slavery in ancient Egypt. You are, according to Scripture dead in a spiritual sense. The spiritual death brings about physical death. It is the spiritual death which is the real killer. The spiritual death caused Adam and Eve to hide. Physical death was inevitable. Like cancer eventually brings about physical death. It is the cancer that kills.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95971 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
I am referring to that passage, and the Hebrew phrase is "lay hold on her", which does in fact mean rape. Ask a rabbi. But I'm glad that you are willing at least to analyse the text in it's original language, at least when it suits your argument (i.e., you are probably not so willing to analyse the parts which seem to condemn homosexuality for translation and in context). Most Christians can't be bothered. Which I've always found odd for what is supposed to be the most important text in their life.
Regarding the Deut. passage 22:22-29. You have four circumstances. The first involves death for both the man and the woman. v.22. The second involves death for both parties. 23-24 indicates consensual sex. The third involves force rape and only the man is to be put to death. v. 26 indicates force rape is akin to murder. Then you have v.28 and you say that is force rape. That would contradict v.26 where it explicitly states force rape akin with murder. It means some type of consensual sex because the man is required to pay a dowry to daddy, marry the female and could not divorce her. He is stuck with her.

You have these oddball situations in the Old. Like the two men fighting and a woman miscarries.[Ex. 21:22.] I think these situations are addressing events which happened at that time and rulings were recorded.

Only 25 is explicit as far as force rape. 28 indicates the man seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered. Well if it is force rape why do they need to be discovered? If it is force rape wouldn't the female run home to daddy and tell him she was raped? Most females who are force raped aren't too happy about it and in that culture if a female is not a virgin at marriage then there is the death penalty. 22:20-21. She has every reason to scream rape. Yet the verses says they are discovered indicates secret meetings. No i gotta go with consensual sex. The reason being explicit force rape is akin to murder.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) Deut. 22:22-29

22 “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them [a]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#95972 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
What I don't understand is straight people who claim to know better than gay people what makes them gay, and who furthermore can't choose to be gay themselves. That is truly the height of cluelessness.
As for how homophobic Christians treat gay people, they adopt the hypocritical and disingenuous "love the sinner, hate the sin" stance. When they can't even rationalize why being gay would be a sin in the first place.
Since the homophobic Christians are on the same wrong side of history as the Christians who defended slavery and opposed interracial marriage and women's suffrage, I leave it to the more enlightened Christians who see the writing on the wall to explain to those who cling to the past why it's fine to be gay from both a Biblical and secular perspective.
And yet the Christian church wonders why enrollment is dropping.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95973 Jan 24, 2014
The 'rest of the story' is that Christians are usually the lone segment of society sacrificially addressing racism, slavery and abuse. Wildride's one sided judgment only exposes his hate and bigotry.

But more important, is why racism, slavery and abuse fatally infect all humanity. This is what wilderide avoids addressing. Moreover, he hypocritically denies his participation in it.

A commitment to truth is at the root of the Christian faith. You are condemning them for ignorance about something even science still has not fully understood.

And the rest of the story is that while homosexuality is not normally a chosen orientation, it is most likely a sexual defect. Something that EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY has recognized apart from ANY religion.

For there to be a demand that society accept that homosexuality is not a choice, but then turn around and equate a likely sexual defect to the most important and sacred relationship in society provokes an indignant reaction. Add to this the adamant demand that homosexuality be acknowledged as normal by everyone, and not a sexual defect, only escalates the reaction.

Ignorance meets denial.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#95974 Jan 24, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Ignorance meets denial.
So you're talking to your inner lesbian again?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#95975 Jan 24, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Children. The continuation of the species.
The ones that make it that far. PS, you don't have to be heterosexual to make our potential little futures and humans figured out how to conceive without either biological parent in the same room ages ago. Your heterosexuality, not as necessary to the survival of the species as it used to be. Sorry, but that's reality.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#95976 Jan 24, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Regarding the Deut. passage 22:22-29. You have four circumstances. The first involves death for both the man and the woman. v.22. The second involves death for both parties. 23-24 indicates consensual sex. The third involves force rape and only the man is to be put to death. v. 26 indicates force rape is akin to murder. Then you have v.28 and you say that is force rape. That would contradict v.26 where it explicitly states force rape akin with murder. It means some type of consensual sex because the man is required to pay a dowry to daddy, marry the female and could not divorce her. He is stuck with her.
You have these oddball situations in the Old. Like the two men fighting and a woman miscarries.[Ex. 21:22.] I think these situations are addressing events which happened at that time and rulings were recorded.
Only 25 is explicit as far as force rape. 28 indicates the man seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered. Well if it is force rape why do they need to be discovered? If it is force rape wouldn't the female run home to daddy and tell him she was raped? Most females who are force raped aren't too happy about it and in that culture if a female is not a virgin at marriage then there is the death penalty. 22:20-21. She has every reason to scream rape. Yet the verses says they are discovered indicates secret meetings. No i gotta go with consensual sex. The reason being explicit force rape is akin to murder.
Verses 23-24, the act is one that she had no right to consent to, her virginity was already spoken for under the law, even if she doesn't tell him. It's a form of adultery that is essentially a statutory rape.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#95978 Jan 24, 2014
Toby wrote:
Word is that Greg Kirschmann&#8206; is a fundamentalist con man, defrocked paster, and philanderer, I wonder why someone would quote verbatim the words of Greg Kirschmann?
I wonder that too! Once is enough! Maybe people are unaware that they can snip his words inside those quotes? Or too lazy to do so.

And why do people feed him like they do, giving him exactly what he comes here for?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#95979 Jan 24, 2014
Toby wrote:
Do you and Kirschmann compare delusional notes?
lol
Smile
I think they compare dicks. Kirschmann's is the smallest.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Buck Crick 740,267
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 17 min Lost In Transition 173,856
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min feces for jesus 227,884
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 21 min Aura Mytha 259,721
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr Tim Osman 118,209
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr hojo 543,117
Is Incest with mother is most pleasurable of all? (Feb '12) 2 hr Why 27

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••