There it is in black and white. I cant believe people still discuss this.

why would god condone HSlity the world wasflooded because of HSlty sodom and gomora annihlated for the same reason. no sexualy sin is tolerable before god why HSlity be any different.

I vote for this because it is mostly straight scripture, and that's what defines sin for me...

More to the point, "God" IS asking you to do these types of things. I won't even bother getting into the endless quotes of "Kill that lying wench, if she was raped someone would have heard her scream" as you will reinterpret it to fit your blood curdling fearful loyalty.

"God" is apparently asking you to persecute gays. To suggest they change, or to allow them to suffer. A good man. An honest man. A loving son, brother, friend, cousin, uncle, or even father. But he's in love with a guy, and they kiss each other and all sorts of "against nature" stuff. There is not a single thing you can think of wrong with that, other than "Well..I guess God said it's wrong, and I don't care about anything else." If "God" had asked you to rape your mother, you would assume it's NOT God all the sudden? Why? Because you see something fundamentally wrong with raping your mother? What's wrong with it? Nothing aside from God saying something? If God never said rape was bad, would you be ok with it?

You don't believe any of this. You don't BELIEVE "Well, God said it, so I'm good." It just doesn't affect you. You can take a sigh of relief and take out a giant feathered fan and feed God grapes, telling Him how right that Bible is just as long as you are saved and good men who love each other burn. You don't believe. Your self-preservation is made content.

"God is NOT telling me to persecute gays. Instead He is commanding me to love them, because He loves them. BUT, and in light of that, the Bible does make it clear that Homosexuality is a sin. Does that mean that a gay man is any worse than the rest of us? NO, because we ALL commit all kinds of sins all the time. "

Song and dance. "You're a sinner that's going to hell if you don't change--but that's ok! I love you, as God loves you. But your harmless actions--you're choosing not to change, so you, the one we love--are going to hell for it." does not wash your hands. We all sin, of course. Me, you, those silly old gays--we all lie, are selfish, cheat, rude, etc. We all do it. But we can ask for forgiveness and strive to be better people. We can be remorseful for our failure. A homosexual cannot. Therefore, you and your equal love for them, couldn't care less about their burning in hell. They have nothing to apologize for, nothing they need to change, and nothing to feel remorseful about when they die simple because they like the same gender.

"There is no 'small' or 'big' sin, James says that if you sin at one point, it's the same as doing it all. BUT, there are varying consequences for sin, yours, mine, and everyone's (just look at David's life)."

So there's only "small" or "big" people? Or maybe God reaches into a big bag of people labeled "Sinners" and does to them whatever He feels like at the moment? Or perhaps you were just doing me a favor and pointing out the inconsistencies of the Bible yourself? (If so, thanks!)

"You ask what's wrong with it, why God arbitrarily made it wrong. The answer is that it messes with one of the deepest and most lasting allegories used to understand Him, marriage. Ephesians makes it clear that marriage is a 'picture' of Christ's relationship to the church. God wants people to understand that, that's why He set it up the way He did."

Wow, ok, where to start.

Couldn't care less. I see nothing wrong with marriages of different faiths, secular marriages, or gay marriages. I even doubt God MADE UP marriage. If there's nothing inherently human about wanting to spend your life with the person you love, and it's all about doing it because God invented it, why do other religions and atheists even desire marriage?

The "picture" of Christ's relationship to the CHURCH is multilayered. His relationship to the faith and teachings of our Lord is about a lot of tolerance and forgiveness. Realizing the lowly, segregated Samaritans are capable of being good and worthy while the noble members of their own faith are capable of being horrid jerks. Realizing that fornicators and/or prostitutes don't deserve to be persecuted. The Mercy of the Lord. His relationship to the CHURCH is non-existent, as there was no Christian faith and He had no intention of making one. He was faithful Jew and wanted to wanted to continue that tradition. Neither of these relationships say to me "WHOA--homoWHATsual?!?! CUT THAT OUT!"

If we're going to assume one of God's neatest patents is supposed to be followed to the letter of His invention--why are we ignoring the countless other aspects of Biblical marriage: polygamy, misogyny, dowries, bartering, status gain? Why can those aspects of marriage be improved and ignored, but other aspects--like swearing loyalty to the one you love for all your life--blasphemous horrors?

"As for raping anyone, if 'god' told me to do that, I would assume it is not God because it goes against what He has previously said in the Bible. The God I serve doesn't change His mind, it's in His nature."

I could refer you to a rather lengthy list of contradictions, but perhaps I could sum things up by saying: refer to the Old Testament, and then the New Testament.

"Let's say He did tell me to do it, well then I would have to switch religions before progressing any further."

But "He" IS telling you to do horrible things. If the Bible is infallibly God's correct Word (a bit tough considering the contradictions), He is (SUPPOSEDLY) telling you to "lovingly" abandon gay people to hell. You can remind them to cut out that whole same-genital nonsense, but it's not your fault if they keep loving each other. Because...what was it again? It doesn't resemble God's invention--Jesus' picture relationship with the Church? Because we all know Jesus' relationship with the Church is either: A. The misogynistic system of recommended polygamy, or B. The slightly more modern system of a similarly misogynistic penis and vagina monogamy. NOT about love.

"If God had never said it, then He would have made us differently. The idea of raping anyone is revolting to me because God made us in His image and even after sin messed a lot of it up, His image is still present in us."

Ick. Sex is just weird to me then too, as apparently it's me having sex with God. Wait, isn't that horridly GAY of me??? AND GOD??

"God hates rape, God built us to understand that it was evil."

Understand that HE hates it, you mean. Otherwise it's evil in itself. Because it's abusive control over an unwilling and horrified victim. Not because I can quote it somewhere.

"No, I'm not good, I'm evil, that's what the Bible tells me, it's not flattering, but it's true."

Rapists are evil. You, me, and most everyone else are real crappy. We're not EVIL. It takes quite a bit to be that bad.

"I'm evil but I'm covered."

What an inspiring reason to have faith.

"There is no such thing as a 'good man' whether he is homosexual or not. God saves those who are covered by the blood of His Son, homosexual or not, we are all on equal footing."

And apparently couldn't care less about all the good people of other faiths? Hardly seems fair. A Loving and Merciful Being would not be so cruel. I do love God, and I have faith in His inspirational Mercy. That is all I need to know He will not boil gays and Hindus simply for being gay or Hindu. If He does, I will promptly throw up and weep uncontrollably as there would be no form of existence that isn't torture anymore. All of the good gays and people of other faith that I knew--and the countless that I didn't--are burning forever for not understanding that old book right.


"Think of someone you really admire, who has earned your trust and loyalty because of what they have done for you. You are going to want to spend time with them, learn from them, and probably follow their advice."

These people are filled with lots of wisdom, and mercy, and tolerance, and good deeds, and love, and selflessness, and courage.

"Well God is like that, except He is much more."

Hey, you're right! Well...the way I see Him is. The way you see Him is awfully intolerant and angry.

"First of all He made me, along with everything else."

Well, the Universe is beautiful looking, I'll give Him that. Aside from that, He apparently made people, threw them in situations that made it unlikely they'll ever convert, made them easily fall in love with the same gender (which harms no one), then decided to burn them for not doing it right. "Everything else" seems a bit more like a pain in the butt like that.

"He saved me from "burning," at an incredibly high cost. "

Yes, Jesus was great. We can learn a lot from Him by embracing love and mercy.

"I worship, love, trust, obey Him for that, Heaven is sort of an afterthought."

So you worship God for creating you, and sacrificing Himself/Son so that you will get to Heaven IF you're a non-gay Christian?

"The Jews worshiped God for thousands of years for who He was, before He ever promised any kind of eternal blessing."

And they still do. Doesn't mean you do.

Oh wow Weydon, we really are going to get into this aren’t we...

“We all sin, of course. Me, you, those silly old gays--we all lie, are selfish, cheat, rude, etc. We all do it. But we can ask for forgiveness and strive to be better people. We can be remorseful for our failure. A homosexual cannot.”

This is where we disagree, I personally know a Christian brother who struggled with homosexuality. He did, but now he is free from that, those are not my words, but his. A distinction I would like to make though that might clear this up a bit is the difference between homosexual feelings, or desires, and homosexual acts. Just because I have a strong desire to have sex with someone who is not my spouse, does not mean that I have sinned. The line is crossed when I feed that thought, build up a fantasy around it or act on it.

“So there's only "small" or "big" people? Or maybe God reaches into a big bag of people labeled "Sinners" and does to them whatever He feels like at the moment? Or perhaps you were just doing me a favor and pointing out the inconsistencies of the Bible yourself? (If so, thanks!)”

I was trying to point out that in the area of guilt, sin is sin, it doesn’t matter what it is. On the other hand, in terms of consequences, me murdering someone is worse than stealing my sisters cupcake.

“If there's nothing inherently human about wanting to spend your life with the person you love, and it's all about doing it because God invented it, why do other religions and atheists even desire marriage?”

Of course it’s human to desire marriage. God ‘made it up’ before the creation of the world. Adam and Eve were set up that way, it’s inherently human, because God has put the desire within us.

“His relationship to the CHURCH is non-existent, as there was no Christian faith and He had no intention of making one. He was faithful Jew and wanted to wanted to continue that tradition.”

His relationship to the church while on earth was non-existent, except that He laid the groundwork and foundation of it with His teachings, and then commissioned His disciples to start it. But He has a continuing relationship to the church, that will one day be consummated when He returns. The continuing relationship is what marriage is a picture of. As for Him being a faithful Jew, who wanted to wanted to continue, everything points against this. He must have been a very poor communicator if that is true, because why would the Jewish leaders kill Him if He just wanted to continue in their traditions? He did and said things that ticked off the religious leaders of the day, He claimed to be one with God.

“If we're going to assume one of God's neatest patents is supposed to be followed to the letter of His invention--why are we ignoring the countless other aspects of Biblical marriage: polygamy, misogyny, dowries, bartering, status gain? Why can those aspects of marriage be improved and ignored, but other aspects--like swearing loyalty to the one you love for all your life--blasphemous horrors?”

Interesting point, to answer it, I have to talk a bit about the Bible. When I say that it is infallible (and I do), that it’s never wrong on any point, it is important to understand that, what that means is that it records history accurately. Not everything in the Bible is true, the Bible records Satan saying to Eve that if she ate the fruit, she would not die, that was a lie, but it was recorded correctly. Whenever we have “polygamy, misogyny, dowries, bartering, status gain” if you look through it, it is a record of what happened. But when we see God’s direct design or teaching, it is always one man, one woman, bound together until death.

“I could refer you to a rather lengthy list of contradictions, but perhaps I could sum things up by saying: refer to the Old Testament, and then the New Testament.”

I think we went over some of the ‘contradictions’ before, most of them can be easily explained by context. As for the OT and NT, I see one God working out His plan, predicting Christ’s coming and preparing for it in the OT, recording the coming in the gospels, interpreting the coming for most of the rest of the NT, and going into the second coming in Revelation. This is of course an extreme simplification, but the point is God had one plan all along, Old and New Testament.

“But "He" IS telling you to do horrible things. If the Bible is infallibly God's correct Word (a bit tough considering the contradictions), He is (SUPPOSEDLY) telling you to "lovingly" abandon gay people to hell. You can remind them to cut out that whole same-genital nonsense, but it's not your fault if they keep loving each other.”

Abandon gay people to Hell? No, that’s nowhere in the Bible. Struggle and do my best to clearly present the easy way for anyone, gay or not, to go to Heaven. If some don’t want to accept it, what am I supposed to do? Pray and keep trying, that’s all I can do.

“Because...what was it again? It doesn't resemble God's invention--Jesus' picture relationship with the Church? Because we all know Jesus' relationship with the Church is either: A. The misogynistic system of recommended polygamy, or B. The slightly more modern system of a similarly misogynistic penis and vagina monogamy. NOT about love.”

A lot of big words, totally missing the point. I have been careful to use “quotes” wherever possible to avoid this. It’s not about sex, the Bible says that in Heaven we will be like the angles, neither male nor female. It’s about love, respect, submission, intimacy and all the rest of the things that a x10 more important than sex in marriage. That’s the picture.

“Understand that HE hates it, you mean. Otherwise it's evil in itself. Because it's abusive control over an unwilling and horrified victim. Not because I can quote it somewhere.”

Ok… what makes you think that ‘abusive control over an unwilling and horrified victim’ is wrong? Because God made you to KNOW that it is wrong.

“Rapists are evil. You, me, and most everyone else are real crappy. We're not EVIL. It takes quite a bit to be that bad.”

W/e, sinners is the biblical word, I think, we are just arguing over terms here, real crappy or evil, whichever is fine with me.

“And apparently couldn't care less about all the good people of other faiths? Hardly seems fair. A Loving and Merciful Being would not be so cruel. I do love God, and I have faith in His inspirational Mercy. That is all I need to know He will not boil gays and Hindus simply for being gay or Hindu. If He does, I will promptly throw up and weep uncontrollably as there would be no form of existence that isn't torture anymore. All of the good gays and people of other faith that I knew--and the countless that I didn't--are burning forever for not understanding that old book right.”

According to Romans, the loving and merciful being has made Himself plain to everyone. What exactly does that mean? IDK, but I believe that every person has a chance to believe, and it’s not about understanding the book right, it’s about a conscious choice, will I submit to God or not? I don’t pretend to know how God works this out, but I refuse to put Him in a box and say that He can’t do it.

Oh, and again, you come back with this idea of ‘good people’ I’ve yet to meet any of these, and frankly (and biblically) I don’t think they exist.

“Hey, you're right (God is good)! Well...the way I see Him is. The way you see Him is awfully intolerant and angry.”

Intolerant, maybe, but I think intolerance is a good thing. Not angry, more Just, Righteous, and therefore Wrathful.

“Yes, Jesus was great. We can learn a lot from Him by embracing love and mercy.”

Totally agree.

“So you worship God for creating you, and sacrificing Himself/Son so that you will get to Heaven IF you're a non-gay Christian?”

Close, but I’d say I worship God for creating me, and sacrificing Himself/Son so that you will get to Heaven IF you believe in Him, regardless of whether or not you are gay.

"The Jews worshiped God for thousands of years for who He was, before He ever promised any kind of eternal blessing."

And they still do. Doesn't mean you do.

Well I do.

“Yes, we really are going to get into the worthiness of harmless people as being equals of all others.”

I agree.

“The problem is the lack of definitions for different types of homosexuals. In that context, I meant “homosexual” as in someone who accepts their harmless desires and has the courage to face adversity in order to be themselves. Obviously homosexuals in general can deny their urges for many years or indefinitely. They just shouldn’t have to. Your Christian brother is the type of homosexual that my heart goes out to. I feel terrible for him. He tortured himself for years with guilt and fear—and is still probably fearful and tortured anyway.

I guess I should have said “affirming homosexual” or something. This is who they are, and there is nothing wrong with that. They’ve accepted their desires, and live peacefully with the one they love—or looking for the one they love. Exactly like an average straight person, only their genitals may match their ideal partner. They cannot be remorseful and ask for forgiveness for living their harmless life or loving their partner, because they are not ashamed of these simple actions.”

You are assuming that homosexuality is a genetic, built in, part of a human. Just like hair color, or size of feet. I disagree, I think there can be a tendency toward homosexuality, just like you or I may have a tendency toward excessive gambling. But we have a choice whether we go with that or not.

When you paint the picture that way, it seems like there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The point is, however, that homosexuality is a rejection of God’s plan. “So what about a homosexual who doesn’t want to follow God’s plan, or doesn’t believe in God?” With that person, I have no argument as far as homosexuality goes. Because, like you point out, on the merely human level, there IS nothing wrong with homosexuality. My call is to love that person, in hopes that they will accept Christ, at that point, I can stand back and let scripture and the Holy Spirit convict them, as He is daily convicting me of my sins.

“So there is small sin and big sin. Where does homosexuality rate on the scale?”

There is no table or nifty graph in the Bible. The closest we have is Romans 1, where Paul is describing the downward decent of a culture that does not recognize God. It seems like if there were a scale, it would be on the “less bad” side. But that is my own opinion, God doesn’t lay it out anywhere for us.

“I don’t intend to marry one of my ribs. Who were Cain an Abel supposed to marry? If God designed marriage for one man and one woman, just like the completely literal Adam and Eve, how come He also was completely okay with dudes having multiple wives?”

Alright, if there were no women in the world, I God made a hot one from one of your ribs, then directly told you to marry her, you probably wouldn’t argue. Cain and Abel, we don’t know, maybe God made some wives from dust, like Adam, or maybe they married their sisters. Which wasn’t against any law until Leviticus rolled around 1000’s of years later. I don’t think God was okay with dudes having multiple wives, He just used imperfect people, some of whom had multiple wives.


“Mmm, I guess I agree with the first part, but I don’t believe He intended His disciples to start the Christian religion. I believe He wanted the rest of the Jews to realize the Messiah has come and there are different paths to follow, and different interpretations of the afterlife (merciful ones, for instance). The unified Christian faith didn’t happen until after years and years of segregations and underground practices, until the point they were separate. They were loose organizations that followed dozens and dozens of apocryphal books. The current version of Bible wasn’t collected by more cohesive groups of sprinkled faith until about year 400 in Africa.”

I totally disagree with this, I think Jesus did want to start the church, as evidence by what He said and did. Also, in the first few generations, most of the NT was already agreed on, Peter even called Paul’s writings ‘scripture.’ That was less than 40 years after Jesus’ death.

““The continuing relationship is what marriage is a picture of.””
“That also means the same for gay marriages.”

No, the difference is that Jesus is different from the church in a foundational way. He is the leader, the head, the initiator, the church responds, and is submissive. Gay marriage can’t be a picture of that in anywhere near the same way.

“Yeah. I remember. Not many believed He was the Messiah. It’s why the Jews are still waiting. It’s why He never said “Come, my brothers and sisters—to my BRAND NEW RELIGION! ABOUT ME!!!” He just reminded people how to be good Jews, and good people in general. This went against certain Jewish traditions, especially the harsher ones of the day. Today Jews have no problem with His teachings of mercy, turning the other cheek, The Good Samaritan and all that. They just don’t believe He was the Messiah, that we go to Heaven or hell, that He performed miracles, etc

It would be the same thing if Jesus came AGAIN today. Tried to guide people to a more accurate way of following the Lord once more. You and countless others wouldn’t believe Him, and would think He was disgracing your faith. It doesn’t mean He’s a bad communicator, and it doesn’t mean He was trying to make a new religion because hundreds of years later one was created around Him.”

Don’t you see what a dangerous line you are walking, accepting and even praising some of what he allegedly said, the stuff you like, and rejecting what you don’t like. If the 4 gospels are authentic, and we should believe what they record of Jesus’ teachings, why shouldn’t we believe that He claimed to be God? That He walked on water, raised the dead, and even raised Himself from the dead? Jesus, (unless you cut out much of what He said, and disregard it) did not leave any room to be considered a good teacher. He made a claim that no sane MAN makes, He said “I and the Father are one,” and “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.” If you or I said that, we would be checked into a mental institution, and rightly so, because neither you nor I can back those claims up. Jesus did.

“That’s why the majority of his prophets were polygamists. Why Dt 21:15-16 (among many others) has rules set on how to treat your MULTIPLE WIVES, rather than just say “Uh…stop having multiple wives.”. Why Samuel 12:7-8 mentions God’s GIFT of multiple wives, and how he was ungrateful for such a GREAT THING: “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,”.”

*runs to look up verses*

Dt 21:15-16 is acknowledging a cultural fact, just like in the NT when Paul talks about slavery, he doesn’t outright condemn it, because if he did, Christianity would become a political party, and the gospel would be neglected. There were more important things to deal with at this time.

2 Samuel 12:7-8 is a great example of how context can often easily clear things up. The prophet Nathan is rebuking David for his affair with Bathsheba. He isn’t saying, I gave you tons of wives, enjoy them. His point is, you had all you needed, and yet you weren’t satisfied, now I’m going to kick your butt.

“You can explain away contradictions with glorious stretches of imagination (or, to put it more flattering, a VERY broad sense of “context” . That’s no problem. The Bible is open for reasonable explanations when it’s in danger of proving itself false. But not in ANY other sense, such as whether or not it’s wrong for a man to fall in love and spend his life with another man.”

Every man’s entitled to his own opinion…

“Skeptical people may be inclined to say you’re defending the contextual moral rules in order to say “Look! See! I followed what you said to do, let me in!”, and defending the inconsistencies as contextually wrong to make this Get Into Heaven Free Card all the more of a solid bet for yourself. SKEPTICS! Bunch of wackos…”

Sorry, you just lost me. I think you’re saying that I’m interpreting the Bible in a way that suits me, and that gets me into Heaven. Well, sure, but I think on most issues, I’m taking the most simple and direct interpretation. Just because it suits me doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and honestly, there are some things in the Bible that don’t suit me, like Hell, I wish Jesus didn’t talk about Hell so much, but He did, so I accept it.

“Sugarcoat it all you like. There is nothing wrong with what they do aside from a bullying book claiming so. I will not abandon them to live in “happiness”, constantly thinking of these innocent same gendered lovers burning for no other reason than being gay.”

I’ve said this a couple of times now, but I’ll say it again. Gay people are just as likely to ‘burn’ as straight people. They are in the same mess as us, we all have a sin problem. They are no different from anyone else in regards to salvation.

““A lot of big words, totally missing the point.””
“I’ll try to morph my vocabulary into saying “women hating” instead of “misogynistic” and “lots o’ wives” instead of “polygamy: “Because...what was it again? It doesn't resemble God's invention--Jesus' picture relationship with the Church? Because we all know Jesus' relationship with the Church is either: A. The WOMEN HATING system of recommended LOTS O’ WIVES, or B. The slightly more modern system of a similarly WOMEN HATING penis and vagina LOTS O’ WIVES. NOT about love.”

Hmm…that looks like 2 “big words”, used twice in the same context. Unless you also wish me to tone down “penis” and vagina” into “wee-wee” and “hoo-hoo”. While I suppose those words were a bit longer than others, they are widely known and I did not mean to overwhelm you with my SAT know-how. Unless of course you were trying to downplay an OVERWHELMINGLY intelligent response (if I DO say so myself!) by degrading it as nothing other than jargon, even though it was very simply put.”

I’m sorry, my comment was insulting and unnecessary.

“Actually I remember it being described like 10 virgins for a groom (Matthew 25:1). Granted, it was likely a big old metaphor about not putting off tomorrow the good deeds you should be doing today (although it STILL uses fear tactics to do so). Point is, you may find any quote you like about Heaven—genitalless or orgyful (polygamy AGAIN actually! Hahaha!). What does any of this have to do with what I said again?”

Virgins=bridesmaids in this context. What it had to do with, was that seeing marriage as a picture of Christ+Church, doesn’t encourage multiple wives or anything like that.

“Also, I think SUBMISSION is a bit of a rough way to describe marriage. Compromise, fine.

Submission is a beautiful word that has been dragged through the mud. Jesus submitted to His Father. We are to submit to Him, children are to submit to parents, and wives to husbands. In none of those cases is authority to be used to beat down the submissive. Parents (usually) use their authority to help train their child, they do what’s best for their kid. Husbands are supposed to lay down their lives for their wives, that is, they are to consider her more important than themselves.

“ALSO again, if Heaven means we’re just gonna be like the Angels, why didn’t He just make more Angels?”

Physically like angels, in that we will have no gender. The difference is that we have a free choice to love God or not, the angels don’t, and never have had that kind of choice. They did once, and a third fell, but if God just made more angels, they would be the equivalent of robots. God wants people that love Him, and have a choice and still chose to love Him.

“That’s illogical. That means God also made me KNOW it’s wrong to condemn gays to hell simpy for being gay—even though he made you KNOW that you love them, just not enough to defend what they do as harmless love.”

Here I can only point back to the Fall. Our consciences are no longer perfect, but even though they aren’t, we are still remarkably close. I could list off a bunch of wrongs, that almost everyone knows are wrong, it’s only in a few borderline cases where there is really any dispute. There may be boards about “Is homosexuality wrong?” or “What about abortion?” But you never see a board that says “Is murder wrong?” or “Is rape wrong?” or any of the other 100 things we all know are wrong.

“Obviously…Because we all know indigenous people that have never been seen before have random upshots of Christians and Jews even though they’ve never been introduced to anyone of that faith before.”

Not quite, but isn’t it interesting that (as far as I know) all indigenous people have believed in a god, or gods.

“The only thing that made sense there was the fact that you didn’t know how it makes any sense. Your faith in spite of that is the whole self-preservation thing again. “Faith is believing in the absence of knowing!!!!!”? Not exactly, no. I have no proof of God, but I have faith. But just like you wouldn’t believe it was God asking you to rape someone, I wouldn’t believe it was God asking me to illogically understand other religions and gays going to hell. It’s not FAITH allowing someone to believe in harsh rules they don’t understand as long as it keeps them safe. It’s self-preservation.”

It’s true, if I could fully understand God and how He works, He wouldn’t be God. Yeah, faith is faith, if there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, there would be no room for faith, there would only be knowing. God gives us enough to go on, it’s up to us to chose to believe, and then on the other side, He confirms our belief.

“I had ignored the “arguing terms” point because I acknowledged that we were being silly and barking up a name-tree for differences between “evil” and crappy” (though I felt there was a pretty significant difference). Now I see we are not at all. A rapist is not a good person. Someone who constantly takes advantage of others is not a good person. A person who strives to do the right thing, occasionally goes wary, and regrets the worst of their actions, is a good person. Is there no one you love that you feel ashamed saying they’re not good people?”

Good people as compared to… whom? I know some people that are amazingly good compared to other people. But God doesn’t grade on a curve, He compares to Christ, who was perfect. When compared to Christ, we are all ‘pretty crappy.’

“Intolerance to things including: intolerance (the rather obvious context I meant, meaning prejudicely refusing to accept, and even actively persecuting, harmless people based on inconsequential differences such as race, gender, or orientation), rapists, pedophiles, etc. This seems fine. Though, like you, I do not claim to entirely understand God and His mercy. Perhaps He has a less wrathful means of dealing with these people that I cannot yet understand. But, either way, on the whole I am not against a “POLICY of intolerance towards those horrible things”.”

Yup, I agree.

“Well, at least the good gay CHRISTIANS will be saved…though I’m sure there’s a magical, “loving” loophole where even they burn for not being ashamed and remorseful and trying to not be gay.”

No, no loophole, Jesus’ blood covers everything.

Sorry about the delay, I'm working 2 (soon to be 3) jobs to try to make some $$ over the summer.

“No I am not. I see nothing wrong with gambling in moderation either—genetically inclined or free choice. An “affirming homosexual”, genetic or otherwise, is simply someone that prefers the other sex—if even just sporadically—and is not ashamed of it. They cannot be remorseful for their choice anymore than I can be remorseful for enjoying novels and pancakes. Do I have a genetic inclination towards liking these things? Did something in my youth make me like them? Did they just grow on me after giving it a few tries? What do I care? There’s nothing wrong with it and I’m not going to apologize for it just because someone tells me their religion’s book says something bad about it.”

Ok, I think now we are starting to get on the same page. As I said, I believe homosexuality is a sin, because ‘my religion’s book’ tells me it is. But I don’t have any way to argue it without ‘my book.’ I admit that without the Bible, there really isn’t a strong case against homosexuality. So that’s why I never want to talk with a non-Christian homosexual about homosexuality. I’d rather talk about Jesus, if they accept Jesus, and His Word, then we get into the issue.

“NO. Not “What about atheist and blasphemeous homos.” That’s not my point and never will be. Homosexuals of every faith have NOTHING to do with rejecting or accepting God’s plan. God’s plan is NOT “Marry girls so you can make babies.” The world is overpopulated, and orphanages are overcrowded. People not having kids, and people who can’t have kids but want them and would be forced to adopt, do much to help the world. While I’m not sure intentionally GOD’S PLAN, it is a small help to the balancing things out for everyone.”

If you want the Bible, take it, if you don’t like it, chuck it out, it’s a free country. But if you’re a Christian, you can’t pick and choose what you like, it doesn’t work that way, God comes as a package deal. Btw, overpopulation isn’t our problem anymore, today and in the future our problem is not ENOUGH kids. But that’s a different discussion.

“Which simply goes back to my point that you don’t care about right and wrong. Just because someone MADE me doesn’t mean I have to do what they say and it would be wrong not to (as you already admitted, there is NOTHING WRONG with homosexuality yet you denounce it because a book told you). This is like piling super fertilizer on my point. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but the book tells you there is. So even though there’s nothing wrong with it, you’ll do it because the book told you. Therefore, if the book/God told you to rape your mother—you’d rape your mother. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, it only matters what the scripture asks.”

I care about right and wrong, but for me right and wrong are wrapped up in who God is and what He says. Homosexuality IS wrong, it’s just happens to be impossible for me to prove with human arguments. Sidenote, if I were somehow convinced that there is no God, I really wouldn’t care about right and wrong, I mean, it would have all come from cultural ideas anyway, might as well enjoy the 70 years here to the fullest.

“Calling yourself a sinner does not save you from the fact you are willing to shrug off the condemnation of billions upon billions of good people who have not rejected their homosexuality and embraced Christ.”

First of all, Billions? Come on Weydon, 1/6 of the worlds population is not homosexual. None the less, your point stands, Billions of people will go to Hell, a real place, to suffer for eternity. How does that jive with my statement that I believe in a loving God? Like this, God loves us enough to respect our choices. He’s a gentleman, He won’t force His presence on anyone. If someone chooses to live their life apart from Him, He will respect that choice and leave them. Hell is just that, a place without God, or any of the characteristics of God. Like love, joy, peace, etcetera. God won’t drag anyone into Heaven.

“Perhaps stealing cupcakes is the worst sin then.”



“I can think of dozens of hot girls I wouldn’t want to marry. If I was a completely naïve being, I may be inclined to do so—but still have to question why in the world God made me with a functioning penis, just like all the other animals, but forgot to make the female version of me. I’d then start to realize I was a metaphor and be very depressed. The point is however, just because Adam and Eve were first, doesn’t mean everything has to be exactly like them and everything else is wrong. They were also the first sinners. Shouldn’t we strive to be LESS like them? I don’t want some crafty female to trick me into eating intelligence inducing fruits. I should instead turn gay, really.”

It’s another discussion, but the reason, I think, that God made Adam without Eve, is just to emphasize how important she was. For the first time you hear “and God saw that it was NOT good.” Up to that point in Genesis, everything had been good. Also, God set them up the way He did before they sinned and Jesus pointed back to them when talking about divorce as an example of how it was supposed to be.

“Maybe He did this, or maybe He did that! Pretty easy to “accurately” portray history when eons of it are left up to “Well, whatever happened, is what happened here.””

The Bible isn’t a complete history of mankind, it includes the important bits, and leaves out the fringe stuff because there is just WAY to much that it could say.

“Again, you point out your (supposed) lack of concern of morality unless scripture says anything. If Leviticus Jr came rolling around, divinely proven to be the missing text from the Bible, DEMANDING we marry our sisters brutally murder anyone who disagrees, you’d be okay with this. Only you wouldn’t. You’d “not believe THAT was God” Because that would effect you.”

Ok, yeah, you have already stated my argument, Leviticus Jr doesn’t line up with the rest of scripture. So yeah, I wouldn’t believe it was God.

“Why didn’t He choose people whom had less wives? If protecting marriage is God’s main deal and our purpose, wouldn’t He want to focus that? Wouldn’t He tell His prophets (the people who can hear Him) “Stop having multiple wives! Write that down!””

Idk why God doesn’t write it down in black and white like you are suggesting. Like I said, maybe He thought other things were more important.

“You use the word evidence yet cite nothing. The NT being agreed upon less than one lifetime after Jesus’ resurrection was just EVIDENCED by me as never happening. Perhaps He did call Paul’s writing scripture. So? That means the NT was decided upon? That means it was new writings that should be incorporated into scripture, not “The Torah is now the Old Testament, and these here books are the New one.””

Now we’re really off the main subject. If your curious why I’m so confident, check out the book (I’m blanking on the author) “The Case for Christ.” It has the kind of evidence I think your looking for.

“No, the difference is that Jesus is different from the church in a foundational way. He is the leader, the head, the initiator, the church responds, and is submissive. Gay marriage can’t be a picture of that in anywhere near the same way.”
HOW?

Jesus and the Church are different, HOMO means the same, homosexual couples are 2 of the same joined together.

“What am I saying He allegedly said?”

You like the stuff He said about love, and mercy.

“You said you would do just that if God asked you to rape someone. Reject it as not God. You also currently “Well, that’s actually interpreted a little TOO literally…” or “Yes, but the reason THEY could do it was because it was a different time and we’re imperfect people anyway” to make yourself more comfortable with the parts you REJECT. You just reposition them so they’re contextually walking a tightrope in your mind, so you don’t have to USE the word reject.”

That’s one way to see it, I think I am walking a fine line, but it’s a different line from the one you are walking. I am trying to take all of scripture, interpret it in context, take obscure verses and use the rest of the Bible to help figure out what they mean, and make it into one coherent life/belief. Your doing something similar, except that you don’t see a necessity to accept the whole Bible, so you are free to take some, and also use your own ideas where you think they are better. That’s good for you, and I hope that it all makes sense to you. But the fact is that honestly, you are just taking a guess at what you hope God to be. If He’s real, don’t you think He might have thought it prudent to make it easy on us and leave us a book that just tells us what He’s like, instead of making us guess?

“When did I say reject that? If you haven’t noticed I am a believer of Jesus Christ. I’m saying the majority of Jews didn’t believe He was. He was a Jew. A devout Jew. He wanted to continue and flesh out the Jewish tradition to be more open-minded and merciful. But still be Jewish, like Him. This proved incompatible as too few people believed, and the Jewish followers of Christ were largely kept underground while still “converting”. The separation was far too great, and over the years with the adoption of dozens of pagan holidays and traditions during massive conversions, the religion couldn’t be anything but an entirely different than Judaism and not merely a denomination or sect of it.”

You say you are a believer of Jesus Christ, but my question for you is what exactly does Jesus do for you? And what do you do for Him? He claimed to be God, do you believe that? And He claimed to be the only way to Heaven, do you believe that? If so, what are we arguing about?

“He wasn’t a good teacher?”

Touché, correction: Jesus did not leave any room to be considered SIMPLY a good teacher. Thanks for pointing that out

“I’m vaguely recalling an instance where He was crucified to death for His claims.”

Exactly, that’s how out there they were. Then He rose, that’s how strongly He backed the claims up!

“You accept what you are comfortable with. Jesus TALKED about Hell, but you don’t think you will go there if you listen to everything else. As there is nothing in there that automatically condemns you if you for debating on philosophy sites or watching TV. The parts that do go against your moral fiber, like slavery and polygamy, can merely be dismissed as “contextual” as they do not directly threaten you UNLESS they are TRUE. You “contextualize” (most simple and direct interpretation) the entire thing. The good is infallibly-interpreted Canon, the bad is infallibly-out-of-context Canon. How is it any different?”

I believe that my dad’s on his way to Hell. Do you think I’m comfortable with that? Do you think it doesn’t touch me? Trust me, I’m not in this religion because it makes me feel good.

“Then I will gladly finish this silly dance of “Gays are fine, but they’re not—I LOVE YOU GOD!!!! We're cool right?? Whichever it is you're saying man!””

‘None of us