Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

59,181 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102775 Jul 9, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not even slightly. The bible is just mythology. The scholars I reference did a lot of actual work to produce their analyses.
Really? is that a fact or your opinion? I'm sure you realize that the biblical writers flatly denied teaching mythology. For example, Peter said,“We didn’t follow cleverly devised tales when we told you about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His Majesty”(2 Pet. 1:16). In fact, the Apostle Paul urged Timothy to teach his congregation to disregard mythology (1 Tim. 1:4). He warned that a time was coming when people would “turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to mythology”(2 Tim. 4:4).

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#102776 Jul 9, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
You and your club get all worked up when I use an anti-gay site, but it's okay to use a anti-bible site? Hypocrite! How many men did the chief of David's captains kill? ANSWER
Jashobeam in 1Chr 11:11 and Adino in 2Sam 23:8 are the same person and this Adino personally killed 300 men.
The 800 men killed in 2Sam 23:8 are the total number of men killed by Adino, Eleazar and Shammah.
The 800 killed are credited to Adino as CHIEF of the captains.
This is NOT a Biblical contradiction. If you want, I can dispute every one. Your call, just make sure your club members don't mind.
Here is an additional note from the page I sent you to, regarding this first contradiction.

"Note from the Oxford Annotated Bible for 2 Samuel 23:8-11: Josheb-basshebeth a Tachemonite is an error of a copyist; 1 Chr 11.11 has Jashobeam a Hachmonite. It has been proposed that the man's original name was Ishbaal (see 2.8 n. and 11.14-25 n.).

So according to the Oxford Annotated Bible, Jashobeam and Josheb-basshe'beth (and Ishbaal) are different names for the same person."

So here's what we have: One of the many, many, MANY copyists responsible for translating the Bible (from one of the languages which God created at Babel to confuse people, into another of God's purposefully confusing languages) makes an error, and one of the many, many, MANY versions of the Bible PROPOSES that this means two different names are actually for the same person.

Is that how it works? Bible apologists blame human error for the contradictions, and gloss over the implication of errors in the Bible?

Going through all 480 of these sounds fun. We might skip a few, though, due to sheer Biblical boredom. For example, here's part of #2: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory."

I mean, what? "He hath whereof to glory"? I have no interest in untangling this pre-Shakespearean gibberish. We'd have to figure out what the hell they're saying, before we could confirm if it's a contradiction.

So how about #3? How many generations from Abraham to Moses? Four? Or more than four?

Biblical math is frequently TERRIBLE like this. Jesus' own genealogy is wrong like that. One of my favorites is Ezra chapter 1, where they tally up the gold and silver for a mistaken total of 5400, when the math clearly adds up to 2499.

And I'm not a member of any club.
Toby

Eugene, OR

#102777 Jul 9, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that doesn't work. Google will still pick up on that and give you back the original, which is very easy to determine.
I'd easily catch you plagiarizing in my class.
Here's the thing, though. Why are you so worried about it? We're all speaking our own thoughts here - and, if we're not, it's pretty easy to determine.
The one thing I've noticed about people is this: people who accuse others of lying, lie. People who accuse others of stealing, steal. People who accuse others of plagiarizing...
There's an immense distinction between copying and pasting verbatim from hate groups adding "I conclude" as Riccardo has done, and posters reading various articles and interpreting that information in their own words with their own conclusions.

Or for instance Riccardo copying and pasting verbatim and then adding maybe one sentence of his own to the post and feigning authorship, and most other posters who reads various articles, checks the sources and then post their conclusions in their own words. If I have to get statistics to substantiate a point I am making of course that has to come from a source and I have always posted that according to e.g.(the CDC, or the Gallup Poll, etc.)

Also there is no comparison in using news sources like Wikinews, The Real News, The Guardian, The Independent ,The Nation, etc., and plagiarizing verbatim from known anti-gay organizations like Riccardo does.

Here are many of the sources he post verbatim from:
Family Research Council
Mass Resistance
American College of Pediatricians
American Family Association
Family Research Institute

What Riccardo does is the equivalent of a anti-semite using "Mein Kampf to prove that Jews are inferior, it's disgusting and reprehensible.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102778 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an additional note from the page I sent you to, regarding this first contradiction.
"Note from the Oxford Annotated Bible for 2 Samuel 23:8-11: Josheb-basshebeth a Tachemonite is an error of a copyist; 1 Chr 11.11 has Jashobeam a Hachmonite. It has been proposed that the man's original name was Ishbaal (see 2.8 n. and 11.14-25 n.).
So according to the Oxford Annotated Bible, Jashobeam and Josheb-basshe'beth (and Ishbaal) are different names for the same person."
So here's what we have: One of the many, many, MANY copyists responsible for translating the Bible (from one of the languages which God created at Babel to confuse people, into another of God's purposefully confusing languages) makes an error, and one of the many, many, MANY versions of the Bible PROPOSES that this means two different names are actually for the same person.
Is that how it works? Bible apologists blame human error for the contradictions, and gloss over the implication of errors in the Bible?
Going through all 480 of these sounds fun. We might skip a few, though, due to sheer Biblical boredom. For example, here's part of #2: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory."
I mean, what? "He hath whereof to glory"? I have no interest in untangling this pre-Shakespearean gibberish. We'd have to figure out what the hell they're saying, before we could confirm if it's a contradiction.
So how about #3? How many generations from Abraham to Moses? Four? Or more than four?
Biblical math is frequently TERRIBLE like this. Jesus' own genealogy is wrong like that. One of my favorites is Ezra chapter 1, where they tally up the gold and silver for a mistaken total of 5400, when the math clearly adds up to 2499.
And I'm not a member of any club.
It seems you and every other gay person here is also a Bible expert. Is that part of coming out? or is it clinging to bible hate sites? Do you want to engage in a Bible argument here? Jashobeam in 1Chr 11:11 and Adino in 2Sam 23:8 are the same person and this Adino personally killed 300 men.
The 800 men killed in 2Sam 23:8 are the total number of men killed by Adino, Eleazar and Shammah.
The 800 killed are credited to Adino as CHIEF of the captains.
This is NOT a Biblical contradiction. I don't agree with the hate site.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102779 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
. Jesus' own genealogy is wrong like that. One of my favorites is Ezra chapter 1, where they tally up the gold and silver for a mistaken total of 5400, when the math clearly adds up to 2499.
And I'm not a member of any club.
First of all, Ezra is in the old testament. How did Jesus genealogy get confused with gold and silver in the old testament? Slow down babble brains. Second, Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph,“so it was thought”(Luke 3:23).

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#102780 Jul 9, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
It seems you and every other gay person here is also a Bible expert. Is that part of coming out?
No, it's an important skill that most people should learn, so that they can defend themselves against the people who want to use the Bible as an excuse to strip them of their civil rights.
RiccardoFire wrote:
or is it clinging to bible hate sites?
Making an honest analysis of the Bible doesn't count as "hate". If the Bible can't keep its stories straight, then the problem is with the Bible, not with the people who point out these inconsistencies.
RiccardoFire wrote:
Do you want to engage in a Bible argument here?
Yes, absolutely! I thought you had agreed to go through all 480 of the contradictions with me. Change your mind already?

But the very question which opened this thread, "Is homosexuality a sin?", counts as a Bible argument. It opens the discussion between people who say "no" and people who say "yes". If you're here on this page, posting comments, then this signals a willingness to engage in a Bible argument.
RiccardoFire wrote:
Jashobeam in 1Chr 11:11 and Adino in 2Sam 23:8 are the same person and this Adino personally killed 300 men.
The 800 men killed in 2Sam 23:8 are the total number of men killed by Adino, Eleazar and Shammah.
The 800 killed are credited to Adino as CHIEF of the captains.
You posted this exact thing already. No need to repeat yourself.

But again, this is an ASSUMPTION that some Bible scholars have made, in an attempt to correct what appears to them to be a copying error.

The most obvious implication of this is that errors CAN be added to the Bible by scribes and translators.

The next is, how clearly was God trying to communicate? Was this guy's name Jashobeam, or Adino? Was he a Hachmonite, or a Tachmonite, or an Eznite? Hey, God, how about a little CLARITY, so future generations have no confusion over this mess?

And what about this passage, from 2 Samuel 23:8... "he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."

At ONE TIME? That must've been SOME spear!
RiccardoFire wrote:
This is NOT a Biblical contradiction. I don't agree with the hate site.
Imagine that. You don't agree with the site which disagrees with you. Ironclad reasoning, right there.

Moving on.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#102781 Jul 9, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
First of all, Ezra is in the old testament.
So? What does that mean? Is the Old Testament a lie? Is it discarded? Is it apocryphal?

Creation and the Garden of Eden are in the Old Testament also. Can we discard those tales? Noah? Moses? Babel? Samson? Is this all obsolete? God was just having a bad millennium?

Is this going to be your standard answer? Will you just IGNORE any and all discrepancies from the OT?
RiccardoFire wrote:
How did Jesus genealogy get confused with gold and silver in the old testament? Slow down babble brains.
Sorry, those are two separate things. I didn’t mean to confuse you with a gigantic number like 2.
RiccardoFire wrote:
Second, Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph,“so it was thought”(Luke 3:23).
Yes, a virgin birth is certainly unusual. But don’t let a little thing like scientific facts get in the way of a good fantasy story. I bet the obstetricians and gynecologists who claim that birth requires a sperm and an egg are really on the government payroll.

But the genealogy that I see has no mention of Mary. Both lines reach from David to Joseph, though with very little agreement.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_...

What gives?

But back to Ezra. Chapter 1, verses 8 through 11:

And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of sliver, nine and twenty knives, thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem.

Let’s review.

30 chargers of gold
1000 chargers of silver
29 knives
30 basons of gold
410 basons of silver and a “second sort”
1000 other vessels.
Total claimed by the Bible: 5400
Actual total with real math: 2499

What’s up with that? I hope that the king fired that lousy treasurer!

How about contradiction #4? How many sons did Abraham have?

Now, I’ll concede some of this one. My website points out that Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 name Isaac as Abrahams “only” son, while later verses in Genesis and a verse in Galatians name more. I think they're reaching a little. This could be explained by saying that Isaac was Abraham’s only son AT THE TIME.

All well and good, except that the latest verse in Genesis says that Abraham had a whole slew of sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah. While the Galatians verse, which comes MUCH later, says he had only two sons.

What is the correct number of sons?

Oh wait, I know. Galatians was in the New Testament, so that's correct. Genesis was Old Testament, so it's completely wrong. Is that how it works?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102782 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
So? What does that mean? Is the Old Testament a lie? Is it discarded? Is it apocryphal?
Creation and the Garden of Eden are in the Old Testament also. Can we discard those tales? Noah? Moses? Babel? Samson? Is this all obsolete? God was just having a bad millennium?
How did Jesus genealogy get confused with gold and silver in the old testament? You're skipping around. You complained about the genealogy of Jesus and then related something about Ezra.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102783 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes, a virgin birth is certainly unusual.
would it be too much for a True God, a Creator of all life to be able to do some things that your religion can't explain?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102784 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
I'm thinking arguing with you is like arguing with the hateful rev that shows up on sites. I explain an answer and you jump to your next point that is already written for you. Just because you identified the source, it's still plagiarizing. If you have a question, ask it, don't write a book with 33 questions. And let it be clear to those that don't want to talk about the Bible that you started it.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102785 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
:

Matthew's account traces the lineage from Abraham to Jesus (41 generations), while Luke records the ancestry from Adam to Jesus (76 generations).
Matthew's genealogy is condensed and divided into three groups of 14, representing a movement through three time periods. The first group lists the patriarchs, the second names the kings, and the third contains private citizens. The intent was not to give a strict record, but rather, present the historical progression. It begins by highlighting the family origin, then the rise to power through the Davidic throne, and eventually the decline from royalty to the humble birth of the promised Messiah.
Luke's account is unusual in that is begins with Jesus and progresses backward through history, rather than following the order of chronological succession. Some suggest that Luke's purpose in presenting a "regression" was to magnify attention on Jesus.
Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists.
The first is that one genealogy is for Mary, and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-ma... http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.h...

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102786 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

But back to Ezra. Chapter 1, verses 8 through 11:
And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of sliver, nine and twenty knives, thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem.
Let’s review.
30 chargers of gold
1000 chargers of silver
29 knives
30 basons of gold
410 basons of silver and a “second sort”
1000 other vessels.
Total claimed by the Bible: 5400
Actual total with real math: 2499
What’s up with that? I hope that the king fired that lousy treasurer!
Ezra just mentions the most peculiar items and doesn't total them in this verse. This verse just concludes with “and other vessels, 5400 vessels in total”. Some think that Ezra just mentions in particular the large vessels, see 2 Chr. 36:18. The vessels he doesn't describe are the small vessels.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102787 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

How about contradiction #4? How many sons did Abraham have?
Now, I’ll concede some of this one. My website points out that Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 name Isaac as Abrahams “only” son, while later verses in Genesis and a verse in Galatians name more. I think they're reaching a little. This could be explained by saying that Isaac was Abraham’s only son AT THE TIME.
All well and good, except that the latest verse in Genesis says that Abraham had a whole slew of sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah. While the Galatians verse, which comes MUCH later, says he had only two sons.
What is the correct number of sons?
Oh wait, I know. Galatians was in the New Testament, so that's correct. Genesis was Old Testament, so it's completely wrong. Is that how it works?
http://carm.org/bible-difficul ties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-m any-children-did-abraham-have- one-or-two Who ever said the old Testament was wrong? Plz show me that post.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102788 Jul 9, 2014

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#102789 Jul 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

And what about this passage, from 2 Samuel 23:8... "he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."
At ONE TIME? That must've been SOME spear!

Moving on.
He once used his spear to kill 800 enemy warriors in a single battle.
Toby

Eugene, OR

#102790 Jul 9, 2014
Gotta kill those nasty philistines, their women and children too!

LoL
Toby

Eugene, OR

#102791 Jul 9, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
http://carm.org/bible-difficul ties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-m any-children-did-abraham-have- one-or-two
Wiki- "The website also provides Protestants with pre-formatted "cut-and-paste" arguments to use in chatroom discussions with atheists, relativists, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics and members of other groups."

Nothing like a good cut and paste argument. LoL
Toby

Eugene, OR

#102792 Jul 9, 2014

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#102793 Jul 9, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard of an Irish queer? That's the one who loves women more than whisky.
hahaha! Nice. I was in a pub in England that had an Irish bartender. He told me "I drink Guinness to sober up!"

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#102794 Jul 9, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't know all the so called academic's that can prove it by holding up some paper go on websites and spit hate towards Christians? Very impressive. LOL Students should go to college for one reason and that's to get a job. There are degrees that are meaningless in getting a job. Maybe some decided to work and if not a trust fund baby, then not accumulate a huge debt. They seem wiser.
I'm a scholar. I'm not going to school just to get a job.

You're kind of immature.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Phooey 653,724
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 28 min Buck Crick 63,484
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 41 min Pegasus 281,845
What is your most embarrassing photo? 1 hr Thelordofdogtown 3
Just chatt 1 hr Truthiness 16
women watching men naked on webcam (Mar '12) 2 hr Gerg 58
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr Brian_G 445,965
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Steve III 618,754
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr karl44 973,685
More from around the web