Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, I speak for God. For I am a mouthpiece for God. As he said his followers should be.

So why is there more than one denomination? More than one interpretation of the Bible? If his followers are mouthpieces of God, you'd expect him to have a coherant message.

Read God's word and you shall know the truth. If your eyes are opened. If your eyes are blinded, as they seem, you'll never know the truth.

I have read the Bible, several times. I still read it after my deconversion.

 

[RebeccaJO]

But that isn't really evidence that homosexuality is wrong or harmful outside of the Bible.

Its not that we don't want to its just that we don't. Why would I have any reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong?



Why would I want to change something about me that I know isn't wrong? That is like telling someone to change their eye color.
Its also not possible to change one's sexual orientation. They may be able to suppress their feelings but that does not mean their feeling disappear.

No, the reason why people do not want to believe in God's word is because they do not want to change for God. They do not want to give up anything for God. The more a person knows about God's word, the more is required of them from God. That is why people refuse to believe the truth.

You do not want to believe that homosexuality is wrong because you do not want to change for God. When a person come to Christ, gets born again, they must be the clay and let God be the Potter and let him mold them into what he wants them to be. In order for God to form the clay, he has to have water. Which is Jesus Christ, he is the living water and no one can come to God except through Jesus.

All things are possible with God. God can make something out of nothing. Don't ever say that a person can't change. Because they can if...they want to. They don't change because they don't want to. When a person really surrenders all to God, that is when he can mold that person into what he wants.

 

[RebeccaJO]

Adam and Eve did not exist as real humans. And the resurrection did not literally happen. There was never a virgin birth either. These are all stories. They may illustrate moral points, but they are certainly not literally true.

If Adam and Eve didn't exist as real humans, then none of us would be here right now. How did you come up with that? Now that is funny and very silly.

How can you say you follow and believe Jesus teachings, but yet you don't believe that he came from a virgin? How can you say you follow Jesus teachings if you do not believe he was resurrected? You do not follow the Jesus I know, for what you follow is unknown.

No wonder you're so messed up. Satan has you right where he wants you. Far away from God and Jesus as possible. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to FOLLOW JESUS WHEN YOU DO NOT BELIEVE HIS TEACHINGS. But many will believe a lie and be damned.

 

[djbcrawford]

Whoever said anything about sex? Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not, directly, about sex. Monogamous couples within the groups are undeniable strengths: compare this to steel rods vastly improving the strength of concrete.

Romantic love is evrything about sex. Without sex, what makes it different from a strong intimate friendship. You stated that the evidence was that it was the fact that these monogamous couples had to be homosexual to produce benefits. Now you are going back to the generic couples. Where is the evidence for same sex couples gone?

I disagree. The love in a romantic relationship is easier to garner and, in most cases, stronger, than that in platonic relationships. Having just one of these relationships would held create a more cohesive group. Teamwork is vital, after all.

I counter-disagree. Intimate friendship can produce a stronger bond than romantic. I have had close friends who have been friends from childhood, but many romantic bonds which have long gone. A numbers of bonds with several stands produces more links and therefore strength than one single bond among many. Team-work is more than two.

Except social mammals can congregate in their thousands.

You were not talking about thousands of social mammals, you were talking about groups of hunter-gathers, who as far as I know did not hunt in their thousands, but as small individual groups.

In all likelyhood that is the cause of homosexuality: a change in the individual from it's ancestors that cause it to be more affectionate to it's own gender.
But if this affection was detrimental, it would have quickly died out. That it was able to proliferate throughout the species and even focus into homosexuality (that is, cause some individuals to be soley attracted to their own gender) is tantamount to proof that homosexuality is beneficial.

From an evolutionary standpoint, of course.

So you accept it probably started as some sort of mistake in the normal male-male, female-female and male-female relationship. This by definition makes it not-normal.

If had been beneficial would it not have increased rather than being a small 2-5% (which also assumes it is passed genetically). In fact, how could be passed on at all in the evolutionary sense as same sex monogomus couples cannot naturally produce offspring.

The fact that it exists does not automatically make it beneficial. Many things exist that are not beneficial, yet keep occurring. Diseases, disabilities, etc...

 

[RebeccaJO]

So why is there more than one denomination? More than one interpretation of the Bible? If his followers are mouthpieces of God, you'd expect him to have a coherant message.


I have read the Bible, several times. I still read it after my deconversion.

The reason why their is more than one denomination is because people do not like the word of God stepping on their toes, hitting too close to home. And most people do not want to change for God. They do not want to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, as he says for us to do.
All do not belong to the one true God. They think they do, but they do not.

It is good that you have read the bible, but it is sad that you still refuse to believe it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The reason why their is more than one denomination is because people do not like the word of God stepping on their toes, hitting too close to home. And most people do not want to change for God. They do not want to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, as he says for us to do.
All do not belong to the one true God. They think they do, but they do not.

It is good that you have read the bible, but it is sad that you still refuse to believe it.

How do you KNOW that you have the right interpretation?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yeah, except one sex is condemned in the Bible and one isn't.

the way you interpret the Bible, maybe.

Doesn't change the fact that the love homosexual couples feel for each other is exactly the same as the love heterosexual couples feel for each other

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you don't believe in God's word, then it is impossible for your to believe in anything. I can tell you what God says in his word, but I can't make you believe his word.

You'd have a much better chance at getting me to believe your interpretation of God's word if you could explain to me (in a way that doesn't translate as "the Bible SEZ!") WHY God has such a problem with homosexuality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

dp

 

[Horizonol]

How do you KNOW that you have the right interpretation?

We don't really know anything- any amateur philosopher will tell you that. Anything we 'know' is based on assumptions. Everything boils down to a belief formed by either a witness account or personal experience.

Nevertheless, I believe my view of scripture is correct because I interpret it under the teachings of the apostles, who wrote the bible. These teachings are preserved by the Holy Spirit acting within their successors- that is, the bishops from the time of the first apostles to our current date. I can read patristic and other early Christian writings and see a consistency in interpretation, reason and overall philosophical view.

Many people here make the mistake of condemning something purely on the basis of their interpretation of scripture. They make their argument, "because God says so". They leave no room for actual dialog. One should appeal to reason and argue on the basis of purpose.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We don't really know anything- any amateur philosopher will tell you that. Anything we 'know' is based on assumptions. Everything boils down to a belief formed by either a witness account or personal experience.

Nevertheless, I believe my view of scripture is correct because I interpret it under the teachings of the apostles, who wrote the bible. These teachings are preserved by the Holy Spirit acting within their successors- that is, the bishops from the time of the first apostles to our current date. I can read patristic and other early Christian writings and see a consistency in interpretation, reason and overall philosophical view.

Many people here make the mistake of condemning something purely on the basis of their interpretation of scripture. They make their argument, "because God says so". They leave no room for actual dialog. One should appeal to reason and argue on the basis of purpose.

So... you still need to invoke a divine entity to validate scripture?

see, my problem is that if the Bible were REALLY the direct word of God... you wouldn't NEED a spirit spell checking and guiding the hand of subsequent editors... because the Bible would be entirely logical and self consistent in itself.

 

[Horizonol]

So... you still need to invoke a divine entity to validate scripture?

see, my problem is that if the Bible were REALLY the direct word of God... you wouldn't NEED a spirit spell checking and guiding the hand of subsequent editors... because the Bible would be entirely logical and self consistent in itself.

That would be on the basis that God created the bible as a sole instruction manual for Christians. Furthermore, I don't know if you can say the bible is the 'direct word of God'. It is properly called the inspired word of God.

Scripture is a collection of documents written by humans, under the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit. The Gospels simply convey a general sense of Christ's life and ministry on Earth. Next come the Acts, which is just Luke being inspired by the Holy Spirit to record what happened immediately after Pentecost. Next is the epistles, four of which were letters meant for the all the Churches at that particular time- that others being letter addressed to individual Churches, having some problem or another. Lastly, there is the Apocalypse, which is a revelation from God to John. Not exactly a book whose aim was to give instruction on every aspect of life and situation.

Language is a human invention subject to change and connotations. You could never have a perfect book of instruction. Instead, Christ gave us apostles- who gave us bishops. They were the ones created to guide us, not a book. That's why Jesus created apostles, not a book.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That would be on the basis that God created the bible as a sole instruction manual for Christians. Furthermore, I don't know if you can say the bible is the 'direct word of God'. It is properly called the inspired word of God.

Scripture is a collection of documents written by humans, under the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit. The Gospels simply convey a general sense of Christ's life and ministry on Earth. Next come the Acts, which is just Luke being inspired by the Holy Spirit to record what happened immediately after Pentecost. Next is the epistles, four of which were letters meant for the all the Churches at that particular time- that others being letter addressed to individual Churches, having some problem or another. Lastly, there is the Apocalypse, which is a revelation from God to John. Not exactly a book whose aim was to give instruction on every aspect of life and situation.

Language is a human invention subject to change and connotations. You could never have a perfect book of instruction. Instead, Christ gave us apostles- who gave us bishops. They were the ones created to guide us, not a book. That's why Jesus created apostles, not a book.

I agree. However, the people around here who worship the book as if the Bible were the important part of the religion, are many, and **** me to tears frequently

 

[Horizonol]

I agree. However, the people around here who worship the book as if the Bible were the important part of the religion, are many, and **** me to tears frequently

The bible is very convenient for people to hide behind, when they are expressing their own opinions. They use it as a way to turn off reason - and why they fail miserably to convince people to change their mind. The excuse is always "you just have to be a Christian". They often admit there is no way to argue except by scripture- which means that they don't have a reasonable argument. There are plenty of reasonable arguments for any Christian viewpoint.

The bible, if I may be so bold, is really unnecessary to Christianity. The only thing needed to be a Christian is the Gospel message (conveyed even orally) and a desire to become better.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The bible is very convenient for people to hide behind, when they are expressing their own opinions. They use it as a way to turn off reason - and why they fail miserably to convince people to change their mind. The excuse is always "you just have to be a Christian". They often admit there is no way to argue except by scripture- which means that they don't have a reasonable argument. There are plenty of reasonable arguments for any Christian viewpoint.

The bible, if I may be so bold, is really unnecessary to Christianity. The only thing needed to be a Christian is the Gospel message (conveyed even orally) and a desire to become better.

kindred spirit, hail and well met

 

[Horizonol]

kindred spirit, hail and well met

Don't say that just yet- I do believe homosexuality is wrong

It's just a long argument to make.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The reason why their is more than one denomination is because people do not like the word of God stepping on their toes, hitting too close to home. And most people do not want to change for God. They do not want to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, as he says for us to do.
All do not belong to the one true God. They think they do, but they do not.

So which denomination has got it right? Can you objectively justify it?

It is good that you have read the bible, but it is sad that you still refuse to believe it.

It is, to me, no more spectacular than the Qu'ran, or the Vedas, or the writings of the Bahá'u'lláh. It is notable for it's popularity, but that is all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't say that just yet- I do believe homosexuality is wrong

It's just a long argument to make.

Be brief

 

[Aquamarine81]

No, the reason why people do not want to believe in God's word is because they do not want to change for God. They do not want to give up anything for God. The more a person knows about God's word, the more is required of them from God. That is why people refuse to believe the truth.

God wouldn't want someone to change from the way He made them. The truth is that no one makes a decision to be homosexual, it's the way God made them and there's really no changing that.

 

[Horizonol]

God wouldn't want someone to change from the way He made them. The truth is that no one makes a decision to be homosexual, it's the way God made them and there's really no changing that.

People are born with disabilities and change those.

I'm trying to understand here- are you attempting to justify homosexuality? On the basis that since someone is born with an attraction, it is okay to act on it?