Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable.

Nonsense. It is a sin in your interpretation. Biased translations by prejudiced men have enforced the homophobic culture of the time. Take the time to review the original text yourself; you may be surprised.

Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.

Pray tell, where in the Bible does God explicitly state, "Become heterosexual, or burn in Hell"?

 

[Ohioprof]

Could we get back to the topic, please. This is not a thread to discuss opinions on the validity of the Bible, as the thread title says "evidence that homosexuality is wrong", and since its in the Christian philosophy and ethics subforum, its implied that the question is directed towards christians. Unless you have some other method for christians to provide evidence besides using the bible, I don't see the relevance of your statements about its validity.

I am Christian, and I reject the Bible as "evidence" in resolving moral questions. So whether you accept the Bible or not IS relevant to the topic under discussion.

You can't assume that all Christians accept the Bible as "evidence" or that all Christians accept the Bible as the only "evidence" that one should use in answering the question in the OP.

I personally don't think that the term "evidence" even makes sense when we are considering moral questions, as I believe morals are human creations. We do not discover what is moral, in my view; we decide what is moral. Morals are not something handed to us by God, nor are they out there in the universe awaiting discovery. I think we humans construct moral systems. And we change moral systems as our cultures change and as our understanding changes. An example is slavery. For millennia, slavery and other forms of unfree labor were simply accepted as normal and moral, even necessary, by most people. Then we changed, and we decided that slavery is immoral. Now there is a broad consensus that slavery and other forms of unfree labor are immoral. This was a major change in human moral thinking.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Nonsense. It is a sin in your interpretation. Biased translations by prejudiced men have enforced the homophobic culture of the time. Take the time to review the original text yourself; you may be surprised.

Pure rhetoric. Stop wasting your time.

Pray tell, where in the Bible does God explicitly state, "Become heterosexual, or burn in Hell"?

Everywhere he tells you to repent from your sin.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I am Christian, and I reject the Bible as "evidence" in resolving moral questions. So whether you accept the Bible or not IS relevant to the topic under discussion.

Yes we are all Christians as defined by this website.

You can't assume that all Christians accept the Bible as "evidence" or that all Christians accept the Bible as the only "evidence" that one should use in answering the question in the OP.

Well, no..not according to this website. You can't assume anything.

I personally don't think that the term "evidence" even makes sense when we are considering moral questions, as I believe morals are human creations. We do not discover what is moral, in my view; we decide what is moral. Morals are not something handed to us by God, nor are they out there in the universe awaiting discovery. I think we humans construct moral systems. And we change moral systems as our cultures change and as our understanding changes. An example is slavery. For millennia, slavery and other forms of unfree labor were simply accepted as normal and moral, even necessary, by most people. Then we changed, and we decided that slavery is immoral. Now there is a broad consensus that slavery and other forms of unfree labor are immoral. This was a major change in human moral thinking.

So morals are random pragmatic useless laws we make. Cool.

 

[Ohioprof]

Yes we are all Christians as defined by this website.

Well, no..not according to this website. You can't assume anything.

So morals are random pragmatic useless laws we make. Cool.

I think morals are neither random nor useless. I do think they are human constructions, but as the New York Times article that I linked to yesterday suggested, morals may be hard-wired into us and passed on genetically. It's an interesting idea.

I think that our morals cannot and should not be easily thrown away or changed. But they can be changed, and they sometimes are.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I think morals are neither random nor useless. I do think they are human constructions, but as the New York Times article that I linked to yesterday suggested, morals may be hard-wired into us and passed on genetically. It's an interesting idea.

I think that our morals cannot and should not be easily thrown away or changed. But they can be changed, and they sometimes are.

There is no Proof of The New York Times materialist speculations. That's besides that even if that were true there would be no way to know who's making random rules or who is genetically being honest.

 

[davedjy]

Pure rhetoric. Stop wasting your time.

Right. Just like the inconsistencies I proved in 1 Cor. 6:9...

 

[ReformedChapin]

Right. Just like the inconsistencies I proved in 1 Cor. 6:9...

I can say that too. "RIGHT."

You haven't proven anything. Just your leftist pro gay agenda.

 

[davedjy]

I can say that too. "RIGHT."

You haven't proven anything. Just your leftist pro gay agenda.

The inconsistencies between translation and translation have been proven. You have yet to refute them, but that is because you can't.

"Leftist pro gay agenda" as a comment refutes nothing. Malakoi and Arsenokoitai have been confused with each other, and have been translated from everything from effeminate, Sodomite, homosexual (and mixed up), as well as child molesters, and even those who touch.

 

[ReformedChapin]

The inconsistencies between translation and translation have been proven. You have yet to refute them, but that is because you can't.

There is no inconsistancies.

"Leftist pro gay agenda" as a comment refutes nothing. Malakoi and Arsenokoitai have been confused with each other, and have been translated from everything from effeminate, Sodomite, homosexual (and mixed up), as well as child molesters, and even those who touch.

Effeminate, sodomite, and homosexual all mean the same thing. You are just playing semantics. Just because the same TERM isn't used doesn't mean the MEANING isn't there.

 

[Ohioprof]

There is no Proof of The New York Times materialist speculations. That's besides that even if that were true there would be no way to know who's making random rules or who is genetically being honest.

No, there is no "proof." I will argue that science never "proves" anything; scientists muster strong evidence in support of theories, and those theories are always open to revision as new evidence emerges and as better explanations are developed.

I posted the New York Times link not as "proof" of anything. I posted the link because the story is interesting.

 

[Ohioprof]

There is no inconsistancies.

Effeminate, sodomite, and homosexual all mean the same thing. You are just playing semantics. Just because the same TERM isn't used doesn't mean the MEANING isn't there.

Now that is an interpretation on your part, isn't it? Others disagree with your interpretation.

 

[davedjy]

There is no inconsistancies.

Effeminate, sodomite, and homosexual all mean the same thing. You are just playing semantics. Just because the same TERM isn't used doesn't mean the MEANING isn't there.

Effeminate, and sodomite CANNOT mean the same thing. If they did why would the NKJV use both in the same sentence? Effeminate DOES NOT define a homosexual, and the translations do not mean the same thing. Other translations use effeminate AND homosexual in the same sentence next to each other (NIV). That is like saying homosexual, homosexual twice.

This is a proper debate from you?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Effeminate, and sodomite CANNOT mean the same thing. If they did why would the NKJV use both in the same sentence? Effeminate DOES NOT define a homosexual, and the translations do not mean the same thing. Other translations use effeminate AND homosexual in the same sentence next to each other (NIV). That is like saying homosexual, homosexual twice.

This is a proper debate from you?

I don't think it's the proper debate forum for you since all you do is call people idiots.

Anyways, show the translations and I will show your mistake. That's beside the fact that even if not all the translations were accurate that doesn't imply that the meaning of HOMOSEXUAL isn't there. Your basic argument is this "not all the translations are consistant therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong." That isn't correct, all of them have either a direct word to symbolyze it or indicate it in one form or another.

 

[Ohioprof]

I don't think it's the proper debate forum for you since all you do is call people idiots.

Anyways, show the translations and I will show your mistake. That's beside the fact that even if not all the translations were accurate that doesn't imply that the meaning of HOMOSEXUAL isn't there. Your basic argument is this "not all the translations are consistant therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong." That isn't correct, all of them have either a direct word to symbolyze it or indicate it in one form or another.

I don't see him calling people "idiots."

 

[ReformedChapin]

I don't see him calling people "idiots."

Well thats your interpretation! My interpretation derived that he did imply that.

 

[LunarPlexus]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be arguing the consistency of the bible. There are people here who take the bible literally, or who imply that it is meant to be interpreted but only their interpretation is correct.

If the bible is going to be used as 'Proof' or a justification, then we have every right to point out flaws in this reasoning.

 

[davedjy]

I don't think it's the proper debate forum for you since all you do is call people idiots.

Anyways, show the translations and I will show your mistake. That's beside the fact that even if not all the translations were accurate that doesn't imply that the meaning of HOMOSEXUAL isn't there. Your basic argument is this "not all the translations are consistant therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong." That isn't correct, all of them have either a direct word to symbolyze it or indicate it in one form or another.

No, that is not what you said. You said effeminate, homosexual, and sodomite are all the same thing, but reworded. I proved you wrong by showing how these words are listed separately in some translations, and in others the word "homosexual" isn't used at all. The Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Bibles both reject the homosexual translation, and use the child molester.

As for calling people "idiots", you are reading into something I did not say. I said "this is a proper debate from you?". How did you get idiot out of that or any of my other posts?

 

[tulc]

My interpretation derived that he did imply that.

Actually he didn't imply it, you're inferring it.
tulc(there's a difference)

 

[Phinehas2]

Well thats your interpretation! My interpretation derived that he did imply that.