Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Jerrell]

What some like to think is a good argument is acusing the "literalist" CHristians of qouting the sexual prophibitations in Leveticus, but not adhering to the dietary laws. Well if you take the time out to read Acts chapter 15, you will understand that the Apostles TOLD the Church to keep themselves from Sexual immorality, now what is sexual immorality you ask? Well read LEveticus Chapter 18, and 20, and you will have your answer. The Church is not put under the bondage of dietary laws as clearly shown in the New Testament, however we are commanded to keep away from fornications.

 

[MrPirate]

Lev 19:6 love your neighbour as yourself
Lev 18:20 do not lie with a man as with a woman.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

 

[Jerrell]

About 2000 years ago…so its not new at all. words are defined by the society and the time they are used. 2000 years ago the word did not mean homosexual as demonstrated by writers contemporary to Paul. Or are you going to suggest that writers of that era didn’t know what they were writing

What is new is the modern translation of arsenokoties to mean homosexual.

Surprisingly I find NO Greek source for your supossed definition, however i find alot of greek evidence for the correct translation of the words as homosexaul. I looked it up on Google, and guess what only Gay websites poped up with your same argument...so, so far I've yet to recieve a supported, un-biased/ non-opinion good reason as to why it was not translated correctly.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A few things that make it different. Dying to save a family member is a choice. Some would make it, some wouldn't. Also, we're not insects. We do not live in a society with one dominate female who produces all our babies and has no need for other reproducing females all of whom are born sterile and so do the same work as males

We are social mammals, not hive insects. We do have a need for fertile women: to make babies.

And yet sometimes society needs people who are prepared to kill and murder, and paedophilia just depends on what country you live in..

Show me one society were muder is a requirement. Show me one society that cannot live without sanctioned murder.

This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions in my opinion.

Christianity has a unique view of morality, sure. But so does every other religion. Being different from the norm is one thing, but being true? Completely seperate.

You have a scale of love and hatred.

I disagree. Our relationships with other humans is not a Sims-esque number that can be positive or negative. A relationship with a person is indeed the sum of one's interactions, both direct and indirect, with that person, but the sum it is by no means as simple a single value. It is at least a two-vector.

The further someone acts from your moral mid-line into the bad side, the more you hate them. The further they act within the good side the more you love them.

Not really. I can hate someone for a minor misdeed, or even for a good deed. I can love someone for something small they did. The link between hate, love, and morality is tenuous at best.

But what about the man who murders and then saves a child? Do they cancel out or do you love and hate him at the same time.

By your model, they would. But I do not subscribe to that model: I would be thankful for his assistance, but would still hold his murder over his head.
Intention is a very large factor in all of this that you seem to have omitted for the sake of simplicity.

What if someone else's moral mid-line is above or below yours?

Then they are likely to view his actions differently.

Christianity is the ultimate in equality. All have sinned and none are righteous. It recognises that in spite of our proud boasts, many of the bad things we haven't done aren't because we are "better" than someone else, but merely because we haven't wanted to do them nor had the opportunity.

First, this is a premise, and one I disagree with: restraining from doing a bad thing is itself a good thing.
Second, the moral view of Christians is not true simply because it is unique. Few independant religions have the exact same moral code.

Unless I have felt the urge to murder and then stopped myself because I believed it was wrong, what credit is it to me that I haven't murdered anyone?

That you had the urge is troubling, but that you overcame the urge is praiseworthy, if only so you can seek help before you feel the urge again.

I can debate what a terrible crime it was and the effects it has had on those around it, but have I the right to judge someone who has committed it.

Yes. You have a moral code. Do you have the right to pass judgement and carry it out? Debateable. But simply judging someone is perfectly fine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What some like to think is a good argument is acusing the "literalist" CHristians of qouting the sexual prophibitations in Leveticus, but not adhering to the dietary laws. Well if you take the time out to read Acts chapter 15, you will understand that the Apostles TOLD the Church to keep themselves from Sexual immorality, now what is sexual immorality you ask? Well read LEveticus Chapter 18, and 20, and you will have your answer. The Church is not put under the bondage of dietary laws as clearly shown in the New Testament, however we are commanded to keep away from fornications.

So how come the definition of sexual immorality didn't change between OT and NT, but the definition of 'right food' did? Where does it say, "Don't be sexually immoral. What do I mean by sexually immoral? Take a look at Leviticus. Just the sex stuff, mind".

Not to mention the disagreements between what Leviticus (and other OT books) actually call sexually immoral.

 

[RMDY]

About 2000 years ago…so its not new at all. words are defined by the society and the time they are used

The idea of what immorality is carried over from over 2000 years, but instead of being commanded to kill people for their immorality by stoning, Jesus told us to repent of these things from our hearts and love others.

 

[RMDY]

Show me one society were muder is a requirement. Show me one society that cannot live without sanctioned murder.

Did you ever see Apocalypto. The Mayan civilization. They had a mass assembly line of slaves being sacrificed to a sun god, which was mass murder in my views regardless whether it was religious or not. And they depended upon it. The sun God they sacrificed too didn't exist.

Child sacrifice to Molech was murder according to Israel customs, and it also violated worshipping only one God. Some nations built upon this religious custom depended upon it. So did some people during the time of Israel. Molech didn't exist.

Jesus, is a different story. He willingly went to his death to do the will of the father by laying his life down for us. God has plans to resurrect him, so his death was just temperarily.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you ever see Apocalypto.

Forgive me for not turning to Mel Gibson for historical truth.

The Mayan civilization. They had a mass assembly line of slaves being sacrificed to a sun god, which was mass murder in my views regardless whether it was religious or not. And they depended upon it. The sun God they sacrificed too didn't exist.

They believed they depended on it. Do you wish to make the claim that, without human sacrifice, the society would end?

Child sacrifice to Molech was murder according to Israel customs, and it also violated worshipping only one God. Some nations built upon this religious custom depended upon it. So did some people during the time of Israel.

What nations depended upon this rite? Please explain how such societies would end without the sacrifice.

Molech didn't exist.

So says the God of a monotheistic religion. Hardly surprising.

Jesus, is a different story. He willingly went to his death to do the will of the father by laying his life down for us. God has plans to resurrect him, so his death was just temperarily.

I do not believe Jesus ever existed, let alone was resurrected. Your point, JC14, is moot.

 

[RMDY]

Forgive me for not turning to Mel Gibson for historical truth.

Lol. But the Mayans really did use their temples to do mass sacrifices to a sun god.

They believed they depended on it. Do you wish to make the claim that, without human sacrifice, the society would end?

They belived they did. That is enough. They built their society upon it. Society wouldn't end for them if they stopped sacrificing, but they didn't know that. They believed they depended upon giving sacrifice to a god/gods

What nations depended upon this rite? Please explain how such societies would end without the sacrifice.


So says the God of a monotheistic religion. Hardly surprising.


I do not believe Jesus ever existed, let alone was resurrected. Your point, JC14, is moot.

This isn't about whether a nation would end or not if they stopped depending upon murder: you provoked me into showing you at least one nation that did depend upon it. That is what they believed, therefore, that is what they depended upon. Even if you don't believe in "I AM" it still doesn't change what the mayans did was religious murder on a massive scale---and they believed they depended upon it, therefore, they came to depend upon it because their whole society was built upon that idea.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Lol. But the Mayans really did use their temples to do mass sacrifices to a sun god.

True, but I doubt even they were as gruesome as the Romans in 'Passion of the Christ'...

They belived they did. That is enough.

No, it isn't. If one day, for whatever reason, no sacrifices were made (not for lack of trying, I might add), they may think, they may fear, that their world will end, but it would not. The uncertain time would pass, and they would get on with their less bloodthirsty lives.

They built their society upon it. Society wouldn't end for them if they stopped sacrificing, but they didn't know that. They believed they depended upon giving sacrifice to a god/gods

Yes, but their society wouldn't crumble without them.

This isn't about whether a nation would end or not if they stopped depending upon murder: you provoked me into showing you at least one nation that did depend upon it.

That's what being dependant means: unable to exist without it.

That is what they believed, therefore, that is what they depended upon.

They believe they do, but they in fact do not.

Even if you don't believe in "I AM" it still doesn't change what the mayans did was religious murder on a massive scale---and they believed they depended upon it, therefore, they came to depend upon it because their whole society was built upon that idea.

You are equating belief with reality. If I believe I am dependant on cyanide to live, does that mean I really am dependant on cyanide to live? Does my biochemistry magically alter?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I do not claim he "included" them. I merely state that those who claim that he specifically excluded them have no evidence for their claim. There was good reason for him to refer to the "travesty" of of same-sex marriage if he wanted to specifically condemn it, but he did not mention it.

No I agree there is a lack of evidence either way for same-sex marriages. One of the issues I have with the homosexuality issue in general is that heterosexual relationships are addressed in thorough, what is good, what is bad, etc. However for homosexual ones the only verses even pertaining to homosexual actions are falling under the 'bad' category.

 

[RMDY]

True, but I doubt even they were as gruesome as the Romans in 'Passion of the Christ'...

Were not talking about Mel Gibson. We were talking about a civilization that believed they depended upon murder to please their sun god.

 

[RMDY]

That's what being dependant means: unable to exist without it.

I told you----"they believed" they depended upon murder.

Depend can also mean to put trust and confidence unto something:

de·pend play_w("D0140800") (d

-p

nd

)intr.v. de·pend·ed, de·pend·ing, de·pends 2. To place trust or confidence: You can depend on his honesty. See Synonyms at rely.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depend

The Mayans put their trust and confidence unto their religious system of religious mass murder to their sun god.

 

[djbcrawford]

Show me one society were muder is a requirement. Show me one society that cannot live without sanctioned murder.

My point was that if your social group is under attack you need warriors to defend it. People prepared to kill. If your society has the death penalty, then someone needs to carry it out.

I disagree. Our relationships with other humans is not a Sims-esque number that can be positive or negative. A relationship with a person is indeed the sum of one's interactions, both direct and indirect, with that person, but the sum it is by no means as simple a single value. It is at least a two-vector.

Have you had a relationship with many murderers? I bet you judge them on their one act and nothing else. It was only a simple picture. As people become closer to your inner circle a lot of other things will interfere with this simple model.

Not really. I can hate someone for a minor misdeed, or even for a good deed. I can love someone for something small they did. The link between hate, love, and morality is tenuous at best.

You stated you would hate someone who murders and love someone for saving a child. I just mapped out this moral picture.

By your model, they would. But I do not subscribe to that model: I would be thankful for his assistance, but would still hold his murder over his head.
Intention is a very large factor in all of this that you seem to have omitted for the sake of simplicity.

It's actually your model. I made it for you. My model is different.

Intention and prior knowledge too. For example. Is it wrong to drink alcohol? Answer - in itself, no. But if you know that drinking alcohol makes you violent then in that case yes.

First, this is a premise, and one I disagree with: restraining from doing a bad thing is itself a good thing.

I don't understand how you disagree and then repeat what I said in other words. I agree restraint from bad is a good thing, but it's only restraint if we actively have to stop ourselves. There is no good involved in not doing something we never wanted to do anyway.

Second, the moral view of Christians is not true simply because it is unique. Few independant religions have the exact same moral code.

For me it is. It takes luck out of the equation. People are judged based on their starting point, not how far up the moral ladder they have climbed as some will have started on a higher rung than others. For people to be judged fairly they must be treated
equally.

That you had the urge is troubling, but that you overcame the urge is praiseworthy, if only so you can seek help before you feel the urge again.

It was a retorical question, but thanks for your concern. You are correct and that was my point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My point was that if your social group is under attack you need warriors to defend it. People prepared to kill.

Killing to defend or preserve oneself and one's kin is not murder. Do we imprison farmers for slaughtering cattle?

If your society has the death penalty, then someone needs to carry it out.

Which leads us back to our original dilemma: what society requires the death penalty? But we are discussing this elsewhere.

Have you had a relationship with many murderers? I bet you judge them on their one act and nothing else. It was only a simple picture. As people become closer to your inner circle a lot of other things will interfere with this simple model.

Indeed. Which is why I said that the simple model is flawed.

You stated you would hate someone who murders and love someone for saving a child. I just mapped out this moral picture.

An error on my part. If my father murdered the person threatening my mother, I would not hate him; I would probably love him more. I'm not really sure what I was trying to say, but scratch that previous comment. Murder doesn't always engender hate.


Intention and prior knowledge too. For example. Is it wrong to drink alcohol? Answer - in itself, no. But if you know that drinking alcohol makes you violent then in that case yes.

I don't understand how you disagree and then repeat what I said in other words.

Cleary, then, we disagree on whether I have repeated what you have said.

I agree restraint from bad is a good thing, but it's only restraint if we actively have to stop ourselves. There is no good involved in not doing something we never wanted to do anyway.

We have to be very careful when using the term 'want' in an ethical discussion, so I don't think I can comment without further clarification on your part.

For me it is.

I don't understand. I was stating a fact, not an opinion.

It takes luck out of the equation. People are judged based on their starting point, not how far up the moral ladder they have climbed as some will have started on a higher rung than others. For people to be judged fairly they must be treated
equally.

I believe this model to be flawed. Equality is based upon all people being born equal. Their starting points, backgrounds, ethnicity, parental wealth... It has no direct bearing. Yes, the initial conditions heavily influence the outcome, but one should not base one's opinion of a person based on their start in life. To twist an old adage: it's the journey that counts, not the starting point.

I should also point out that these are our respective opinions of what 'fair' means. There is no universal standard, even if the entire population are in agreement.

It was a retorical question, but thanks for your concern. You are correct and that was my point.

Of course I am correct. It'd be daft for me to be anything but.

 

[djbcrawford]

Killing to defend or preserve oneself and one's kin is not murder. Do we imprison farmers for slaughtering cattle?

How can we define the difference between being prepared to kill and prepared to murder? (P.S. Cattle ain't people)

Indeed. Which is why I said that the simple model is flawed.

It was only meant to be a simple model. It is not flawed, only simple.

Cleary, then, we disagree on whether I have repeated what you have said.

Clearly

We have to be very careful when using the term 'want' in an ethical discussion, so I don't think I can comment without further clarification on your part.

Okay. I'll give an example. I have never stolen a car. Have I ever wanted to steal a car or felt a need or desire to steal a car? Answer - No. Therefore the fact I haven't stolen a car, for me, is not a good thing but an irrelevent thing.

I don't understand. I was stating a fact, not an opinion.

In your opinion, you were stating fact...

I believe this model to be flawed. Equality is based upon all people being born equal. Their starting points, backgrounds, ethnicity, parental wealth... It has no direct bearing. Yes, the initial conditions heavily influence the outcome, but one should not base one's opinion of a person based on their start in life. To twist an old adage: it's the journey that counts, not the starting point.

Again you start by disagreeing with me and then finish by making my point. You cannot base your opinion on where someone is in life, without considering where they stated in life

I should also point out that these are our respective opinions of what 'fair' means. There is no universal standard, even if the entire population are in agreement.

Although we can have opinions, as a Christian I would have to say that God is the ultimate universal standard of what 'fair' means. I realise you don't believe this so you can save yourself the typing time replying to that effect.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Were not talking about Mel Gibson. We were talking about a civilization that believed they depended upon murder to please their sun god.

At various points in history the Judeo-Christian religion did the same. the ancient Hebrews were very big on burnt offerings. And Christian history is littered with mass sacrifices, (thought usually called something other than what they were) the inquisition, the burning times, the conversion of various indigenous peoples. Do not be so quick to judge another culture

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How can we define the difference between being prepared to kill and prepared to murder? (P.S. Cattle ain't people)

By defining murder. Murder is a subset of killing, and 'killing in self-defence' is another subset. Arguably, muder is killing for the sake of killing: the intention of murder is to murder, rather than, say, to preserve one's kin or to aquire food.

It was only meant to be a simple model. It is not flawed, only simple.

It is flawed because it is simple.

Okay. I'll give an example. I have never stolen a car. Have I ever wanted to steal a car or felt a need or desire to steal a car? Answer - No. Therefore the fact I haven't stolen a car, for me, is not a good thing but an irrelevent thing.

I agree. But if you have felt the urge to steal a car, but didn't, then that is a good thing (since stealing a car is bad). I have never felt inclined to do any number of bad things, but this does not make me a good person. I agree with you in that it is the actions of a person that determines their morality, where the suppresion of an urge counts as an act.

In your opinion, you were stating fact...

Not really. I said: "the moral view of Christians is not true simply because it is unique". This is a consequence of objective logic, not subjective opinion. The reason behind it is that two mutually exclusive ideals can both be unique, but, b y definition, they cannot both be true. Thus, the statement "If something is unique, then it is true" is false: it leads to a logical contradiction.

Again you start by disagreeing with me and then finish by making my point.

A sentiment which I disagree with, again.

You cannot base your opinion on where someone is in life, without considering where they stated in life

Which is the exact opposite of what I said: it's the journey, not the starting point. If someone was once a dyed-in-the-wool YEC Creationist, but is now fully-fleged atheistic evolutionist, would I think less of them? Of course not. I would not consider them to be an ex-Creationist, but rather an Evolutionist.
Past experiances can tell you about a person, but only to a certain degree.

Although we can have opinions, as a Christian I would have to say that God is the ultimate universal standard of what 'fair' means. I realise you don't believe this so you can save yourself the typing time replying to that effect.

Since you have resigned yourself to ignorance, I feel compelled to agree.

 

[RMDY]

:/

 

[Wiccan_Child]

:/

;o-\--<

:0-|--<

-/--<

The dancing glyph.