Debate help...why is homosexuality wrong?

[Proselyte]

nor effeminate? what exactly does that mean?

metrosexual perhaps lol?

 

[artjack]

nor effeminate? what exactly does that mean?

it means homosexuals wont inherit anything heaven perhalps, but that sugests owning something in heaven, homosexuals are not greedy they will be happy enough just being there id say.it does not say they wont get in or be there!

 

[HunterRose]

And it also says that Liars homosexuals etc, will not inherit the Kingodm of Heaven.

You can't pick and choose the Scriptures.

And that is why it is immoral to cut your hair, to eat shellfish, to take pride in your achievements, to wear clothing made of different fabrics, and immoral to attend church while wearing glasses. And why it is perfectly moral to kill rape victims, stone your disobedient child, beat your slaves, and moral to make animal sacrifices.


To say otherwise is to pick and choose among scriptures

 

[HunterRose]

Show me the magic context that makes this say something else.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

1 Timothy 1:10
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

There are some significant issues with the translations of these passages. The Greek word being translated as “homosexual” arsenokoites apparently odes not mean homosexual at all.


The notion that arsenokoites translates into homsoeuxal is based on the faluse idea thath the definition of a compound word is derived from the meanings of its component words. In this case arsen (man) and Koite (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning. Using this method of combing meaning of root words to discern the meaning of compound words is not just invalid it is entirely subjective. It would be just as valid to use this method and look at the component words of arsenokoites (arsen (man) and Koite (bed)) and conclude that Paul is condemning the lazy.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. When one looks at extra biblical uses of the word arsenokoites from that era such as from the Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 and the second-century Acts of John we see a different meaning emerge. One that relates to economic exploitation perhaps through sex. Thus arsenokoites more correctly translates as a man who employees prostitutes.

This translation also helps with a linguistic problem that is usually ignored.
arsenokoitai is a plural first declension noun. It appears, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 without an article. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Most first declension nouns in Greek are. Meaning that the rot words are more specifically arsen (man) and koite (a woman’s bed).

Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences by Dale B. Martin

 

[HunterRose]

Opinions vary, but I would point out that the community to which Paul was writing was much more tolerant of homosexuality than the U.S. is today. And I don't buy the theory that he was referring to temple prostitutes, I believe if he was he would have stated it.

Truth does not change a sin is a sin.

Paul was speaking to a society that had clear and well known words for homosexual and homosexuality. He didn’t use those words he used a different word entirely

 

[george78]

There are some significant issues with the translations of these passages. The Greek word being translated as “homosexual” arsenokoites apparently odes not mean homosexual at all.


The notion that arsenokoites translates into homsoeuxal is based on the faluse idea thath the definition of a compound word is derived from the meanings of its component words. In this case arsen (man) and Koite (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning. Using this method of combing meaning of root words to discern the meaning of compound words is not just invalid it is entirely subjective. It would be just as valid to use this method and look at the component words of arsenokoites (arsen (man) and Koite (bed)) and conclude that Paul is condemning the lazy.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. When one looks at extra biblical uses of the word arsenokoites from that era such as from the Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 and the second-century Acts of John we see a different meaning emerge. One that relates to economic exploitation perhaps through sex. Thus arsenokoites more correctly translates as a man who employees prostitutes.

This translation also helps with a linguistic problem that is usually ignored.
arsenokoitai is a plural first declension noun. It appears, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 without an article. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Most first declension nouns in Greek are. Meaning that the rot words are more specifically arsen (man) and koite (a woman’s bed).

Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences by Dale B. Martin

Dale B. Martin's "analysis" has been throughly debunked. It's completely unworkable from any rational biblical exegesis.

-------------------------------

First off, here is a quick one you can look over:

http://wordalone.org/pdf/dmartinexamined-short.pdf

------------------------------

This next one is probably the single best and most authoritative resource currently online.

This is done by Dr. Robert Gagnon, here is a bit of information on him (and his academic qualifications are beyond repute):

He is an Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He came to PTS in the Fall of 1994 after a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.); co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); has a 50-page article entitled "Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful?" in Christian Sexuality (ed. R. Saltzman; Minneapolis: Kirk House, 2003); and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality (www.robgagnon.net). In addition, he has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century.

-------------------

Here is the article (For the OP this is probably the best source for your debate help):

http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf

--------------------

Here is another good one by the same author:

http://www.robgagnon.net/2Views/homoViaRejoinder.pdf


--------------------
And two more:

http://www.robgagnon.net/PowellRespSec123.htm
http://www.robgagnon.net/ChristianSexualityNotes.htm


--------------------
For another complete debunking of Dale Martin's twisting of Corinthians:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf

(quick Abstract:
A Critique of Contemporary Views
General Abuse
The position. This first argument is a logical and theological objection (more than exegetical)
to understanding Paul’s vice-list in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as prohibiting all homosexuality.
Blair affirms that Paul was not against homosexuality per se but against homosexual abuse, or
perhaps better—homosexual sins related to abuse of the body and comparable to heterosexual
sins such as adultery and fornication. Blair says Paul’s discussion of homosexuality is like
Paul’s allowance for temperance in drinking without requiring abstinence (cf. 1 Tim 5:23).
One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof-text
against all homosexuality or even all homosexual acts. Of course, homosexual behavior
can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be—or any
kind of activity can be—but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or
specific acts as sinful as such.5
1 Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, rev. ed. (New York: Evangelicals Concerned, 1977), 6;
and Joseph C. Weber, “Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts,” Engage/Social Action, May 1975, 31.
2 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
3 Peter Zaas, 1 Corinthians 6:9ff: “Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church?” Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar Papers no. 19, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1980), 2:205-12.
4 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the
Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
5 5. Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, 6.
David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600
(1993): 479-492.
Likewise, Weber suggests that Paul’s vice-lists in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 were
expressions of doing harm to one’s body.6
A refutation. Three lines of reasoning are critical for refuting the above affirmations.
First, the argument of “general abuse” is not logical on the level of comparison. To compare
homosexual abuse with the perversion of heterosexuality is to make less than a one-to-one
correlation. If homosexuality were truly parallel to heterosexuality as a proper expression of
sexuality, then there would be no need to mention any category beyond adultery and
fornication since both of these would be the expression of practicing an improper sexual
relationship. On the contrary, homosexuality is expressed as another example of an improper
sexual relationship outside a monogamous heterosexual union.
Second, not all the descriptions in this passage are of an “excessive” nature. As Walve
accurately observes, “there is no such thing as ‘responsible’ covetousness. All covetousness is
wrong.”7 Therefore since homosexuality is not being compared to heterosexuality but is being
expressed as a perversion of sexual relationships, and since all the vices listed are not
“excessive” by nature but absolute in many cases, the argument of “abuse,” suggested by
Blair and Weber, is inappropriate in this passage.
p.481
Third, the assumption in this argument of “general abuse” is that expressions of
homosexuality exist that would not be harmful to one’s neighbor. But is this appropriate? In
Paul’s vice-list are there expressions of “immorality,” “greed,” or “theft” that would not harm
one’s neighbor? There are no positive discussions of moral homosexuality in the Scriptures.
Therefore it is appropriate to place this word alongside other absolute evils. Also Romans 1
describes homosexuality as an evil in itself (i.e., a perversion of nature).8
Therefore the argument that Paul in his vice-list was not addressing homosexuality in general
but abuses of it is a conclusion based on the illogical presuppositions that all sexual
relationships are equal before God, that Paul’s descriptions are of excessive practices, and that
homosexuality is a biblically approved expression of sexuality.)

--------------

Simply put, Dale Martin's reading is completely incompatable with Scripture.

 

[george78]

And that is why it is immoral to cut your hair, to eat shellfish, to take pride in your achievements, to wear clothing made of different fabrics, and immoral to attend church while wearing glasses. And why it is perfectly moral to kill rape victims, stone your disobedient child, beat your slaves, and moral to make animal sacrifices.


To say otherwise is to pick and choose among scriptures

There is no picking and choosing. The Bible is rather clear that there are divisions of law, Moral, sacrificial, ceremonial and civil.

Colossians 2:16-17

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.



Hebrews 9:6-12 “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

The ceremonial laws of the OT were put their for a purpose, TO POINT TO CHRIST. When Christ came, he fufilled those laws.

(This came from Jesus Himself, See Matthew 5:17-19.)


This is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, one that has been affirmed by various confessions of faith. (For example 1689 LBCOF (With Scripture Proofs

Chapter 19: Of the Law of God

1._____ God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
( Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10, 12 ) 2._____ The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
( Romans 2:14, 15; Deuteronomy 10:4 )
3._____ Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.
( Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:14, 16, 17; Ephesians 2:14, 16 )
4._____ To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.
( 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 )
5._____ The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
( Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12; James 2:10, 11; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31 )
6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )
7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

 

[lonelyflower]

Homosexuality is not wrong.

 

[DeepThinker]

[/font][/font][/size][/font]There is no picking and choosing.

)

That could be debated, you dont know for sure that everything in the Bible as we see it today is the word of God, you can belive that, but you dont know it. I belive you must read it with reason, or you follow a book blindly, God gave us brains and hearts too, so that we could hear him directly, its not picking and choosing what you want to, but feeling the difference between right and wrong in your heart. The Bible is only needed when that Judgement is clouded and unclear.

 

[george78]

That could be debated, you dont know for sure that everything in the Bible as we see it today is the word of God, you can belive that, but you dont know it. I belive you must read it with reason, or you follow a book blindly, God gave us brains and hearts too, so that we could hear him directly, its not picking and choosing what you want to, but feeling the difference between right and wrong in your heart. The Bible is only needed when that Judgement is clouded and unclear.

There really isn't anything that can be debated. It isn't picking and choosing to say that eating Shrimp is OK, because Colossians 2:16-17 is unambigious on the matter.

The Bible is quite explicit on the divisions of law. This is a position that has been sustained in numerous Confessions of Faith (I quoted the 1689 LBC, but the Westminster Confession and a host of others are almost identical.)

Hence, when people trot out the "Shrimp" line in an attempt to try to explain away moral laws, (IE: The infamous "Dr. Laura" Letter.) they end up looking ignorant.

 

[DeepThinker]

There really isn't anything that can be debated. It isn't picking and choosing to say that eating Shrimp is OK, because Colossians 2:16-17 is unambigious on the matter.

The Bible is quite explicit on the divisions of law. This is a position that has been sustained in numerous Confessions of Faith (I quoted the 1689 LBC, but the Westminster Confession and a host of others are almost identical.)

Hence, when people trot out the "Shrimp" line in an attempt to try to explain away moral laws, (IE: The infamous "Dr. Laura" Letter.) they end up looking ignorant.

I did not use any shrimps of any kind in my arguement, and there is plenty to be debated. Do you have any proof that the contents of the Bible we read now is wholely the word of God?

 

[george78]

I did not use any shrimps of any kind in my arguement, and there is plenty to be debated.

Shrimp is just an example. It's the one that comes quickly to mind cause it's a favorite of atheists/skeptics who like to play the ceremonial law game.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lauraletter.html

Do you have any proof that the contents of the Bible we read now is wholely the word of God?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

 

[DeepThinker]

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Does not prove the validity of todays Bible, it produces evidence but this is not proof,
The internal evidence
The first concerned is that the books were writen by many authors on many continents and that the Bible does not contradict itself, this seems to prove its validity, but only at the point these books were all combined, it does not proove that that first combined Bible has not since been tampered with.
The second is about proficy but this is a very shaky subject, there are no exact dates to the proficies and not all have yet come into effect, that no proficy can be proven faulse is only for the simple fact that if there is a proficy that has not been dealt with yet it is said that that proficy has not yet come to be, alot has happened over the last 2000 years, the Bible has not predicted it all, only parts of it. Concerning the old testement and its teachings about the coming of a massiah only proves that it was valid at the time, or even that the new testiment was recorded to fit the events (not my view but still possible)
The transforming power of the Bible is great, the overall message of the Book is that of God, if I did not belive that, I would not be Christian, but this only proves the message is that of God it does not bring validity to every verse.

The external evidence
Using the Bible to find archeological details of historical events, this proves that there is truth to the Bible, but to say this is proof that the whole of it is the word of God is ludicrous.
The second external evidence is that it was written by Good honest men who knew Jesus personally, there are 2 points to make here, 1 we do not know that the men who wrote the Bible were the same eye witnesses, there is nothing to prove this, 2 even if this could be taken as a proof again it only prooves validity at the time of the first writting of the books.
Thirdly the attempted destruction of the Bible on numourous occassions and the failure of this does not prove anything other than the followers of Christainity is resiliant and resoucefull.

Do not get me wrong I belive the words of the Bible, but I find it impossible to trust that over the years it has not been tampered with, it could even be a possibility that the reason it was not destroyed on the numoerous attacks to eliminate the book was because the attacker did not want it destroyed, and changed the words to have more control over the Christian society.
Furthermoor, there is the issue of translation, the reason why the Bible does not contradict could be beacuse the translations are inaccurate, and taken the wrong way due to wishfull thinking.

My conclusion is that though the arguments are complelling, there are also many arguments that contrandict the findings in the article, I am not a studied theologin, but I can point some problems out, the concluseion that the article writer makes is false, we can never be sure of anything without a doubt, the Bible is not an exeption.
Belive what you want to belive but do not say it can be proven when it can't.

 

[DeepThinker]

1 more thing, if we are talking about proof in the scientific sence (which we are), there is proof that adam and eve did not exist as it is descirbed in the Bible, its called evolution

 

[DeepThinker]

1 more thing, if we are talking about proof in the scientific sence (which we are), there is proof that adam and eve did not exist as it is descirbed in the Bible, its called evolution

Sorry proof does not exist about anything, what I meant was evidence

 

[george78]

Does not prove the validity of todays Bible, it produces evidence but this is not proof,
The internal evidence
The first concerned is that the books were writen by many authors on many continents and that the Bible does not contradict itself, this seems to prove its validity, but only at the point these books were all combined, it does not proove that that first combined Bible has not since been tampered with.
The second is about proficy but this is a very shaky subject, there are no exact dates to the proficies and not all have yet come into effect, that no proficy can be proven faulse is only for the simple fact that if there is a proficy that has not been dealt with yet it is said that that proficy has not yet come to be, alot has happened over the last 2000 years, the Bible has not predicted it all, only parts of it. Concerning the old testement and its teachings about the coming of a massiah only proves that it was valid at the time, or even that the new testiment was recorded to fit the events (not my view but still possible)
The transforming power of the Bible is great, the overall message of the Book is that of God, if I did not belive that, I would not be Christian, but this only proves the message is that of God it does not bring validity to every verse.

The external evidence
Using the Bible to find archeological details of historical events, this proves that there is truth to the Bible, but to say this is proof that the whole of it is the word of God is ludicrous.
The second external evidence is that it was written by Good honest men who knew Jesus personally, there are 2 points to make here, 1 we do not know that the men who wrote the Bible were the same eye witnesses, there is nothing to prove this, 2 even if this could be taken as a proof again it only prooves validity at the time of the first writting of the books.
Thirdly the attempted destruction of the Bible on numourous occassions and the failure of this does not prove anything other than the followers of Christainity is resiliant and resoucefull.

Do not get me wrong I belive the words of the Bible, but I find it impossible to trust that over the years it has not been tampered with, it could even be a possibility that the reason it was not destroyed on the numoerous attacks to eliminate the book was because the attacker did not want it destroyed, and changed the words to have more control over the Christian society.
Furthermoor, there is the issue of translation, the reason why the Bible does not contradict could be beacuse the translations are inaccurate, and taken the wrong way due to wishfull thinking.

My conclusion is that though the arguments are complelling, there are also many arguments that contrandict the findings in the article, I am not a studied theologin, but I can point some problems out, the concluseion that the article writer makes is false, we can never be sure of anything without a doubt, the Bible is not an exeption.
Belive what you want to belive but do not say it can be proven when it can't.

I'm not going to derail the thread with an evolution debate.

But here are a couple of more links for you:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

 

[DeepThinker]

I'm not going to derail the thread with an evolution debate.

But here are a couple of more links for you:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

Sigh, I have read many arguemnets for and against the authentisity of the Bible, obviously your mind is closed to reason and already made up, if you opend it a little you would see that "the only thing we can truely know for sure is that we know absoutly nothing" Socrates

 

[Proselyte]

I'm not going to derail the thread with an evolution debate.

But here are a couple of more links for you:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

Great links. I look forward to diving more into them when I have more time. I like what I read so far.

 

[Colabomb]

Shrimp is just an example. It's the one that comes quickly to mind cause it's a favorite of atheists/skeptics who like to play the ceremonial law game.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lauraletter.html



http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

I just bypass that whole debate by quoting Paul.

 

[artybloke]

I just bypass that whole debate by quoting Paul.

Doesn't bypass anything if one doesn't think that Paul was talking about all gay relationships, but only about straight people having gay sex in temples, as many of us folks who try to read the Bible in its historical context do.

sorry, try again