Is Homosexuality a Sin?

There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.

Next question in Religion in Society

You are seeing 27 Comments on this Argument. See all 401 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Question is Based on False Assumptions About What the Bible Teaches

- From Rick Brentlinger

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Double Standard in Reasoning

People have used the Bible to support many false teachings and agendas. It has been used to defend polygamy, Aryanism, racism, slavery, crusades, and the oppression of women. Just because scriptures have been used out of context and manipulated in the past by people with harmful and wicked agendas does not invalidate their veracity. For our ancestors to use scripture to defend the institution of American slavery was to use scripture out of context. In the same way, to use scripture to defend the acceptability of homosexual behavior is to use it out of context. I appreciate the quote by George MacDonald:

"To give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation."

The point has been made by many that Christ never said anything condemning homosexuality. However, there is also an absence of biblical condemnation of slavery. In fact, it gave regulations for slaves and slave owners (slavery during Greco-Roman era was vastly different than the atrocity of Western-European and American slavery). This line of thinking was used by slave owners to justify their position which contradicted the biblical doctrine of man. If there is a parallel in this discussion of homosexuality, it is the use of the same strategy to justify homosexual behavior.

This argument and other arguments regarding the issues surrounding slavery cannot be effectively utilized in defending homosexuality. The major difference is that there are multiple scriptural references condemning homosexual behavior. People cannot defend sexual practices clearly condemned by biblical teaching in the same way as our “pro-slavery” Christian ancestors may have done in defending slavery. There cannot be the claim that the Bible actually affirms this practice and offers no condemnation of it. Therefore, to claim that scripture is being used to promote the condemnation of homosexuality in the same manner as it was to promote the establishment of American slavery is invalid.

- J Buchanan September 10, 2008 7:32PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Anti-Gay Activists Are Misusing Scripture
  
  In his 520 page book, THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, anti-gay evangelical Christian activist, Dr. Robert Gagnon, devotes more than ten pages to proving his assertion that "homosexual shrine prostitution" was the primary form of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
  
  So there's no misunderstanding, Dr. Gagnon is adamantly against every kind of homosexual relationship. That's why his opinion about the prevalence of shrine prostitution in ancient Israeli is so startling.
  
  When the leading anti-gay evangelical Christian activist admits in print, that gay Christians are right (that the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is shrine prostitution), we have already won a major part of the argument.
  
  Carefully note what Dr. Robert Gagnon says.
  
  “I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel." - Gagnon, p. 130
  
  "There is good evidence of homosexual cult prostitution in Israel during the period of the divided monarchy.” p. 100.
  
  The [Hebrew] term [qedesim/qades] denotes “men at cult sites who engaged in homosexual prostitution: male temple (or cult, shrine, sacred) prostitutes.” p. 101.
  
  Qedesim “...one of whose cultic functions was to offer their bodies to other men for same-sex intercourse.” p. 102.
  
  “two other occurances of qedesa in the Bible (Gen 38:21-22; Hos 4:14) also link it with the term zona, “prostitute, harlot.”p. 103. Homosexuality wrong?
  
  “The remark in I Kgs 14:24 that the people of Judah “conformed their behavior to all the abominations (toebot) of the nations which Yahweh dispossessed” sounds remarkably like the summary in Lev 18:24-30, which followed a listing of sexual offenses that singled out in particular same-sex male intercourse as an “abomination.”” p. 103.
  
  “the same-sex role of the assinu, kugarru, and kuluu (who, owing to castration, were certainly unsuitable partners for heterosexual intercourse and impregnation) does provide good evidence for homosexual cult prostitution.” p. 104.
  
  “The harsh descriptions of the qedesim in I-2 Kings (I Kgs 14:24: “even qades were in the land”) and Job 36:14, along with the epithet of “dog” in Deu 23:18, suggests a degree of revulsion more suited to same-sex male cult prostitution.” p. 104.
  
  “That means Josiah’s action against the qedesim in the temple precincts was likely taken as a direct result of laws in Deut 23:17-18 regarding the qedesim or “dogs.”” p. 106.
  
  “It can hardly be denied that... (the author of Job 36:14) regarded the qedesim as homosexual cult prostitutes.” p. 108.
  
  “Cult association is established by the name “holy/consecrated ones” and by the connection to Asherah. The element of prostitution is clear from Deut 23:17-18 (fees for services rendered) and the connection to qedesot, who elsewhere are identified as harlots.” p. 108. Homosexuality wrong?
  
  “The same-sex dimension is suggested by the label “dogs,” by history of religion parallels, and by the unlikelihood of male heterosexual prostitution.” p. 108.
  
  “The existence of homosexual shrine prostitutes in Judah was a recurring problem.” Dr. Robert Gagnon, p. 110."
  
  Its not gay people who are taking the Bible out of context.
  
  Its the Christian anti-gay activists who take the Bible out of context.
  
  - Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 3:10PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Interesting
    
    That is interesting. I am going to forward this to a friend of mine and see what he says. He is a Jewish Theologian and Historian. I wander if he will agree with what is said about those verses. It should be interesting should he join the discussion.
    
    - justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:44PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Truth is a marvelous antidote to ignorance.
      
      I am convinced many anti-gay Christians intentionally misrepresent what the Bible says. Its not difficult to discover what Jewish believers wrote and taught about shrine prostitutes thousands of years ago.
      
      But since ancient Jewish teaching does not fit with current anti-gay teaching in so many churches, they prefer to ignore the truth or misrepresent it, hoping no one will notice.
      
      NEWSFLASH!!! We've noticed!!!
      
      Ancient Jewish writers frequently linked same sex shrine prostitution with the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
      
      For example, every passage in the Bible which is alleged to prohibit same sex partnerships, when read in doctrinal or historical context, is always referring to shrine prostitution.
      
      The human authors of the Bible did this intentionally because they were not referring to homosexuality in general and they most assuredly were not referring to female-female partnerships since those partnerships are never prohibited in the Old Testament.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
      
      Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish writer was a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Philo believed that Moses' use of arsenos koiten in Leviticus 20:13 referred to shrine prostitution.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Beastiality.html
      
      God bless you in your search for truth.
      
      Rick Brentlinger
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger November 13, 2008 3:27PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Fascinating -- but very narrow?
    
    What is "homosexuality", really? Affection, including sexual desire, for someone of the same sex? I do not see how this is sinful, particularly if one understands that desire is not synonymous with lust. The prohibition in Leviticus seems somewhat vague to me, because I am not sure what it means for a man to "lie with a man as with a woman" -- is this just a euphemistic, sanitized way to prohibit male-male insertive intercourse? Or is it perhaps even broader as it seems to be with just a simple reading perhaps less encumbered by a preconceived notion?
    
    One thing I noted in the many very well written posts by Rick Brentlinger is what seems to my mind to be a tendency by "pro-gay" theologians to infuse apparently unfavorable passages (like Romans 1) with a lot of "context" that, while important, still do not nullify the negative characterization given to same-sex activity for reason of it being "same sex". As an example, in Romans 1:26-27, regardless of the particular context, it is the same-sex nature itself that is called a "vile affection" or "degrading passion", "men with men committing indecent acts". I agree that this evokes a different picture if we view it either narrowly in the context of modern Western gay culture or in the context in which Paul wrote it and which is described well on the site Rick referenced.
    
    However, the language strongly convinces me that Paul *is* characterizing in one sense or another the same-sex sexual passion *itself* as "vile" or "degrading"; because he condemns idolatry and fornication (the other elements that happened to be present in these rituals), also, separately, above and below verses 26 and 27. In fact, given the ordering of the verses and how he writes, he seems to me to be making the case that idolatry in a nation (a people) *leads* to the eventual cultivation in the nation of these "vile affections", which he finds self-evidently degrading in their very nature. (To paraphrase Paul, "They didn't want to honor God, but began to worship themselves and other created things more than the Creator himself... so God let them come to the natural conclusion of such a choice to dishonor God, for to dishonor God is to necessarily dishonor one's own body, and one of the ways they dishonor their own bodies is in sexual activity that is 'against natural function.', and an example of this is men in sexual union with other men. ")
    
    To me, the core problem is what I find to be a very odd belief (odd to my mind at least) that what we call today the "Bible", which is a set of writings with a long tradition, no doubt, but which *was* compiled over time and some point canonized by men, through their best efforts yet mere men all the same, is a closed book and that we don't do a lot more individual "watching" and "praying" as Jesus instructed us fervently to do, and to come to *know* on a deeply personal level what is meant by the prophet Jeremiah, in chapter 31, about having the law written "on [our] inward parts."
    
    I hope we can all, me included, strip away our need for dogma and tradition, and even the need to have our view of this as we currently now understand it, accepted as "the correct one."
    
    I have had these thoughts arise in my mind as a result of seeking the truth:
    
    (1) It has struck me, in my mind, to be without dispute that sexual activity within the same sex is never referenced positively in the canonized Bible (and how we "chose" our Bible, as I said earlier, is itself an issue for me to ponder), and is basically written about in a negative manner exclusively.
    
    (2) I believe that there is an unhealthy and "unbiblical", if you will, wrong-headed notion among 'traditional' Christians that same-sex affection (a la David and Jonathan) is itself a sin, and should be viewed with suspicion, and that men who choose to have significant male companions (whether married or not) are "gay" and therefore are in sin.
    
    (3) It also seems that God is in constant communication with truth-seekers, and that those who listen with truly open hearts, not holding their own lives and identities (and there are "gay" identities and "religious" identities, equally prevalent) sacrosanct, nor any of their current beliefs about God or their own activities, will begin to manifest God's will for their lives as a matter of course, and won't need the comfort of knowing they are within someone else's expected boundaries, or have the fear that they are stepping outside of 'orthodoxy.'
    
    (4) I have on more than one occasion mused on Acts 11, on the vision Peter had in which he told the Lord he would not eat anything common or unclean, and God reprimanded him *three* times with, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common". What if we are in a similar time, in which that which was previously unclean and abominable (as per Leviticus) is now being cleansed? This was before Peter ministered to *Gentiles*, whom Jesus had characterized as "dogs" in the gospel of Matthew.
    
    - trellus December 13, 2008 3:01PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Interesting Insights Trellus - Thank You!
      
      For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
      
      That being so, there are NO Biblical passages which condemn committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
      
      Only by taking the clobber passages out of their cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context can they be made to condemn two gay men who love each other or two lesbian women who love each other and want to spend their lives together.
      
      Talking to anti-gay Christians can be frustrating because they ping pong back and forth between equally inconsistent arguments.
      
      They will admit that, in context, none of the clobber passages is NOT talking about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
      
      Then they ping pong back to their Complementarian argument, that since God originally created Adam and Eve, that "proves" God could never affirm Adam and Steve.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/adam-and-eve.html
      
      When it is pointed out that Adam and Eve (one man with one woman for life) did NOT indicate God's prohibition of polygamy (notice Genesis 4:19 where the first polygamous marriage occurs and Deuteronomy 21:15 where God makes provision for inheritance in polygamous marriage situations)
      
      anti-gay Christians then ping pong back to the clobber passages and opine that it is "clear" that God is talking about homosexuality, even though they previously admitted that the context is shrine prostitution, NOT a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
      
      Ah, the joys of debating the Bible with the brethren...
      
      Rick Brentlinger
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Mission.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 4:04PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Categories we make up
        
        This statement to me seems to sum up my problem with the way in which the "pro-gay" argument is developed:
        
        "For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships."
        
        Here, we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture mind you, and I would submit, for our own conveniences perhaps, same-sex unions into acceptable ones ("committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships", a categorization that does not exist as defined like this at all in any of the accepted scriptures and on which scripture is strangely silent) and unacceptable ones (the ones which are presumably cultic, unfaithful, or non-committed). This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture, in my thinking.
        
        If this partition existed in reality in Paul's mind, or in any of the other authors of the books of the Bible, why are these acceptable unions never mentioned *at all*? I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context. Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection".
        
        I think it's pretty clear from Romans 1 that Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul) is casting aspersions on same-sex sexuality in general by referring to them as "vile affections" or "degrading passions". Just because he happened to be speaking also in a larger context beyond this does not explain the language he uses to disparage same-sex union itself ("men with men committing indecent acts") as part of a larger argument in which he decries their idolatry (which he says leads to these vile affections), fornication, being full of evil, etc.
        
        I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text, when it is simply not necessary to agree with Paul. Paul is not God. He is not even the Son of God. Even Peter was wrong and had to be corrected (by Paul, Galatians 2:11), and Peter was used mightily of God and under the power of the Holy Spirit, convinced many Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and yet he was and is not infallible. Why should we consider Paul to be infallible?
        
        I believe that only God can judge, and yet, I have a suspicion that Paul's characterization of same-sex could possibly be just short-sighted and not take into account how God can expand the tent, so to speak, while being still just, as he told Peter in Acts 11, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common or unclean." The Jews believed with all their hearts, Peter amongst them even post-Pentecost, that the prohibition against eating certain foods was still in force, and more importantly, that salvation was still for the Jews and not yet (if ever) for the unclean "dogs", the Gentiles.
        
        - trellus December 13, 2008 5:49PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Answer: Part One
        
        I disagree with your reasoning in a number of areas.
        
        First, you have simply reworded (however inadvertently) the anti-gay viewpoint of Robert Gagnon which asserts that scripture condemns every same sex partnership without distinguishing between committed faithful non-cultic partnerships and shrine prostitute couplings (Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice) when you say:
        
        >>>>"we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture... same-sex unions into acceptable ones... and unacceptable ones... This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture"<<<<
        
        I submit that scripture does differentiate (partition) same sex sexual activity and that this differentiation/partition was recognized by the authors of scripture who wrote about Sodom, by the authors of scripture who alluded to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and by Jewish rabbis and philosophers like Philo of Alexandria.
        
        All of them focused on shrine prostitution when discoursing on these verses, as did the rabbis whose human wisdom fills the Babylonian Talmud.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Babylonian-Talmud-On-Sodom.html
        
        Further, Dr. Gagnon (THE most ardent anti-gay evangelical alive today) contradicts your assertion on pages 100-110 and 130 of his book when he asserts the primacy of shrine prostitution in ancient Israel and remarks that shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
        
        Gagnon, the anti-gay crusader, differentiates committed faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships from the shrine prostitution against which Moses and God inveigh in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
        
        Second, EVERY human author of scripture who mentions Sodom fails to link Sodom to homosexuality.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
        
        Third, EVERY human author of scripture who alludes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 links the verses to shrine prostitution or the qadesha (shrine prostitutes).
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
        
        In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
        
        >>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
        
        Rick Brentlinger
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Repentance.html
        
        - Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 10:42PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Answer: Part Two
        
        In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
        
        >>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
        
        Yet as noted above, NO human author of scripture links the sinful activities of Genesis 19 - Sodom and the sinful activities of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships.
        
        Your assertion that the writers of scripture saw ANY same sex union in the context of idolatry is an opinion, not necessarily an historical fact. The fact is, Jewish rabbis before, during and after the time of Christ, did discuss lesbianism and determined that lesbians are not included in the Levitical prohibitions.
        
        Your next assertion is more opinion, masquerading as fact.
        
        >>>>"Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection"."<<<<
        
        That is your opinion of Paul's argument. In point of fact, Paul's argument is focused on the consequences of idolatry, not an alleged condemnation of gay men and lesbians in Romans 1:26-27.
        
        Paul's argument posits idolatrous same sex activity - worship of the fertility goddess - as the result of idolatry.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
        
        To read Paul's words as a condemnation of faithful committed non-cultic same sex partnerships is an egregious mis-reading of the scriptures. It assumes "facts" not in evidence and reads into scripture what scripture manifestly does not say.
        
        Aristides, preaching and writing within 70 years of 58 A.D., (when Paul wrote Romans), understood Paul's words to refer to shrine prostitution.
        
        Justin Martyr, writing within 100 years of Paul, understood Paul to be speaking of shrine prostitution.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
        
        You seem to be asserting that:
        
        >>>>"Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul)"<<<<
        
        is the ultimate writer of Romans, a popular but unsubstantiated opinion in our post-Christian age.
        
        I disagree with what I understand you to be saying, since I strongly believe in the God-breathed purity, verbal inspiration, absolute authority, infallibility and inerrancy of scripture.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Scripture.html
        
        >>>>"I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text"<<<<
        
        A text without a context is a pretext for teaching something that is not true.
        
        The overreaching is almost entirely on the side of those who refuse to factor in the context God and Moses addressed in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
        
        In some cases they acknowledge the context and then insist (as you seem to be doing), that the Bible still condemns committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in these passages DESPITE the context.
        
        Rick Brentlinger
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/eDisciples.html
        
        - Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 10:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Where are the references in scripture to this other category?
        
        Dr. Gagnon's assertion that "shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel" and that he differentiates between "faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships" and shrine prostitution bolsters my argument that the writers of scripture had no vision of "faithful, non-cultic" same sex union, not contradicts it. My point was that you (and perhaps even the "anti-gay" Dr. Gagnon) have created this differentiation that doesn't exist *in scripture* -- the differentiation may exist *outside of scripture*, but where does it exist in scripture?
        
        If there is a differentiation *in scripture*, where are the references to the "faithful, non-cultic same-sex" marriages? I have yet to see them. The silence of scripture on this "other" category of presumably "blessed" same-sex union is non-sensical if the partition/differentiation you claim really did exist in scripture. It is particularly non-sensical if you believe in the sufficiency of the 66 books of the Bible (chosen by man) to forever declare *all* that needs to be said by God, because then your argument of this other cateogry of blessed same-sex union was *never* addressed in scripture, so I fail to see how it can be blessed by your God and your Bible?
        
        - trellus December 14, 2008 6:12AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Invalid
  
  I often wander why people use the Bible as valid data to back anything up. I am neither for nor against it. I do not know enough about it to know.
  
  I do know that people sure can find allow of places to stand on it with just about any subject.
  
  This is interesting.
  
  - justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:47PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design

I hear constantly about the "outdated" and "no longer applicable" verses in Leviticus - I recently read about a youngish - 40 something man- who had lived-according to modern standads- a relatively "righteous" life; but now he has throat cancer - why? it turns out that if you engage in oral sex the chances of acquiring the pap virus that causes cervical cancer in women- will increase your chances of oral and throat cancer, and it increases when you have multiple partners. The manifestation of throat cancer in younger patients who have never smoked or "engaged in risky behavior" is rising at an alarming rate. Why? because we have changed and accepted as "normal" what the Bible has prohibited or declared a sin. A man was designed to enter a woman, and a woman was designed to receive a man.Jesus dealt with remarriage, divorce, and He clearly stated what constitutes marriage - a man and a woman. And only one man for one woman, and only one woman for one man. We have a wondrous beautiful God of order and elegant, beautiful design. That His creation has been warped and deformed by sin is a fact. "creation groans under the weight of man's sin" we are told how ALL creation waits for the day of the redeemed - we live under Grace - "do we continue in sin in order to attain more grace? - may it never be!!!"

- LPL September 10, 2008 10:15PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How silly!

I truly don't understand why the concept of "sin" is raised at all. Clearly homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals in everything except sexual preference. Condemning someone for that seems entirely unchristian to me.
The bible itself has been re-written, translated, intentionally altered dozens of times over the 1800 or so years. There were originally many more books, but only four were chosen, for most likely political reasons.
There are passages in the bible that claim it is okay to allow fathers to KILL their children for disobeying. Citing chapters in the bible to prove a point is ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging, when many passages contain truly disgusting acts made by christians.

- sonofwill October 8, 2008 8:15AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Why is i silly?
  
  Why is it silly? I would like to know more about this!! How much do you actually know about the History of the Bible? I can tell you, though I am not a student of the Bible, that there are 66 books in the Bible. More than that if you include the Apocrypha from the 1611 version of the Bible.
  
  It is no more silly for people to follow the principles of the Bible than it is for you or I to follow the teachings of any modern day writer. What does that mean? It means that you pick any given writer of today (not fictional). They have a following. That following is known for their stance on the teachings of that individual.
  
  From what I do know of the Bible, there are allot of Customs dealt with in the Bible that were specific to the Jews. Those were Old Testament laws.
  
  A person using the Bible to prove their point is no more ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging than someone picking up the latest Psychology book by the Latest writer and Whole heartedly following what that person teaches.
  
  - justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:38PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Agreed
    
    I agree on that point... while I do not read the words of any man without discernment or engagement of my own mind and spirit, even the words of the Bible, it certainly does not strike me as ignorant to be able to study it a great deal and meditate on what I feel to be inspired words. Of course, in my opinion, any great work of literature is inspired.
    
    - trellus December 13, 2008 3:11PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Exactly Where We Are...
  
  It is the adherance to the belief system that you display in your comment that has gotten this country where it is today..And, I belief, the same process that brought about the destruction of multiple civilizations. The minimization of Scripture; the pompous belief that man has Truth, or at least has the capability of finding Truth; that we as people are born "good"; that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this world; that there is no afterlife, or consequences for our current behaviors or liefstyles--these are all consequences of modern thoughts/beliefs. Let me boil this down to one question: Would it be wrong for an adult male to sexually abuse a female infant? The child will have no recollection of the event(s), so no "harm" was technically done, and it fulfilled the deranged desires of the abuser. What would you do if this happened to YOUR daughter?
  
  This absurd example is an extreme, used to highlight the fallacy and illogical nature of modern "logic."
  
  God's reality and commands never lead to anything "disgusting." The Old Testament commands about 'putting to death' is hyperbole. For example, to my knowledge, there are no records showing that disrespectful children were put to death. I believe social commands such as this one were given to highlight the importance of and to decree the exact social hierarchy/structure (e.g. the role and respect given to parents; their influence and control over their children).
  
  - Jefe November 13, 2008 9:56PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Your example is problematic
    
    I just wanted to point out that an adult male sexually abusing a female infant would likely have physically damaging effects in all likelihood (depending on the nature of it, obviously), and quite possibly damage the child psychologically as well. We are very nascent in our understanding of what the mind remembers as an infant, but I remember a study of orphan babies who died from lack of touch... it hardly seems that it would make sense that the child merely required a certain touching of the body by a warm body, but rather that there is an emotional memory perhaps as well. In any case, the very fact of a *possibility* of damage immediately presents a moral problem apart from any need to have some external rule that tells me that this action would be ill-advised. :)
    
    - trellus December 13, 2008 3:08PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Exodus International
Addressing Homosexual Issues See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

Rick Brentlinger
Gay Christian 101 See arguments

Most Objections