"You Can't Win" - The Bible trivia game
Posted on: May 2, 2007 - 12:29pm
Offline
"You Can't Win" - The Bible trivia game
Hey guys,
I'm trying out a new game with my theist friends. It's called, "You Can't Win". Here is how the first game went with a buddy of mine. I'll call him "John". This is the actual email exchange.
Scott: Hey John, I have two questions:
- What did Judas do with his money?
- How did he die?
John: He threw it back if memory serves me right and he hung himself. What’s the point?
Scott: Not according to Acts:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201:15-20;&version=9;31;49;15;73;
He bought a field with it and he fell in that field, his guts burst out and he died.
Scott: So are we all clear about what happened to Judas? Do you agree that he did not throw the money away and hang himself according to Acts?
John: Yes. The Acts account is I am sure accurate.
Scott: I’m sorry, but that is not how it happened according to Matthew:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:1-10;&version=9;31;49;15;73;
As you can see, Judas’ threw the money in the temple and hanged himself. Then the priests of the temple used the money to buy the field.
So now, without incredibly tortured logic, is there any way both stories can be true?
It has been 5 days now with no response.
The great thing about this game is that you can have two people play against each other. After you prove the first person wrong, you can let the second person answer. They can use the very verses you just quoted. Then you tell the second person they are wrong by quoting verses that prove the first person's case.
Fun.
- Login to post comments
They aren't. Many men have been freed from prison of late due to DNA evidence. They were almost all convicted based on eyewitness testimony.
I mean has no errors of fact. Punctuation and spelling seems somewhat irrelevent.
The idea that God would inspire the original text to be inerrant but then allow that text to become lost and allow the copies to incorporate errors just doesn't seem to follow logically. What would be the point? And we can never falsify this. I could just as well claim that Christ was off in a UFO between the age of 13 and 30. You could never prove me wrong.
He makes his own judgment as all men do, atheists and theists alike. I am pretty sure that you don't think it an abomination to eat shellfish or a capital offense to pick up sticks on the sabbath. I doubt you would insist that a rapist marry his victim. You have made your own determinations as well.
Mark was the first Gospel written, Matthew and Luke are enhanced versions of the Markan story, John came later with a more fleshed out theology based on existing writings and oral traditions. Have you noticed that the extra bits added to Mark by Matthew and Luke occur in a different order in each of the two gospels?
Happy to give them, but I think I am going to need to disappear for at least the next few days. Work and family call.
Take care, REVLyle. It's been nice chatting with you.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Thank you Scottmax. I am glad that we can discuss in a civil way. I wish all on this site were as open to intelligent discussion without attack as you. I am sure you can say the same for people who are theists. I have already seen some comments from those who claim to know Christ - that simply embarass me. It is not their stand that bothers me, just simply their lack of open discussion.
I agree about family and work. You also take care.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
just my input on homosexuality and the eyewitness accounts in the bible...
what seperates homosexuality from other "sins" is that it causes no harm to someone. an atheist agrees just as much as you that killing, stealing, raping, and adultery are wrong, but that is because they either involve harm, betrayel, or the loss of property. homosexuality does no more harm than my left sock. the only reasons christians see it as evil is because the bible says so. in no other way could i look at it like that.
and about the eyewitness accounts, what we see wrong with the bible is that it is not backed up by archeological evidence or any other kind to support it. in the court of law, you can't be convicted with no more evidence than someone's word. if america becomes a christian theocracy, i am going straight to the supreme court with a couple friends and saying every american church has been eating babies, based off of our similar essays.
My question is: why does the book of Mark, the first gospel, not have any 'post resurrection' accounts of jesus at all?
(mark 16:9-20 are later insertions)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Because he didn't write about it?
I will apologize ahead of time, long post, but: as this will probably be my last post bear with me, I feel it is truly just an exercise in futility, we (theists) feel our side is right, and you (atheists/agnostics) feel your side is right. But I still will take one more shot on this subject. If I have said anything rude, obnoxious or outside what I believe to be true that offends you, I apologize for that also.
You post your side we refute it, we post our side, you refute it. I have to admit though, although some of your arguments look good, and read well also, they tend to really run in circles, and use arguments that don’t hold a lot of water. When rebutted well, a lot of times you just pass right over the good rebuttals and tough questions, and attack the easy questions, the ones of course that each author puts up that is repeated over and over on your site.
The accuracy of the Bible is a subject that is easy to attack, there are at least 143 different things that “don’t match” listed and rebutted on http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm alone. But what you fail to not believe or even want to hear, is anybody’s take on what could possibly have happened, it’s a your way or the highway attitude and this is your definition of “free thinking”. You aren’t truly open to free thinking or even trying to find answers, you are basically only debating your way of thinking, like I said, a “my way or the highway”. So of course, you will always find the same solution, it is the same type of mentality (obviously) that would take the answer evolution, find the theories and evidence to back it up, even when there is no proof. Even within your own communities (scientific included here) there are discrepancies about evolution.
There is a big difference when you take the ‘errors’ in the Bible, they can be misconstrued in a lot of ways, and also explained away very easily, REVLyle talked about in one of his posts how he has 2 people in a Wednesday night class sit on different sides of the room and take notes on the same class and they were different, yet like I mentioned before you expect a number of different people having seen or been told about certain events writing it down years later should have the exact story. I would tend to actually NOT believe it if they were exactly the same, the fact that in each of the gospels they saw and wrote about different things that each of them found important actually brings more creed to its believability. I know you think that if God existed, and all this ‘mystic stuff’ (according to what I’ve seen posted) would not be all powerful, all knowing, etc… BUT what if He is, would he not be able to do pretty much anything He wanted to? There are a lot of things that happen on this planet that people just write off, no explanation needed, dream, hoax, whatever, but what it is possible that some of these things have happened, personally I have a couple of stories I have told to only a handful of people and don’t even feel right putting here, but I will tell you of 2 incidents that have happened to me, that are “unexplainable”. In 1976 I was in Palm Springs, CA spring break, and some people I knew from the Seattle area talked me into going to a “concert” it turned out to be a Christian show, I can’t even remember who was there, but during one the intermissions a guy stood in the middle of the platform and started pointing around the stadium and saying, there is person in this area with a cold, it is gone, and over here a headache, and yadda yadda, and I’m thinking what a bunch of baloney, except I had had a heart problem for years (at the tender young age of 17 even) that had been really bothering me, it struck me almost like a heart attack might, a severe pain to chest that would only last for maybe 2-3 minutes at the most ( and not heartburn I know what that is).. well, this guy keeps talking and points in my direction (section) and says there is a person over here with a heart problem, it is gone.. I have not had an attack since.. The second episode happened a few years earlier(summer of 1974)I was driving from Palm Springs over the mountains to visit relatives in Texas I was in a 68 Camaro, and making pretty good time, in the 80-90 mph range, (I have not been back on that road since then and don’t know what it is like, but back then it was a divided highway, 2 lanes each direction), as I was saying I was heading uphill at a good rate of speed almost to the top of the pass when something, I don’t know what, appeared in the middle of the highway in front of me, it was almost ghostlike, something I could see thru, it was hovering a few feet off the ground and didn’t say a word but put his arms in front of himself, palms down and motioned like one would to slow down. I was in awe for a second then dropped my speed down to around 40 as I topped the top of the hill, in front of me was an accident that involved a number of cars and literally covered the whole road from bank to bank, if I had not slowed down, I would have plowed right into it.
To me because A) I experienced them, B) was awake C) was not on drugs, believe what happened was supernatural, something outside the realm of the explainable, and the funniest part was, it STILL didn’t change me, or my habits, or my behavior, I was actually making a run to get money for a drug deal, and still went through with it, over the next few years, I ran a lot of drugs, and did time in a few different jails, and it took many years before the light bulb actually came on and I really truly understood who God was, who Jesus and the relationship (not religion) they offered me. I won’t delve into my whole story (wait for the book) but I thought a lot like you guys do, except for certain things, off and on most of my life, but once He hit me over the head with that 2x4 (metaphorically speaking) I haven’t looked back.
Okay I digress back to Evolution… (might be the wrong place, but the Bible and evolution are tied together because of EVO/ID debate.
When we compare the theory of evolution now we do actually have to hold it to higher standards (although not one of perfection) or even close, because it is science, and supposedly to some extent fact, and provable, if 2, 3 or 4 people have the same evidence and based upon what they have come up with 2, 3 or 4 different answers I think that does invalidate their findings. This happens all the time in science when theories are involved, all it means is they don’t know the answers.
What I am saying is, I know what has happened in my past, I know what is happening now, even as I am typing I feel these arguments almost being “put” into my thought process, things I wasn’t thinking about even, directions I wasn’t going to go, it’s weird, and fun at the same time, if you haven’t experienced it, it’s not really explainable.
One my favorite analogies is, you are walking down a street you see a building up ahead, people are coming and going, lots of noise coming from the building, you wonder what it is. As you approach the building, a person comes up to you and says what is happening in that building is not what it looks like, it isn’t real, they aren’t having fun, don’t even go in there or look at it. You see people coming and going they look happy, but you decide to listen to the person that came up to you on the street and never even bother to go see the building, or walk on by, and everybody tells you, it’s great, what a blast, that’s incredible, but you just believe the first guy, and walk on by. You never know exactly what is going on there inside that building but now you roam around telling everybody how bad the building is, and don’t go in there… I don’t know what it is, but I was told its bad, so don’t go there..
Now, back to the Bible and God again, if He is capable of doing the things the Bible says, (this is actually I believe the inerrant part of the Bible comes into play) it is not that it is inerrant but maybe factual is a better term, what happened in the Bible happened, maybe not EXACTLY as everybody recorded (or it was interpreted) as far as individual views, or memories, but all those things happened. Would He not be capable if you chose, to give you what you want? For that matter to give each of us what we want? It says repeatedly in the Bible, ears to hear, and eyes to see, and goes even further in 2 Corinthians 4: 1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
So it is not the He is punishing anybody, but they are choosing, and through this choosing have made a choice that allows them to find the answers/things they want to find, to justify the answers they want. The real answer comes in the question, “is everything we want really good for us?”.
God Bless you all !!
The theory of Markan priority of the Gospels is a big part of the problem. Everything (including the hsitory of the Gospels themselves) makes much mor sense if you consider Griesbach, or the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH). But that's a whole other discussion.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
One my favorite analogies is, you are walking down a street you see a building up ahead, people are coming and going, lots of noise coming from the building, you wonder what it is. As you approach the building, a person comes up to you and says what is happening in that building is not what it looks like, it isn’t real, they aren’t having fun, don’t even go in there or look at it. You see people coming and going they look happy, but you decide to listen to the person that came up to you on the street and never even bother to go see the building, or walk on by, and everybody tells you, it’s great, what a blast, that’s incredible, but you just believe the first guy, and walk on by. You never know exactly what is going on there inside that building but now you roam around telling everybody how bad the building is, and don’t go in there… I don’t know what it is, but I was told its bad, so don’t go there..
is this your analogy about atheism? do we have to restate for the 343241258719675987th time that most of the atheists on this site were christians/jews/etc? i personally was a christian before, and while i do see it as a comforting thought that there is a loving god and an afterlife, i refuse to follow what i don't think is even true.
think of it like 1930's germany. i was watching a movie in my german class today shot around that period, and the people were completely supporting this and were all smiling and happy in parades and didn't know hitler's full plan. looking back from the perspective of what we know now about hitler, if you went into germany in the 1930's and saw all these parades with all these happy people, would you join in? if one person came up to you and said hitler wants to torture jews and wage massive war would you look into what he said, or join in on the fun?
i'll touch your other points in your post later, but i just wanted to say that before i left.
If most of the atheists on this site were once theists - man, we stink at that brainwashing y'all are constantly accusing us of.
Just a thought. Maybe that argument or accusation just doesn't hold water.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Hey, I just wanted to take a minute and respond to your post.
Your wrote: homosexuality does no more harm than my left sock. the only reasons christians see it as evil is because the bible says so. in no other way could i look at it like that.
I know someone is going to get upset about this but when one does some investigation into the spread of HIV/AIDS, let me quote a couple of sources:
Both national and international travel undoubtedly had a major role in the initial spread of HIV. In the US, international travel by young men making the most of the gay sexual revolution of the late 70s and early 80s would certainly have played a large part in taking the virus worldwide. (www.avert.org)
As stated above, 1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new outbreak they called it GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), stigmatizing the gay community as carriers of this deadly disease. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and people who received blood transfusions, proving the the syndrome knew no boundaries. (http://aids.about.com)
My point is not to bash gays. My point is to say, sex outside of marriage, adultery, and homosexuality (all three sins in the eyes of God) have contributed to millions of deaths. I am aware that many people have died because of things that are not sins, but to say that homosexuality is a victimless sin is not true.
You wrote: and about the eyewitness accounts, what we see wrong with the bible is that it is not backed up by archeological evidence or any other kind to support it.
That simply is not true. There is not archeological evidence to back EVERYTHING up but to say that there is no evidence to back up the Bible is not correct. I would be more than happy to defend this if I need to. I am not sure what your point is about the eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are very important in court. They are important in history. I believe someone stated that today "DNA" is the key. It is certainly important, but history books are not written because of DNA. They are written based upon eyewitness accounts and someone recording them.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
i'm not saying eyewitness testimonies aren't important, i'm just saying that you cannot prove something solely based on that.
and your argument for homosexuality being evil is just stupid(no offense). i recognize AIDS started with homosexuality, but that does not mean they used their gayness to spread disease. its no more of a sin than being alive in the black plague era. diseases are started by completely biblicly unsinful nature. it's just that with AIDS it started from that.
Wait a minute. No one knows exactly where AIDS started and I certainly did not state that it started in the gay community. There are many different theories concerning its origin. What I am saying is that the sin of homosexuality was one of the agents of spreading the HIV virus.
Again, these were not my words. In the US, international travel by young men making the most of the gay sexual revolution of the late 70s and early 80s would certainly have played a large part in taking the virus worldwide.Who knows how many lives that sin affected. Are you saying that the homosexual lifestyle had nothing to do with the spread of AIDS? I am sure you would not claim that. Not only that sexual sin but sex outside of marriage also eventually contributed to the outbreak. I know that accidents concerning blood transfusions also spread diseases, but no one would proclaim that it had the effect that sex had on the spread of this terrible disease. Those that followed God's plan for sex did not contribute to this outbreak. It was not homosexuality that started the disease, but through the sexual sins mentioned AIDS and other STDs have affected millions.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
did the black plague travel through sexual sin? does influenze travel through sexual sin? does huntingtons disease travel through sexual sin? does west nile virus travel through sexual sin?
Did HIV/AIDS travel through sexual sin? That is what we are talking about.
yes, duh. but thats not what im talking about. there are plenty of deadly diseases that travel through ordinary means. i dont see how your argument holds up to homosexuality being evil more than being human is evil.
I am sorry about the dumb question, but I'm not sure how it was any more foolish than:
YOU WROTE: did the black plague travel through sexual sin? does influenze travel through sexual sin? does huntingtons disease travel through sexual sin? does west nile virus travel through sexual sin?
We both knew the answers to these as well. You are right about the fact that man, in his whole being is sinful, (evil). The Apostle Paul wrote "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." Romans 7:18
Homosexuality is a sin. It does the EXACT same thing as all sin - it separates us from God. God is Holy and without blemish. It is because of Christ, who took on the sins of the world - even the sin of homosexuality, that we can then be back in the presence and have a relationship with God.
I never said that HIV/AIDS came from homosexuality. I never said homosexuality was more evil than anything. I simply said it was sin. Also just like any other sin, it ALWAYS, 100% of the time, affects innocent people. The sin of homosexuality is not a victimless sin. That is where my conversation with you began. Many people, who had nothing to do with homosexuality, have paid the price for that sin.
1. The disease has spread much faster, affecting more people. Many of those people were in sin as well (sex outside marriage) but they did not participate in homosexual activities. The disease reached them faster.
2. People have watch loved ones die from a disease that is, again barring accidents, is 100% preventable.
3. Families have been shatter because either a person has left a family to pursue a homosexual relationship or parents have watched the dream of having grandkids vanish because their son or daughter will never have children.
There is no such thing as a victimless sin - homosexuality is not an exception. God's plan was for a man and a woman to have sex within the confines of marriage. They were to have children and raise them while teaching them the ways of the Lord. Thanks for the conversation. If you have any other questions - fire away.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
projection. ted haggard styles?
If homosexuality is a sin, heterosexuality is a sin too.
Oh wait, some of you guys feel that way about straight sex too. My fault.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE SEX. That would include homosexuals and straights. Fair enough?
That's funny, because I feel religion is a sin and I know for a fact it has 100% of the time, affected innocent people. And is still affecting innocent people today.
The sin of religion is not a victimless sin.
Many people, who had nothing to do with religion, have paid the price for that sin/evil.
Yeah, it did reach many people. even kids who had no sexual experince. But it wasn't because of sex.
Yeah, well, I want some proof for your statements.
So why does the catholic church prohibit condoms? That's like sentnecing someone to death.
Yeah, those closet homos who went and got married have only their community/congregation to blame for all pain caused. Thy had to keep LYING about everything, including their sexuality. But they had to, otherwise, xtians would burn them at the stake if theyy could.
Terrible choice. Lie to yourself and your loved ones about who you really are..... or be yourself and get scorn and hatred directed at you....
Yep... Tath's religion for you.
Your welcome and I have lots of questions.
What is cancer the sin of?
What is SARS the sin of?
Why are xtians obsessed with homosexual sex?
Why are xtians obsessed with sex in general?
Why do xtians equate love with sex when they are uncomparable?
Why do xtians have to make youths feel bad about who they are?
Why do xtians endorse further hatred towards gay people in violent and abusive ways?
Why don't xtians condemn those among them who have commited hate crimes?
Why don't xtians take responsibility for the their wrong-doings such as causing violent wars? Why won't cxtians take responsibility for the murders they caused with their religion?
Why do xtians blame "everyone else"?
Why can't xtians mind their own business and leave the rest of us straight and gay folks alone?
Why do xtians project so much? It almost makes me think that you're a homosexual with your comments.
Thanks for your answers.
Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?
god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!
I fell for it again, didn't I?
Why do xtians always change the suject or distract away from the subject?
Why is hypocrasy always preached against, but practised by those in your commuity?
***
oops, soorry for perpetuating the hijacking of this thread.
I thought we were talking about the bible game and then I thought I was still in that homosexual thread.
I realise I got taken.
Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?
god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!
revlyle, you're missing my original statement now. which was, the reason people don't see homosexuality as evil as murder, stealing, etc is that it's harmless. there is no reason outside of the bible to see it as evil.
1. The disease has spread much faster, affecting more people. Many of those people were in sin as well (sex outside marriage) but they did not participate in homosexual activities. The disease reached them faster.
2. People have watch loved ones die from a disease that is, again barring accidents, is 100% preventable.
3. Families have been shatter because either a person has left a family to pursue a homosexual relationship or parents have watched the dream of having grandkids vanish because their son or daughter will never have children.
1. again, there are many other deadly diseases that spread through unsinful nature. and maybe this wouldn't have happened if gays could get married?
2. refer to #1
3. again, i don't see why a family would be shattered if there was no bible to say it's wrong. and about your grandchildren statement, many heterosexual people don't want children in the first place, and gays can adopt.
I suggest treating distractions like this as concessions of defeat. Sort of like the Banana Twins' Bible-thumping in their debate with Brian Sapient and Kelly..And the problem with young gay men spreading AIDS was that they practiced unsafe kinds of sex that spread it. If they practiced relatively safe kinds, like solo and mutual masturbation, the disease would spread MUCH slower. Homosexual women have much lower rates of AIDS than homosexual men. This means that either (1) lesbians are some of God's favorite people or (2) lesbians tend to practice relatively safe forms of sex. Take your pick..And sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted inside of marriages and long-term relationships; a big risk factor for many women is their husbands and boyfriends..Furthermore, Catholic priests and nuns and brothers deny grandchildren to their parents; RevLyle, are you going to slam Catholicism because of that?
RevOlver Wrote: 1. again, there are many other deadly diseases that spread through unsinful nature. and maybe this wouldn't have happened if gays could get married? 2. refer to #1 3. again, i don't see why a family would be shattered if there was no bible to say it's wrong. and about your grandchildren statement, many heterosexual people don't want children in the first place, and gays can adopt.
#1 - The topic is not marriage for gays. The topic (at least what we have been talking about) is the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, or that it is victimless. Again, just like other sexual sin - it was a contributor to the spread of aids. If people would have stuck to God's plan - this STD would not have been perpetuated. I could make that claim about any STD - God's plan works. The world wants to sidestep what God has said is right and wrong and the world pays the price for it.
#2 - refer to #1
#3 - The breakdown of the family and lack of morals was part of the reason Rome fell. It could very well be part of the reason the U.S. is falling as well. So you really think that ole Mom and Dad dream of their son or daughter hooking up with the same sex partner. I could give you lots of opinions, but I will not do that. I know what the Bible says, which is what God says. That is what is best for mankind. We have clear evidence that when we try to avoid it and do our own thing - we pay the price. Lastly, you bring up adoption. Let me ask you a question - Aren't you glad your parents were not gay? We could not be having this conversation right now.
Before you begin to write how I want to burn them at the stake - please stop. I have gone to school with gays, worked with them, eaten lunch with them and befriended them - so don't write something that is 100% false. I do not agree with their lifestyle and it is against God's word, but I do not hate them.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
#1 - The topic is not marriage for gays. The topic (at least what we have been talking about) is the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, or that it is victimless. Again, just like other sexual sin - it was a contributor to the spread of aids. If people would have stuck to God's plan - this STD would not have been perpetuated. I could make that claim about any STD - God's plan works. The world wants to sidestep what God has said is right and wrong and the world pays the price for it.
my point was that it is no less a sin being gay than being human. there are other deadly diseases out there that are not spread through sinful nature. you repeatedly ignore that point.
3 - The breakdown of the family and lack of morals was part of the reason Rome fell. It could very well be part of the reason the U.S. is falling as well. So you really think that ole Mom and Dad dream of their son or daughter hooking up with the same sex partner. I could give you lots of opinions, but I will not do that. I know what the Bible says, which is what God says. That is what is best for mankind. We have clear evidence that when we try to avoid it and do our own thing - we pay the price. Lastly, you bring up adoption. Let me ask you a question - Aren't you glad your parents were not gay? We could not be having this conversation right now.
so are you saying its ok to be bi?
i dont see what your last statement in there has to do with adoption... if i was adopted, my current parents would be gay but i would still be here. i wouldn't mind that.
Before you begin to write how I want to burn them at the stake - please stop. I have gone to school with gays, worked with them, eaten lunch with them and befriended them - so don't write something that is 100% false. I do not agree with their lifestyle and it is against God's word, but I do not hate them.
i wasn't planning on saying that.
In response to free thinking . . . so, how mad were you when you wrote your post? Let's take a look at some of your questions:
You Wrote: If homosexuality is a sin, heterosexuality is a sin too. Oh wait, some of you guys feel that way about straight sex too. My fault. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE SEX. That would include homosexuals and straights. Fair enough?
Well, that is a false statement. God gave Eve to Adam so I am not sure why you would think that we believe sex is wrong. It is wrong outside of how God designed it. It is for one man and one woman within the confines of marrage. That should clear that up.
You wrote: That's funny, because I feel religion is a sin and I know for a fact it has 100% of the time, affected innocent people. And is still affecting innocent people today.
The only problem with this is your idea of innosence. When I talked about someone being innocent, I meant that they were not invovled in a particular sin at a particular time. As far all innocense, no one is completely innocent. We are all sinful people. We have all been involved in sin which separates us from God. Therefore, no one is completely innocent. AND YES, the gospel does affect all. It is the stench of death to those who are perishing, and it is the sweet aroma of Christ to those who are being saved (That is scripture by the way). So what does the story of Jesus Christ smell like to you?
You wrote: The sin of religion is not a victimless sin. Many people, who had nothing to do with religion, have paid the price for that sin/evil.
You and I do not decide what is sin and what is not. God does that. Religion is not a sin and it is not evil. I can't find that in the Bible. I will say that many people have sinned using religion - and that is a shame because it has made people like you bitter. You must have had a bad experience and now you think that anyone who is religious is evil. I believe that is called stereotyping. Aren't you freethinkers against that?
You wrote: Yeah, it did reach many people. even kids who had no sexual experince. But it wasn't because of sex. Yeah, well, I want some proof for your statements.
You prove my point exactly. There were children who were born with AIDS and they were innocent victims of this virus. Sex outside marriage and drug use were to blame. My statements that it spead faster because of the gay community. Proof of that - no problem. Neither one of these are Christian organizations.
Both national and international travel undoubtedly had a major role in the initial spread of HIV. In the US, international travel by young men making the most of the gay sexual revolution of the late 70s and early 80s would certainly have played a large part in taking the virus worldwide. (www.avert.org)
As stated above, 1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new outbreak they called it GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), stigmatizing the gay community as carriers of this deadly disease. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and people who received blood transfusions, proving the the syndrome knew no boundaries. (http://aids.about.com)
You wrote: So why does the catholic church prohibit condoms? That's like sentnecing someone to death.
I am not Catholic, so I cannot answer that question. Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing HIV/AIDS. Again, not a Christian opinion - FACT.
You wrote: Yeah, those closet homos who went and got married have only their community/congregation to blame for all pain caused. Thy had to keep LYING about everything, including their sexuality. But they had to, otherwise, xtians would burn them at the stake if theyy could.
Homosexuality is a sin. One can resist the sin or one can give into it. Everyone has temptations. I know what is available on the internet and I could eaisly go and look at pornography and lust which is also a sin. Just because I am geared to believe that women are beautiful, does not mean I get to do what I want. It would damage me, my family, my church, my friends, and others. I must resist temptation just like anyone else.
Before you go to the "Christians would burn them" you might want to do some research and what you will find is that Christans have been burned and tortured as well, so please stop trying to paint everyone else as a victim.
You might not want me to answer your questions after this, but if you would like - let me know and I will help you out.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The Bible can justify almost anything.
Judas bought the field indirectly--the money he gave back to the priests was used to purchase the potter's field (Matthew 27:7--So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.) And as for Judas's intestines in the ground, some interpret the use of the word "hanged" as meaning "impaled". It could also be that his body was in a decomposing state for a while and so broke open in the middle.
Judas bought the field indirectly--the money he gave back to the priests was used to purchase the potter's field (Matthew 27:7--So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.) And as for Judas's intestines in the ground, some interpret the use of the word "hanged" as meaning "impaled". It could also be that his body was in a decomposing state for a while and so broke open in the middle.
hanged = impaled?
It doesn't bother me if my balls hang
Impaled however....
no thank you
http://pipelineaudio.net/
http://reaper.fm/ - spreading the REAPER Madness!
I am not sure we are getting anywhere. We simply have two different worldviews. You believe that man decides what is right and wrong and I believe God does that. Let me see if I can explain why I believe homosexuality is wrong from another angle. Jeus Christ is my Lord and Savior. He didn't just save me, He is my Lord. A Lord rules over the servant. I believe homosexuality is wrong because my Lord says that it is wrong. It is specifically talked about in the Old Testament and it is specifically talked about in the New Testament.
Homosexuality is not a victimless sin. I have given at least one example of how it has had many victims. You state "there are other deadly diseases out there that are not spread through sinful nature." Yes, but what does tht have to do with the debate at hand. All the suffering, disease, decay, and death that is all around us is a result of our sin. We are born sinners which is why we need a Savior. As I stated above - pointing to each and every piece of damage that homosexuality causes is not why I believe it is a sin. It is a sin because God says it is. I cannot prove all the damage this sin does (psychological, social, and physical) just like you do not know all the damage adultery does. I am not just talking about the one who decides to commit the sin, but all those around him or her as well. You might be able to point out some things, but other things will be hidden.
Lastly, you would not be here if your parents were gay. Your parents (the male and female who produced you) would not have produced you. They would not have had sex which resulted in a child, because they would have been gay. I do not believe being gay is a greater sin that other sins. It has the same affect - it separates us from God. A homosexual can certainly be forgiven and even when that occurs he may still struggle with that sin, just the same way men and women struggle with lust toward the opposite sex after they are forgiven. It is just as wrong for a man to say, "I simply lust after women and I am going to have sex with women outside of marriage simply because I am geared that way." Both the homosexual man and the heterosexual man must rely on the power of God to deliver them from the sin of sex outside the laws of God.
God's way is the best way.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Well we don't believe he exists. Saying something is right because God says so is simply might makes right.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
That is EXACTLY why I said, "We simply have two different worldviews." You look at all of life differently than I do. I don't believe might makes right - I believe that the creator knows better than the creation what is best for him or her. Just curious MattShizzle, what makes something right in your worldview?
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
How it affects other people. Things that are harmful to others are wrong, those that are beneficial to others are right. Anything that neither harms nor benefits others is outside the realm of morality. I don't need to believe in an invisible man in the sky.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"Jeus Christ is my Lord and Savior. He didn't just save me, He is my Lord. A Lord rules over the servant. I believe homosexuality is wrong because my Lord says that it is wrong."
So you're basically asserting that you refuse to do any of your own thinking?
If your lord told you to slaughter all infidels and that it was okay to rape women, would you take his word on that as well?
This is a serious question. How can you distinguish between which of your 'lord's' rules should be followed and which should be dismissed?
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
How does one determine if something is right or wrong?
Mattshizzle wrote: How it affects other people. Things that are harmful to others are wrong, those that are beneficial to others are right. Anything that neither harms nor benefits others is outside the realm of morality. I don't need to believe in an invisible man in the sky.
Well, if that is true . . . then what if someone disagrees with you about what is harmful and what is helpful. For example . . . spanking children. Some believe that it is helpful and other believe that it is harmful. I am not sure what you think on the subject but what about others who think opposite of you. How do you know who is right and who is wrong?
What about other issues such as abortion? One may say that it is beneficial to the mother (lots of debate on that) and if that is true, it certainly is not benefical to the baby.
I could ask questions like that all day. So if I understand you correctly - you decide if something is right or wrong based upon how you see it and based upon your knowledge.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Maragon wrote:
"Jeus Christ is my Lord and Savior. He didn't just save me, He is my Lord. A Lord rules over the servant. I believe homosexuality is wrong because my Lord says that it is wrong."
So you're basically asserting that you refuse to do any of your own thinking?
If your lord told you to slaughter all infidels and that it was okay to rape women, would you take his word on that as well?
This is a serious question. How can you distinguish between which of your 'lord's' rules should be followed and which should be dismissed?
Well of course I do my own thinking. It is because of my own thinking that I put my trust and faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is NOT just a heart decision. It is also a head decision. Let me ask you something. Let's say you bought a new car, a BMW. I would not accuse you of not thinking because you turn to the owners manual and you go to the BMW car dealership or manufacturer to tell you how you ought to take care of the car and how you ought to fix the car. I believe that my Lord is also my creator. He knows better than me what is good for me and what is bad for me.
You asked a great question about what of the Mosaic law should be kept and which should be thrown out. That is a subject that seems to run rampant on this site. As soon as someone says they believe in Jesus Christ people state that we are supporting a God who wants us to commit genocide, rape women, kill babies, pluck out eyes and cut off hands. Did God tell the people to go into the Promise Land and kill everyone - YES. Did He tell them to sacrifice babies for his name - NO. Did He tell the people to rape women - I am not exactly sure what you are talking about - I need some clarification. I simply want to ask you one question. Did Jesus do any of those things? He absolutely DID NOT. As a matter of fact, Jesus loved children, he stopped the stoning of a prostitute, and Jesus laid HIS life down. He did not take anyone's life and He never injured anyone. He is the example that we strive to live like. All of the Mosaic law MUST be view through the lens of the New Testament. If you need more clarification, I would be glad to give it to you Maragon.
As far as killing infidels . . . I am specifically told NOT to commit homicide. The law does not mean one should not kill in war, but I cannot murder. It is sin.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Hi REVLyle. The problem with this argument is that it would be ultimately up to God whether or not homosexual sex led to AIDS. Apparently he decided that it would. He also decided that normal sex would lead to AIDS as we see with the African strain. Now you can argue that if folks only have sex with a single partner within marriage that they will not get AIDS. This is true. But it is equally true for the homosexual couple.
So if we say that all people, gays included, should only have sex within marriage, that would seem to put gays and non-gays at parity. This brings up four questions:
- Why is homosexual sex within a monogamous marriage a sin?
- Why do most Christians oppose homosexual marriage, seeing as it prevents the very harm that homosexuality apparently causes?
- Why is it OK for a bunch of straight folks to tell a bunch of gay folks that they should not have sex under any circumstance?
- In what way does homosexual sex harm anyone more than straight sex if we limit both varieties to the marriage bed?
I can see no more justification for calling homosexual sex a sin than for calling normal sex a sin. So we seem to be back to "because God said so."Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Christianity offers no way out of this problem of disagreement. If it did, there would not be over 30,000 sects of Christianity. Many Christians believe it is wrong to spank children while many others argue that it is biblically sanctioned.
So we all work with what makes most sense to our own moral framework. We have to reach concensus with our fellow man. If enough folks become convinced that hitting your child hard enough to leave a welt is a bad idea, that society may enact laws that remove the child from the custody of the abusive parent.
The major difference between the theistic and atheistic moral views is that an atheist will typically use evidence of harm as his/her basis of determining a moral position. I have believed that spanking my children should be reserved for times when they are openly defying my authority, and that is almost never. Lately I have seen evidence that any amount of corporal punishment may be ultimately harmful. It also teaches the child that "might makes right" from an early age. I am shifting my position based on this evidence.
The theist is much more likely to get stuck on a moral position if it is sanctioned by their holy book. Because that book takes a position, many theists will stop their internal consideration and not look at the external evidence. Thankfully many theists have decided to ignore their holy book on many positions, but the mere fact that this bronze age text still has any authority does slow our ethical progress.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Good to see you back online Scottmax. I want to address both your posts in one post. There first you asked four questions:
You are correct when at the end of your post when you stated, "we seem to be back to "because God said so." but let me simply add some to your thoughts.
When it comes to homosexuality and sin. When I listed the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS as a consequence of the sin of homosexuality, I simply listed 1 consequence of this sin. Before I say anything else, let me say I am AT LEAST glad that you did not argue with me on this point. The homosexual lifestyle DID rapidly spread this disease. Those are not my words - that is simply the history of what happened. But, back to the topic at hand - we do not KNOW all the implications of this sin. For instance, adultery is a sin. The Bible states that it is a sin and that is why I believe it is a sin. We know that it hurts the family, both the wife and the husband. It also hurts the kids. It hurts parents and in-laws. It hurts friends and so on and so on. We cannot even begin to understand all the damage of adultery. The same is true for homosexuality. The Bible describes it as a sin and as unnatural. I do not pretend to understand all the damage that it does to families and I am in no way identifying myself as an expert on these matters. We are just beginning to understand the importance for children to have both a mom and a dad within the family. What are the implications for the children who are raised in homosexual homes? No one knows this, AND if someone links me to a report stating there is no effect I am sure I can find another doctor who thinks the opposite. The reality is that as I explained to another person - because my worldview is that God is my creator - I believe He knows what is best for the creation.
Let me ask you this. If anything is on the table . . . if sex is simply a matter of choice and it has no bearing on society - Why not allow beastiality? Why not allow a person to marry a dog or sheep or whatever? As sick as that sounds - Doesn't that person have to right to simply have sex with whatever they want and society should not worry about it because it is not hurting others? Would it bother you if your kids were walking down the street and they saw some person doing things with an animal? Would you want that as a parent or would you simply tell them that is their right and they can do what they want in public. Both beastiality and homosexuality are considered sin by God. I believe in God's word and I believe what God has said.
IN YOUR SECOND POST YOU WROTE: The major difference between the theistic and atheistic moral views is that an atheist will typically use evidence of harm as his/her basis of determining a moral position.
What if someone determines something to be harmful that simply is not. Hitler convinced an entire country to believe that Jews, gypsies, and others were harmful to them. Their moral postition was that these people groups were harmful and the result was mass murder. It became part of their culture. What you have described is moral relativism. A person or group of people define right and wrong based upon subjective beliefs. Each person simply evaluates evidence and comes up with their own conclusion. I do not believe in moral relativism. I am not saying that everything in life is black and white but if what you are saying is true, then we, as the United States had no right to go and impose our idea of right against what the Germans thought was right.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Double post
double post
double post
It causes this much harm primarily because it goes against our culture. There have been many other cultures where marriage was much looser and less possessive. My marriage is absolutely exclusive because that is critically important to my wife. If it was not, I would not care all that much if she experimented. My primary concern would be how we would be treated by the neighbors if we had an open marriage and this fact were discovered. If our neighbors also did not care, I would have no reservations as long as proper care was taken with regards to disease prevention.
At least in terms of being "unnatural", we now know that the Bible is simply wrong. I don't blame the authors. Mankind had no real concept of the nature vs. nurture issue. Not only is all of the evidence we can find increasingly finding that homosexuality is a preference that you are born with, but we also see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. If penguins, dolphins and bonobos can be gay, it is hard to see how we can call it "unnatural".
It seems to me that most of the damage is self-inflicted by intolerant family members and an intolerant society.
According to a 1989 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, up to 30 percent of teen suicides are by Gay/Lesbian/Bi teen youths, and GLBT teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are other youth. Now why would that be if they were simply making a choice to be gay? Why would anyone make a choice to be something that makes them so unhappy that they commit suicide?
I have a son and a daughter, both under 12. I am 95% certain that neither is gay. But if either were, I would love them more because I would know that their lives, through no fault of their own, would be harder than the lives of their friends. I would encourage them to find someone they love and to try to get into a long-term committed relationship. I would encourage them to move to a large city where they would be more likely to be accepted. I would probably move the entire family to San Francisco or some place equally tolerant immediately to give them the best chance of enjoying a decent young adulthood.
Many homosexual couples are adopting children that would otherwise be raised in foster care. My parents were foster parents. They were the rare sort who did foster care to share their home and their love, with the goal of adoption. This is far from the norm. Most kids end up in homes where they are not loved and not really treated as members of the family. Much better to have 2 moms or 2 dads than to have no real home at all.
You are probably right about the statistics. All of the statistics I have seen have shown no real downside to homosexual parents except for possible ridicule by friends and neighbors. Maybe if we didn't teach that homosexuality is a sin there would be no downside at all.
Yes, and Muslims believe that women are worth half as much as men and that they are mentally deficient because Allah knows best. This is no justification for a belief system from where I stand.
Yes, why not? Bestiality certainly happens. I don't know much about bestiality but my perhaps biased guess is that those who engage in bestiality may have some psychological issues that could use attention. If bestiality were not considered a sin, it might be easier for these folks to get councelling. Then again, maybe I am wrong and some folks are better off with sheep. Either way, if it is in the privacy of their home, I don't care.
It would bother me if my kids were walking down the street and saw a man having sex with his wife. We don't allow people to have sex on the street.
Yes, but you need to understand that you are on no firmer ground than the Muslim in this regard.
Interestingly, Hitler based this idea on the long standing vilification of the Jews by Christianity. The Bible did not help in this case. If anything, it helped to condemn the Jews. So I don't see this example as an argument against atheistic "least harm" ethics. Hitler never argued that more people would find happiness and less people would come to harm through the extermination of the Jews. Rather, good Christians could look to the example of the Amalekites and see that God had previously sanctioned genocide of wicked, non-believers.
I would argue that you do since the alternative is moral absolutism. Do you sanction killing gays, non-believer, unruly sons and those who fail to honor the Sabbath as the Bible commands? Of course not. You, along with the rest of your society, forms its own idea of what is ethically right and wrong.
Now the Muslims, on the other hand, often do take the absolutist route. They DO kill homosexuals. They DO kill women who turn out to not be virgins on their wedding night. So which do you prefer? Moral relativism or moral absolutism?
That is not true at all. I am not arguing that we have no right to impose our morality on our neighbors. We have the right to imprison those who are doing actual harm to our society such as murderers and thieves. We have a right to step in when other countries fail to offer protection against even the most heinous crimes. What we should not do is impose our morality based purely on an ancient text.
The biblical God said, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". We understand a rational basis for these so it is reasonable to codify it into our system of criminal law.
The biblical God said, "Thou shalt not lie". We recognize that lying is sometimes necessary and sometimes wrong. We can see that lies are sometimes harmless and sometimes very harmful. We cannot allow people to slander others so we have made it illegal. We must have honest testimony in court so we have outlawed pergury. Otherwise, we have not made lying illegal.
The Bible says "Thou shalt not eat shellfish". Folks with a shellfish allergy should head this advice but we cannot see any rational basis for this law otherwise. Not a law.
"Thou shalt not covet." Hmm, there goes the advertising industry. Definitely not a law.
"Thou shalt not wear clothing made mixed materials." Deut 22:11 That doesn't make sense. Let's just skip it.
"Thou shalt not eat fat." Lev. 3:17 Does it really say that?
"Thou shalt not have homosexual sex." Well, God said it so I believe it.
If you cannot back it up with true understanding of the reason that it should be banned, then as long as you feel comfortable eating shellfish, eating hamburgers and wearing wool/linen blends, you should say nothing against people unfortunate enough to be born gay in this society.
BTW, I don't think I really got an answer to questions 2 and 4.
Thanks REVLyle. You seem like a genuinely good person. This post has gotten longer than I intended but I really hope you will reconsider your position with regards to gays. Issues like this are one of my largest beefs with religion. I honestly believe it gets in the way of true morality. If you are interested in reading more questionable morality in the Bible, here is a good article: Is The Bible The Best Moral Guide?
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
double post
YOU WROTE: It causes this much harm primarily because it goes against our culture. There have been many other cultures where marriage was much looser and less possessive. My marriage is absolutely exclusive because that is critically important to my wife. If it was not, I would not care all that much if she experimented. My primary concern would be how we would be treated by the neighbors if we had an open marriage and this fact were discovered. If our neighbors also did not care, I would have no reservations as long as proper care was taken with regards to disease prevention.
You are exactly right about other societies accepting multiple partners. The Bible doesn't sugar coat this at all (another reason I love the Bible, it simply doesn't portray the heros as perfect except the one who was). What is portrayed in scripture is real. Take Abraham for instance. You seem to be Biblically literate so remember: He did not wait upon the Lord and he had Ishmael with Hagar. It caused jealousy among Sarah and Hagar and it lead to the abandonment of, for we know, a faithful servant to Abraham and Sarah. Today we are still seeing the affects of the struggles between Isaac's decendants and Ishmael's decendents.
As a married man, I know that marriage is more than sex. I assume that you do as well. I cannot imagine being comfortable with my wife being with other people. There is an emotional connection and the fact that we are a unit together raising our children. I am afraid I could not go there with you. I am not sure that is a religious thought. Even though I understand men lusting and wanting other women, what you describe is very "Unevolutionary." The idea of the male being comfortable with other males mating with their females. That is about as primitive as I can put it.
YOU WROTE: At least in terms of being "unnatural", we now know that the Bible is simply wrong. I don't blame the authors. Mankind had no real concept of the nature vs. nurture issue. Not only is all of the evidence we can find increasingly finding that homosexuality is a preference that you are born with, but we also see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. If penguins, dolphins and bonobos can be gay, it is hard to see how we can call it "unnatural".
I believe we ought to be very careful when ascribing to man what animals do. There are lots of theories as to why these animals act in manner. Some have described it as a way to move up in the ranks of the group or for social bonding. Either way it really does not matter. God describes it as "unnatural" for humans. He is not talking about the animal kingdom. Let me quote from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal.
Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.
AND
So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.
Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for social bonding is a possible example, adding, "One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."
For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.
Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."
But he adds that homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."
He cites sexual gratification, which encourages procreation, as an example. "An organism is designed to maximize its motivational systems," he adds.
In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.
He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."
My point is still valid. We do not understand this completely. I believe that God has complete understanding of this and He says, "Do not do this."
YOU WROTE:It seems to me that most of the damage is self-inflicted by intolerant family members and an intolerant society.
According to a 1989 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, up to 30 percent of teen suicides are by Gay/Lesbian/Bi teen youths, and GLBT teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are other youth. Now why would that be if they were simply making a choice to be gay? Why would anyone make a choice to be something that makes them so unhappy that they commit suicide?
Now you asked a great question. Why would someone choose something that would make them unhappy? I could ask that about any sin. Why would people choose to lie, cheat, steal, murder, adultery, homosexuality. The answer is that we are sinful people. We LOVE our sin. The Bible also doesn't sugar coat this fact, "Sin is fun for a season." There is a time when it seems fun, but the cost is coming later. HAve you ever stabbed a friend in the back??? I know I have and at the time it seemed like the best solution. I knew the minute I did it, it was wrong and if my friend found out, it would hurt them and me. I was right. Why did I choose something I knew would make my friend and me unhappy? Because I am a sinner. I don't think an alcoholic chooses alcohol because one day they hope they will be dependent on it. They just did not see the cost down the line. They liked the feeling of the buzz. (NO, I do not think drinking is a sin, but the Bible states that getting drunk is).
I do not believe we can blame society for everything we feel. Do you even believe for a minute that perhaps these teenagers knew that what they were doing was wrong and the feeling of guilt was so overwhelming that they did not know what to do. I will be the first to admit that the church should be reaching out to homosexuals. We need to let them know that there is forgiveness for their sins. Do I believe what they are doing is wrong, absolutely. I am sure this will offend you but I will say it anyway. Homosexuals will not go to hell because they are homosexuals. They will go to hell for the same reason all people end up there - rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I am sure this will also offend you but I have been praying for you Scottmax.
YOU WROTE: Yes, and Muslims believe that women are worth half as much as men and that they are mentally deficient because Allah knows best. This is no justification for a belief system from where I stand.
Well, Muslims don't refer to the Bible when they make this claim. The Bible makes the EXACT opposite claim. I do not subscribe to the Koran as God's word. It was not inspired by God and so it is easy to see the fallicy of this claim. BY THE WAY - Darwin also believed this. That women and monorities were not up to par with white men. I never see the school system shouting to teach this in class, but I do not want to get on the subject of evolution.
YOU WROTE: I don't know much about bestiality
I am going to have go with you on this one. I will simply say that this is a sexual perversion that does need help. Our society should say that it is wrong, and then help those who have this fetish. My point is that we CANNOT say that sexual morality is only up to the individual and it has no effect on society.
YOU WROTE: Yes, but you need to understand that you are on no firmer ground than the Muslim in this regard.
Well of course I would disagree. I will also say that the Koran tells the Muslim, if you are confused, ask people of the Book. In other words, Even the Koran establishes that the Bible is above what is written in the Koran. That the Bible has authority.
YOU WROTE: Interestingly, Hitler based this idea on the long standing vilification of the Jews by Christianity. The Bible did not help in this case. If anything, it helped to condemn the Jews. So I don't see this example as an argument against atheistic "least harm" ethics. Hitler never argued that more people would find happiness and less people would come to harm through the extermination of the Jews. Rather, good Christians could look to the example of the Amalekites and see that God had previously sanctioned genocide of wicked, non-believers.
I am not sure how the Bible made a villian out of the Jews. If you are refering to the fact that they wanted him crucified, again what you are talking about is a complete lack of knowledge in scripture. I am certainly aware that people can make the Bible say anything they want it to say. That is why I am completely blown away that the website would ask the question - Does context and translation matter - OF COURSE IT DOES. You bring up the Amalekites. You will see when you look at scripture, the first time we see the Amalekites against Israel, the Amalekites defeat Israel. "Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and defeated them and pursued them, even to Hormah." Numbers 14:45. So I am not sure what your point is. God told them not to go and fight them once, they did and were defeated and later God told them to go and fight them and they won. Sounds to me like one should want to obey God. The point of what I was saying is the Hitler decided what was good. He made a judgement - not based on the Bible (He may have twisted the words to say what he wanted) and then he got other people to follow and also believe that murdering the Jews was a good thing. The Bible is ABSOLUTE when it comes to murder - Thou shall not. Again the word does not mean thou shall not kill as in war- it means thou shall not commit homiside. As far as the happiness and harm - you ought to look into the videos that Hitler made that portrayed the Jews and handicapped like animals and how it was almost mercy killing in order to put them out of their misery.
YOU WROTE: I would argue that you do since the alternative is moral absolutism. Do you sanction killing gays, non-believer, unruly sons and those who fail to honor the Sabbath as the Bible commands? Of course not. You, along with the rest of your society, forms its own idea of what is ethically right and wrong.Now the Muslims, on the other hand, often do take the absolutist route. They DO kill homosexuals. They DO kill women who turn out to not be virgins on their wedding night. So which do you prefer? Moral relativism or moral absolutism?
I prefer moral absolutism. Just because you bring up a perverse example does not mean that one must subscribe to the poor example. Show me the example of Christ killing anyone for their sin. The Bible is clear that HE took the pain and suffering in our place. I seem to remember a prostitute coming to Christ and the crowds were going to stone her and HE said, "Whoever has not sinned, throw the first stone." How can I throw the stone - I am very much a sinner. Everyone seems to know John 3:16, but many fail to continue reading. 16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."
My feelings on sin are not the issue. I am not the judge. My feelings on homosexuality are irrelevant. It is what God says that matters.
When it comes to the Old Testament, every Christian must look at it through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. I am not afraid of what the OT says and you list several passages here that certainly were relevant in the OT but are not used anymore. I can give you a couple of examples that may help you understand how one should look at the OT laws. The first question should be, "Did any of the NT authors speak to the issue?" Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality or did any of the apostles state anything about it? The answer is YES, in Romans chapter 1. What about the shellfish and the fat. Well, what one should eat is talked about in Acts. All the males were circumcised in the OT. Should they be today??? - The Apostle Paul speaks about that. Many things changed in the NEW Covenant as opposed to the OLD covenant. Too much to talk about in this post. I hope this helps some but let me know.
As far as questions 2 and 4 -
#2 - we oppose homosexual marriage because God created marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If God did not sanction marriage between the same sex - we cannot do that either.
#4 - again I refer to the writings of Robin Dunbar. Not only are the causes of homosexuality not fully understood - the effects on the individual are not fully understood and the effects on society are not fully understood. I believe that God knows what is best - more than we do and He said - No.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Since the whole topic of sex and homosexuality is completely off-topic for this thread, I have created a new thread over here.
Cheers.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Hey guys, could you please help me out?
Let's list here all good questions and answers (Bible quotes) for this "You can't win" game - if possible the simple, straightforward ones (so that people can't make too many "wrong interpretation" excuses) - and I'll make an online quiz out of them.
Thanks!