Homosexuality and bisexuality a sin?

[Phoenix]

The Bible says that Jesus died for our sins.

Then he got revived. What exactly did God lose ultimately? To have a sacrifice, something must've been lost. If I sacrifice 20 bucks, and then get them back, I haven't sacrificed anything.

Two of the verses even state His love themselves. Now, if God hated sinners (which all humans are: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]) then why would He sacrifice His son for us? If He truly hated the sinner as well as the sin, then why would He offer us the chance of salvation?

If He truly loved the sinner, why would he set up impossible goals (do not sin)? Why would His punishment be unending torture, for even the smallest transgressions? Why would He judge humans not on how they treat their fellow man, but how much the worship Him? Why would he make things that hurt no one (homosexuality) sinful, and then allow the human brain to have homosexual leanings?

If we were talking about a human, we'd all have agreed he's a bastard long ago. But he's God, and as God, he can do whatever the hell he wants. That doesn't sound like love to me.

[Blackest Night]

If you wouldn't mind terribly, kazuki, would you be so kind as to show me precisely where in the Bible it is taught that homosexuality is a hellworthy sin? I would very much like to know what is condemning me to hell.

If you are to use Leviticus 18:22, I should remind you that it only appears to condemn male homosexuality. For women, it seems, homosexuality is just fine.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

By the Bible, I must assume that women are given special treatment within the eyes of God and are free to prance around doing whatever lesbin acts they so desire.

If you are to refer to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I may remind you that homosexual acts are not condemned. Sexual deviancy is, which may or may not include acts of homosexuality.

But what of Romans 1: 18-32?

"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "

Again, it seems that, interpreted as it is presented above, only male homosexuality is condemned. Females, scissor as you please.

I am thus lead to believe that homosexuality is okay 50% of the time. I am also inclined to beleive that all are not equal in the eyes of God and woman, despite her societal place below man at the time every document of the bible was written, is allotted far more religious rights than man.

Many other passages I have found condemned effeminacy. Please beleive me on this (for as a gay man I would know), that effeminacy is hardly synonymous with homosexuality. A great many gay men I know are better at being men than many of my homosexual friends.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Then he got revived. What exactly did God lose ultimately? To have a sacrifice, something must've been lost. If I sacrifice 20 bucks, and then get them back, I haven't sacrificed anything.

Jesus was sacrificed for humanity, and then conquered death, proving Himself to be God (for who else could defy death). He did die a physical death, and He did stay in Hell for three days. To clarify, it isn't that He wasn't sacrificed, it is that (being God) He was able to overcome death.

He also suffered while He was on Earth. He endured everything that Humans had to go through, including temptation, while He was here. He was also spat on, ridiculed, nailed to a cross, and had a spear through his side.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If He truly loved the sinner, why would he set up impossible goals (do not sin)?

You realize that the law is set up to point out the fact that we (by ourselves) cannot up hold it (Galatians 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith.). It is designed to show us that we are at fault, and that we can't do it by ourselves and need his help

Why would His punishment be unending torture, for even the smallest transgressions?

Well, sin is sin. It doesn't matter what human degree has been placed on it, it's still sin (an abomination). Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Can't get much clearer than that. He's already warned us what the punishment is, whether you like it or not.

Why would He judge humans not on how they treat their fellow man, but how much the worship Him?

Sinners are judged for their sins. A person who commits wrong is judged for that wrong. Salvation is won by sincere faith (which would lead to worship, obviously). Also, God does care about our actions on earth. When a Christian goes to heaven, his actions are tested to see what he had done with time that he had on Earth. The results of which, determine your rewards in heaven.

Why would he make things that hurt no one (homosexuality) sinful, and then allow the human brain to have homosexual leanings?

He didn't make them sinful (at least not directly), they are sinful to begin with. God created Lucifer, Lucifer rebelled (we now know him as Satan) and he brought sin into the world. One could conclude that sin itself is nothing more than something that goes against God's design. Whether or not it "hurts" another human is irrelevant. Also, with regard to "homosexual leanings", that would be similar to a person with a weakness towards murder, or lying, or thievery, etc. It's a weakness that is also meant to show that you can't overcome sin by your own volition.

Answers in bold in the quote to save time.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If we were talking about a human, we'd all have agreed he's a bastard long ago. But he's God, and as God, he can do whatever the hell he wants. That doesn't sound like love to me.

Well, human and God are two very different things, after all. God can do whatever He wants. If He wanted, He could have disintegrated us all, or rotted everyones bodies from the inside out. He could have done a lot of things, but it's all God's choice (seriously, if He created us all, then is it really too much to ask to let Him decide for Himself what He should do). We talk about not judging others, yet when it comes to God, people sure seem to jump down His throat (not particularly relevant, but I find it ironic).

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

If you wouldn't mind terribly, kazuki, would you be so kind as to show me precisely where in the Bible it is taught that homosexuality is a hellworthy sin? I would very much like to know what is condemning me to hell.

If you are to use Leviticus 18:22, I should remind you that it only appears to condemn male homosexuality. For women, it seems, homosexuality is just fine.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

By the Bible, I must assume that women are given special treatment within the eyes of God and are free to prance around doing whatever lesbin acts they so desire.

Not really, that would be quite strange for God to allow women to be homosexual, but not men. I'll get to why in the next quotes.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

If you are to refer to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I may remind you that homosexual acts are not condemned. Sexual deviancy is, which may or may not include acts of homosexuality.

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, andgoing after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The Greek here means "different, other" (Heteros), and refers to something unnatural, implying homosexuality (given the context).

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

But what of Romans 1: 18-32?

"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "

Again, it seems that, interpreted as it is presented above, only male homosexuality is condemned. Females, scissor as you please.

There, I bolded the part in the verse.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

Many other passages I have found condemned effeminacy. Please beleive me on this (for as a gay man I would know), that effeminacy is hardly synonymous with homosexuality. A great many gay men I know are better at being men than many of my homosexual friends.

Being "effeminate" isn't condemned (at least, not by what I think of as effeminate; which is more "feminine" behavior. Although I'm not quite sure exactly what people mean when they say that, because I was under the impression that stereotyping is frowned on by society, and yet we use words like "feminine" and "masculine" behavior); homosexuality is. Homosexuality is pursuing a sexual relationship with another of the same sex.

[Phoenix]

Jesus was sacrificed for humanity, and then conquered death, proving Himself to be God (for who else could defy death). He did die a physical death, and He did stay in Hell for three days. To clarify, it isn't that He wasn't sacrificed, it is that (being God) He was able to overcome death.

So where is the sacrifice? What is God missing now that he had before?

He also suffered while He was on Earth. He endured everything that Humans had to go through, including temptation, while He was here. He was also spat on, ridiculed, nailed to a cross, and had a spear through his side.

Plenty of humans have endured worse. What's your point?

You realize that the law is set up to point out the fact that we (by ourselves) cannot up hold it (Galatians 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith.). It is designed to show us that we are at fault, and that we can't do it by ourselves and need his help

So, by your logic, it is entirely acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to give calculus tests to his students.

Also, if they fail, he gets to torture them. Unless they beg for his help, of course.

Well, sin is sin. It doesn't matter what human degree has been placed on it, it's still sin (an abomination). Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Can't get much clearer than that. He's already warned us what the punishment is, whether you like it or not.

Who defined it was an abomination? Who decreed what the punishment for it should be? Could God have said "the wages of sin is pardon", or "the wages of sin is another chance"? Yes, he could've. Did he? No, he decreed that torture was the acceptable punishment.

Not a loving father, that one.

Sinners are judged for their sins. A person who commits wrong is judged for that wrong. Salvation is won by sincere faith (which would lead to worship, obviously). Also, God does care about our actions on earth. When a Christian goes to heaven, his actions are tested to see what he had done with time that he had on Earth. The results of which, determine your rewards in heaven.

Notice I didn't ask how the judgment system works, I asked why did God decreed eternal torture should work that way.

He didn't make them sinful (at least not directly), they are sinful to begin with. God created Lucifer, Lucifer rebelled (we now know him as Satan) and he brought sin into the world. One could conclude that sin itself is nothing more than something that goes against God's design.

lolwut? He didn't make them sinful, but they were sinful to begin with? Think about that for a second: if they were sinful to begin with, then they had to be made sinful. It's a tautology.

Whether or not it "hurts" another human is irrelevant.

So "sin" is not defined as something that hurts the living, it is defined as something that mysteriously offends the creator.

Although how sexual intercourse between two individual corporeal creatures of the same gender would offend a paranormal energy being that has no beginning or end baffles even my mind.

Also, with regard to "homosexual leanings", that would be similar to a person with a weakness towards murder, or lying, or thievery, etc. It's a weakness that is also meant to show that you can't overcome sin by your own volition.

Isn't it lovely how attraction between two humans is compared to the premeditated act of taking someone's life?

Well, human and God are two very different things, after all. God can do whatever He wants. If He wanted, He could have disintegrated us all, or rotted everyones bodies from the inside out. He could have done a lot of things, but it's all God's choice (seriously, if He created us all, then is it really too much to ask to let Him decide for Himself what He should do).

So, let's say I create a self-aware robot. According to you, I have every right to torment, torture, brutalize and abuse that robot. I can build pain receptors on it, then melt it for fun. Why? Because, in your world, a creation has no rights and is the plaything of the creator.

"Devote your lives to me and I will not torture you". Oh yeah, that's mercy for you.

We talk about not judging others, yet when it comes to God, people sure seem to jump down His throat (not particularly relevant, but I find it ironic).

Who's "we"? "We" would be hypocrites because humans judge everything. It's in our nature. We judge Hitler to be an asshole, we judge Bush to be an idiot, we judge Gandhi to be kind, we judge Einstein to be a genius. Hell, we judge people that don't exist (video games, anime, movies). Everything is subject to human judgment, and that includes the idea of God.

[Blackest Night]

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, andgoing after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The Greek here means "different, other" (Heteros), and refers to something unnatural, implying homosexuality (given the context).

It does not imply homosexuality. "Going after strange flesh" and "different, other" could imply bestiality, adultery, frotteurism, pedophilia, and a great many other sexual deviancies, many of which are often found to be far more disturbing than homosexuality. Considering the ambiguitiy of the implication, how can one say that homosexuality is the act being condemned?

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

There. I bolded the part in the verse.

No. I believe the same question from the quote above this one applies here.

Being "effeminate" isn't condemned (at least, not by what I think of as effeminate; which is more "feminine" behavior. Although I'm not quite sure exactly what people mean when they say that, because I was under the impression that stereotyping is frowned on by society, and yet we use words like "feminine" and "masculine" behavior); homosexuality is. Homosexuality is pursuing a sexual relationship with another of the same sex.

To this I present:

Originally Posted by Corinthians 6:9-10

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[JUSTICE]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, andgoing after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The Greek here means "different, other" (Heteros), and refers to something unnatural, implying homosexuality (given the context).

BN beat me to it, but the first thing I thought of was something like bestiality, not homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Although how sexual intercourse between two individual corporeal creatures of the same gender would offend a paranormal energy being that has no beginning or end baffles even my mind.

Yes, when taken into consideration, God seems the most human of all.

[jrock907]

good evidence all of you but your missing something...

not everyone is christian. u can't just prove your point by throwing BIBLE verses at eachother...

i know the word "sin" is mainly used in christianity but it is used in different religions, jut as a different work. think about that before u throw a verse at me...

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So where is the sacrifice? What is God missing now that he had before?

Just because He came back from the dead doesn't mean He didn't die in the first place. He did, in fact, die. He did lose something. Whether or not He regained it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Plenty of humans have endured worse. What's your point?

My point is that God, who had absolutely no need to come down here and go through everything that we have to endure, came down here specifically for that purpose. Doesn't sound like a God who hates us, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So, by your logic, it is entirely acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to give calculus tests to his students.

Also, if they fail, he gets to torture them. Unless they beg for his help, of course.

Well, seeing as how calculus is something that can eventually be learned, and what I said cannot be learned. Then no, it doesn't follow my logic.

Anyway, why is death torture?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Who defined it was an abomination? Who decreed what the punishment for it should be? Could God have said "the wages of sin is pardon", or "the wages of sin is another chance"? Yes, he could've. Did he? No, he decreed that torture was the acceptable punishment.

Not a loving father, that one.

He could have, but why would He do that? He could have said that murder, rape, and everything else was perfectly acceptable, but He didn't. I'm pretty sure that if anyone had the right to call something abominable, it would be God. Again, I ask, how is death considered torture?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

lolwut? He didn't make them sinful, but they were sinful to begin with? Think about that for a second: if they were sinful to begin with, then they had to be made sinful. It's a tautology.

I'll admit, that He had to define them as sinful for us to understand it. However, that doesn't mean they weren't sinful to begin with.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So "sin" is not defined as something that hurts the living, it is defined as something that mysteriously offends the creator.

Offends? When exactly did I use that word. Granted, we offend God when we sin, however, I said that sin goes against His design. How exactly does that imply being offended? If an inventor designed a machine, and there was a loose cog or something foreign became lodged inside it, does that mean that said object offended the inventor?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Although how sexual intercourse between two individual corporeal creatures of the same gender would offend a paranormal energy being that has no beginning or end baffles even my mind.

Well, it doesn't really matter if you understand something or not for it to be true.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Isn't it lovely how attraction between two humans is compared to the premeditated act of taking someone's life?

Well, attraction has nothing to do with it, but I'm not going to quibble about your wording, so I'll just use what you are referring to. Seeing as how both things are considered a sin (in Christianity), and all sins are considered equal, then it doesn't really matter if I compare them or not.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So, let's say I create a self-aware robot. According to you, I have every right to torment, torture, brutalize and abuse that robot. I can build pain receptors on it, then melt it for fun. Why? Because, in your world, a creation has no rights and is the plaything of the creator.

"Devote your lives to me and I will not torture you". Oh yeah, that's mercy for you.

Well, yes, you would have every right to do that. If God wanted, He could have made us without self-awareness. God has complete control, and has every right to do whatever He wants with His (and I stress this word) creation.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Who's "we"? "We" would be hypocrites because humans judge everything. It's in our nature. We judge Hitler to be an asshole, we judge Bush to be an idiot, we judge Gandhi to be kind, we judge Einstein to be a genius. Hell, we judge people that don't exist (video games, anime, movies). Everything is subject to human judgment, and that includes the idea of God.

I was referring to people in general (and all, or at least most, people have been hypocritical at one point). I remember a topic in the Help/Support section where a user named aquaVen was having difficulty at home because his family found out his brother was homosexual. There, certain users (some of which, unfortunately, either were known to be Christians on the site, or were just assumed so by the response) condemned the brother for being homosexual. The rest of the users proceeded to hound the users, calling them homophobes and telling them not to judge him for it. Yet, on here, we are willing to judge God himself, even though we say not to judge.

Just because it is part of our nature doesn't mean that we should do it.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

It does not imply homosexuality. "Going after strange flesh" and "different, other" could imply bestiality, adultery, frotteurism, pedophilia, and a great many other sexual deviancies, many of which are often found to be far more disturbing than homosexuality. Considering the ambiguitiy of the implication, how can one say that homosexuality is the act being condemned?

Well, at the very least, you certainly can't say that it isn't implied. It could refer to all of those things.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

To this I present:

Corinthians 6:9-10 = Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

All that means is that, in this particular translation, the word effeminate referred to homosexuality. Basically, I'm saying that the cultural context of the particular translation is what leads to the different words (granted, I cannot prove what the word "effeminate" meant in the culture that wrote the translation)

However, while I cannot prove it, I can help to back it up by giving a different translation.

(NIV) 1 Corinthians 6:9 "You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,"

Besides, you all are missing the point. As stated in the verses I mentioned (and since we are talking about the Christian God, the Bible does matter, since according to said religion it is the truth), God does love us. So any reasons that you can think of are irrelevant, since (according to Christian religion) God said He does.

[Blackest Night]

Just because He came back from the dead doesn't mean He didn't die in the first place. He did, in fact, die. He did lose something. Whether or not He regained it is irrelevant.

1 - 1 + 1 = 1. I see no loss.

eeing as how calculus is something that can eventually be learned, and what I said cannot be learned. Then no, it doesn't follow my logic.

Anyway, why is death torture?

Kindergartenders can eventually learn calculus when they are no longer kindergateners. Kindergarteners cannot learn calculus, lest they be prodigies and those hardly count for the collective. It is not at all acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to give kindergarteners calculus tests.

He could have, but why would He do that? He could have said that murder, rape, and everything else was perfectly acceptable, but He didn't. I'm pretty sure that if anyone had the right to call something abominable, it would be God. Again, I ask, how is death considered torture?

He's not talking about physical death. He's talking about hell and/or the not "living forever with God."

I'll admit, that He had to define them as sinful for us to understand it. However, that doesn't mean they weren't sinful to begin with.

How can they possibly be considered sinful if no humans knew about it before God came around? Ignorance of the law IS an excuse here because the law did not exist. By your definition, the following is possible: A man pets a puppy. Next day, God announces that puppy petting is a sin. Therefore, the man is fully guilty of having comitted a sin.

Offends? When exactly did I use that word. Granted, we offend God when we sin, however, I said that sin goes against His design. How exactly does that imply being offended? If an inventor designed a machine, and there was a loose cog or something foreign became lodged inside it, does that mean that said object offended the inventor?

Bolded, underlined, and italicized for your convenience.

Well, attraction has nothing to do with it, but I'm not going to quibble about your wording, so I'll just use what you are referring to. Seeing as how both things are considered a sin (in Christianity), and all sins are considered equal, then it doesn't really matter if I compare them or not.

Looks like the next time I bear false witness against my neighbor, I might as well kill somebody while I'm at it.

Well, yes, you would have every right to do that.

If I get married and have biological children, my wife and I are hereby entitled to burn that little wench with a welding iron whenever we please. Sweet.



I was referring to people in general (and all, or at least most, people have been hypocritical at one point). I remember a topic in the Help/Support section where a user named aquaVen was having difficulty at home because his family found out his brother was homosexual. There, certain users (some of which, unfortunately, either were known to be Christians on the site, or were just assumed so by the response) condemned the brother for being homosexual. The rest of the users proceeded to hound the users, calling them homophobes and telling them not to judge him for it. Yet, on here, we are willing to judge God himself, even though we say not to judge.

Just because it is part of our nature doesn't mean that we should do it.

Well, at the very least, you certainly can't say that it isn't implied. It could refer to all of those things.

And it could also not refer to any of it. I could be Dolly Parton. But I'm not. Homosexuality is not condemned.

All that means is that, in this particular translation, the word effeminate referred to homosexuality. Basically, I'm saying that the cultural context of the particular translation is what leads to the different words (granted, I cannot prove what the word "effeminate" meant in the culture that wrote the translation)

However, while I cannot prove it, I can help to back it up by giving a different translation.

(NIV) 1 Corinthians 6:9 "You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,"

Besides, you all are missing the point. As stated in the verses I mentioned (and since we are talking about the Christian God, the Bible does matter, since according to said religion it is the truth), God does love us. So any reasons that you can think of are irrelevant, since (according to Christian religion) God said He does.

Tanslations, translations, translations. With so many translations, and your apparent belief that all of them are equally correct, how can anyone be sure of what's being condemned? God also told a group of people that he was coming on the back of a coment a few decades ago. That went well for them.

In order to counter your "according to said religion, its the truth", I present one word: Scientology.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

1 - 1 + 1 = 1. I see no loss.

He died for us. This is the point. He did, in fact, die. It's not a matter of whether or not He came back to life, it's a matter of what He did in the first place. Jesus died for our sins. This was accomplished.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

Kindergartenders can eventually learn calculus when they are no longer kindergateners. Kindergarteners cannot learn calculus, lest they be prodigies and those hardly count for the collective. It is not at all acceptable for a kindergarten teacher to give kindergarteners calculus tests.

Humans can't grow out of their sinful natures by themselves. God tries to show us that we need Him.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

He's not talking about physical death. He's talking about hell and/or the not "living forever with God."

So, God should go back on what He said was punishment just because humans don't like it? It's not up to us to decide what is and is not something God should do.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

How can they possibly be considered sinful if no humans knew about it before God came around? Ignorance of the law IS an excuse here because the law did not exist. By your definition, the following is possible: A man pets a puppy. Next day, God announces that puppy petting is a sin. Therefore, the man is fully guilty of having comitted a sin.

God was around before humans. So, I don't really understand your point.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

Bolded, underlined, and italicized for your convenience.

What does that have to do with anything. In that case, I said that we offend God when we sin. Sin itself is the problem. Problems don't offend. People indulging in them even though they have been told that they are wrong are what is offensive.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

Looks like the next time I bear false witness against my neighbor, I might as well kill somebody while I'm at it.

Why would you do that? If you think that two things are wrong, why would you do the second just because you did the first?

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

If I get married and have biological children, my wife and I are hereby entitled to burn that little wench with a welding iron whenever we please. Sweet.

All humans are God's creation. Your offspring =/= your creation. Also, notice that it was a hypothetical scenario. God doesn't do that, so why would He want you to do that?

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

And it could also not refer to any of it. I could be Dolly Parton. But I'm not. Homosexuality is not condemned.

Your point? Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah never existed at all, but they did. How exactly does that help you?

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

Tanslations, translations, translations. With so many translations, and your apparent belief that all of them are equally correct, how can anyone be sure of what's being condemned? God also told a group of people that he was coming on the back of a coment a few decades ago. That went well for them.

Technically, all translations mean the same thing. The only difference is the wording, and the wording is determined by the culture (after all, we translate things so we can understand them, which involves writing to a culture as well). All you have to do, is figure out what the word meant literally and culturally to the people of that time.

Originally Posted by Blackest Night

In order to counter your "according to said religion, its the truth", I present one word: Scientology.

What Scientology believes is irrelevant here. We are talking about Christian beliefs.

[Ulti]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

(NIV) 1 Corinthians 6:9 "You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,"

So a girl can sell her body and still be clean as a whistle? Nice to know God likes to have that sort of entertainment up there in Heaven.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

He died for us. This is the point. He did, in fact, die. It's not a matter of whether or not He came back to life, it's a matter of what He did in the first place. Jesus died for our sins. This was accomplished.

So, according to you, if I give a hobo 20 dollars, but I arranged it so he would give them back 3 days later.... I sacrificed 20 dollars?

Humans can't grow out of their sinful natures by themselves. God tries to show us that we need Him.

You've failed to respond to the example, though. Are you saying that it is indeed fair to kick a kid from kindergarten out of school or failing a calculus test unless he brings his teacher an apple?

So, God should go back on what He said was punishment just because humans don't like it? It's not up to us to decide what is and is not something God should do.

The main question is why would God declare something as harmless as homosexuality as sinful.

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. Who came first: the concept of sin or God?

If God came first (which you will surely say), then God (for zero reasons) declared the carnal union between 2 self-aware beings of the same sex to be an "abomination". It affected him in no way, as he is a spiritual being, and it brings happiness to his creations, yet he declares it illegal, and when I ask you why, you respond with "don't know, don't care, shut up".

We humans can indeed judge what the Bible says as nonsense if it seems so, why not? If the Bible said at one point "BLABBDYBLAHBLAH I IZ A UNICORN", I wouldn't go "oh my, there is godly truth in these words, let me judge people on them".

God was around before humans. So, I don't really understand your point.

But his laws weren't. Is incest sinful? Was incest always sinful? Did Adam and Eve commit incest?

What does that have to do with anything. In that case, I said that we offend God when we sin. Sin itself is the problem. Problems don't offend. People indulging in them even though they have been told that they are wrong are what is offensive.

Why does homosexuality offned God?

"I don't know"

This isn't a debate, because if we were debating about the weather, and I asked you why are hurricanes formed, you'd explain why. But when I ask the "why" in most of everything related to religion, you don't know..... but you follow anyway.

How does one fix this? You have no problem condemning behaviors while having no idea why they are wrong.

Why would you do that? If you think that two things are wrong, why would you do the second just because you did the first?

He's right BN, next time flip a coin. Heads you kill him, tails you lie. God and kazu will think the same of you either way, as lying is clearly the same thing as taking a life.

All humans are God's creation. Your offspring =/= your creation. Also, notice that it was a hypothetical scenario. God doesn't do that, so why would He want you to do that?

No, this is amazing. For all your morals, you believe humans, or sentient creatures for that matter, have no rights. You are able to believe that Christianity is kindest religion in the world, and at the same time believe humans are nothing more than playthings. You're actually ok with creating a sentient being (a robot) then breaking it apart for no reason. It is fair and it is just, isn't it? That's irony if I've ever seen it.

Your point? Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah never existed at all, but they did. How exactly does that help you?

Except the Sodom and Gomorrah story condemns rape and the mistreating of guests?

Technically, all translations mean the same thing. The only difference is the wording, and the wording is determined by the culture (after all, we translate things so we can understand them, which involves writing to a culture as well). All you have to do, is figure out what the word meant literally and culturally to the people of that time.

So when numbers between texts change from 100 to 10000, that's ok, they're probably both right?

[square-enix]

O what the hell. I make two long posts that get crap response but here he is responding to these other ones. Guess I better go respond to his post. =/

So, back to how god does not love everyone.

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

Why did Jesus die on the cross?

Why does anyone die? Seriously, do you have a point?

Bible verses

Two of the verses even state His love themselves.

Those verses are as valid as the verses that god tells us to kill sinners. We found out the Bible contradicts itself! Wow, revelation.
In the passages where god condones death to sinners, I gave a reason (along with a bible passage) to show that god hates sinners. Since it was never addressed, here it is, again.

"The homosexual is being committed to death. God specifically said to kill homosexuals. He hates the sinner more than the sin. He could easily rid us of the sin but he loves the sins more than us." [1]

Now, if God hated sinners (which all humans are: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]) then why would He sacrifice His son for us?

So, the reasoning to support the "God loves us all" passages, is that God sacrificed his son.
Your reasoning is invalidated in a later post where you type
"proving Himself to be God" [2]
It's either God "sacrificed" himself or God "sacrificed" his son Jesus.
You either believe the Holy Trinity or you don't. I have responses for both scenarios., but it's best we clear up your contradiction before I move further.

Remember, you've only addressed (although, contradicting yourself in the process) the bible passage. My argument showing that god does not match our definitions of love is still open. [3]

If He truly hated the sinner as well as the sin, then why would He offer us the chance of salvation?

Unfortunately, my response would have been similar to Phoenix's "If He truly loved the sinner, why would he set up impossible goals (do not sin)?" which you responded to with

You realize that the law is set up to point out the fact that we (by ourselves) cannot up hold it. It is designed to show us that we are at fault, and that we can't do it by ourselves and need his help (bible verse edited out)

So, he set up goals that could only be accomplished with his help. To this, I'll quote myself

"If he loved the sinners, he would do something immediate. Help them repent in some way. But he doesn't. He threatens the sinners with torture, but only after they die. God does too little, far too late. God hates us all." [4]

Since God does NOT do anything to impede ou