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 85 Comments. See all 401 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Question

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

It's a sin only if you define it as one

I'm sorry that Rick Brentlinger has chosen to reject an important aspect of his own humanity (his sexual orientation) because of what it says in a dusty old book.

There is no way to argue this point rationally, because "sin" is a completely non-objective term based on no evidence whatsoever except what it says in the bible. If you believe that the bible is god's literal word (also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence) then nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. That's the nature of faith; that's its immune from reason, exists in its own isolated world, and cannot be touched by rational debate or discussion.

But if the bible is the literal work of god, I wonder what believers think about the two examples below. There are many others. Should we take them literally?

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Exodus 22:3
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.

- SidAirfoil September 8, 2008 8:01AM

Reply to this Recommend (8) 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.
- Not isolated
  
  You're not precise when you say sin is isolated from a rational world. Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions. If you're interested you can check out that book. Also your quotes are out of the context (bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically). If you analize New Testament the circumstance may continue as a sin, but Jesus payed for those sins.
  
  - oveja September 10, 2008 3:52PM
  
  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.
  - "Transcendent" moral law
    
    I'm not sure what you mean by "Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions". To me religious moral laws already inappropriately "transcend" the secular human realm. I haven't read the book you mention, but what can possibly transcend the law of god as interpreted by those charged to do so?
    
    In any case, my major concern is that the source of religious moral laws (in this case, the law against homosexuality) is god and not man. Proper moral law must be based on the nature of humans, not on the nature of god. "Do what god says" is not a moral law, because it does not ask what behaviors are good or bad for people AS people. It simplistically says that being good consists of obeying the rules (as defined by the bible). By this improper "moral law" homosexuality is a sin because, as I said, it violates the arbitrary law set down in a dusty old book.
    
    In contrast "Live and let live" (for example) IS a proper moral law because it respects the nature of humans as individual moral beings with independent minds who live and relate to one another through mutual recognition, respect, and consent. By this proper moral law homosexuality is NOT a "sin" because it does not violate the rights or fundamental humanity of anyone else.
    
    You also say the "...bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically". This is a contradiction. It can be taken literally or NOT literally. It either IS the literal word of god, or its open to interpretation. If it IS the literal word of god, then you cannot re-interpret any part of it to your liking. And if its NOT the literal word of god, then it is not the authoritative law for human behavior or anything else, for that matter. It is hypocrisy to take parts of the bible literally while "interpreting" other parts. And once you "interpret" it, either symbolically or historically or in any other way, you have put your judgement (or the judgement of other humans) above the word of god.
    
    - SidAirfoil September 11, 2008 8:38AM
    
    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.
    - Who was God talking to all these years?
      
      I really want to know what "Law" was passed down since the 10 Commandments? I will not dispute Moses account, but there were no other witnesses. Not a single commandment about homosexuals.
      
      Seems a sin of omission on Gods part? Even the churches and religious organizations, dispute any contemporary claims for "hearing" from God.
      
      Those people you claim are "charged" to do so, are none the less just other people. They are all there because they choose to be. No more than you or me to interpret anything. God has also seen fit not to drop a list of people from heaven, charging anyone to do anything.
      
      Like any corporation, the religious organizations all get some good people and some bad people. Like any good employee they also protect their jobs. Where you get this fantasy about God and people is well beyond any sane comprehension. If it werwe a bad thing, God would not have allowed animals to "suffer" the same malady.
      
      I once knew a farmer. He had a prize bull that was a flaming homosexual. They had to "milk" the bull to impregnate the cows. It isn't all that uncommon on the farm. Why should it be so in the cities?
      
      - tomcat2200 September 14, 2008 1:34AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (3) 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.
      - The Law of Moses and the dignity of man
        
        Tomcat2200,
        The 10 commandments you reference are actually a part of the Hebrew Torah, meaning Law that was give to Moses from God. The 10 commandments are as significant part of the Mosaic Law. Two clear prohibitions against homosexuality are made by God through Moses in the Law.
        
        " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22, NIV)
        
        " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
        
        You compare the act of animals to the acts of humans. Animals indulges in all kinds of beastly behavior but to compare this to human homosexuality is actually out of place. For one humans are created above animals and we know right from wrong in a general sense which animals cannot. Furthermore animals have know self identity and are entirely incapable of rational thought, a bull cannot think itself homosexual anymore then it can think itself a bull, it just is a bull. Animals have instincts that they act on and when taken out of nature, eg. a farm, they are more inclined to all kinds of more unnatural behaviors including apparently homosexual acts.
        
        Peace,
        Spencer
        
        - Periannath December 29, 2008 12:07PM
        
        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.
        
        not really.
        
        Animals are indeed capable of rational thought, and tons of animals have self idenity complexes... where are you getting your info ?
        
        Leviticus is Old Testement, ntm Lev is a set of rules for Hebrew Males... Are you Hebrew?
        
        - zman676 April 16, 2009 12:12AM
        
        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.
        
        Beg to differ.
        
        Lets first start with a working and shared definintion of "rational."
        Rational: "Having or exercising the ability to reason. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." (American Heritage Dictionary)
        
        You ask where I am getting my info; where are you getting yours? There is some controversy as to whether animals are capable of rational throught, however, the vast majority of people including scientists do accept an animal as a rational creature. For example, recently there was a women in CA who had a pet chimp. Without warning and without rational basis the chimp went "ape" on her girl friend and almost killed her. Professionals in the field, including zoologists, vets, other biologits etc. often reference that these types of things happen because they are "wild animals." To expect rational behavior from an animal is absurd.
        
        Furthermore, from a Biblical point of view, regardless of how literaly one interpreates the creation accounts there is a clear distinction between man and the animals. Namely they alone were made in the image and likeness of God, recieved from a him a rational that is in likeness to him (which animals do not) and were given dominion over the earth (including the animal kingdomm).
        
        Philosophically we can know that animals are not capable of considering sylogistic reasoning, understand logic. A dog does not think about where it would go to college or what it wants to do with its life. The earliest philosophers and through the present age have noticed a distinction from animals and humankind.
        
        To argue that because an animal does something means it is ok for humans is ludicrist. Animals eat there own kind, commit acts of aggression including murder and many other atrocious behavior if we tried to understand this rationaly. However, we know that they are animals and they do that kind of thing based on instict and conditioning.
        
        Yes Leviticus is Old Testements. Leviticus is not just a rule book for Hebrew males it was given to the whole people of Israel as with the rest of the Torah. No I am not ethnically Hebrew alhtough I do consider myself a "child of Abraham" through the promise, i.e. by faith .
        
        Shalom,
        Spencer
        
        - Periannath April 16, 2009 5:37PM
        
        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.
        
        More comments in this thread
    - "Christ... fully reveals man to himself"
      
      The late Pope John Paul II was noted for quoting often the phrase "Christ...fully reveals man to himself." from "Gaudium et Spes." In the Christian tradition God and his commands are not "up there" far away in some Platonic other but right here, now in the present among us. God came to Abram, his glory dwelt on Mt. Sinai with Moses, John the Baptist preached "the Kingdom of God is at hand," Jesus, "it is among us" and Jesus the Christ himself is the incarnation of God. God's Word came present not "up there" but in time, in history, in the lives and languages of a real culture of and society amongst real individuals.
      
      Universal moral law is only true in so much as it is indeed universal and based in the common good. Not the good of an individual or a group but as it is the good for all. In order for this to be so it must somehow exist ontologically in its own right, objectively and not in the will of man for the will of man is not only corrupt but subjective. In this case the only moral law that can actually be true and universal is that law which is given from God. Any other attempt for man to construct there own law, there own morals, there own understanding of right and wrong, good and evil is in fact from the evil one. To do so would nuance the falsity that we are god, or anyway like God. (see Genesis 3). Rather God calls us into relationship with him not only because it is the good for us to do but because it is the purpose for which we are created. God not only calls us to himself as an action of doing but as an action of being because it is who we are, after all God calls us into being.
      
      How is it reconciled then, that we as humans need a morality that is actually attainable that isn't beyond our reach that is as you said "for people." God knows that his law is to high for people to achieve (see Romans 7). This is precisely why he came not as other but as man and in doing so made the way for man to experience not only holiness and righteousness (as accorded by his law) but true peace with God and right relationship with him. Jesus' humanity is evidence that it is possible and he is the way to our eternal Father, our divine Creator. Jesus affords the way we must choose weather one will take that, accept God's offer of freedom and redemption or continue to neglect him and his holiness by living in sin. Societies likewise, can compromise the truth and go on living "as every man sees fit" with the illusion of justice by "living and letting live." But dies this "live and let live" really provide true justice? What about the injustice of psychological distress within a man, is this accounted for? Not because "live and let live" only accounts for interpersonal relationship not the inner justice of man. Or how about acts of "so called freedom" that actually bring further bondage? Are they ok if only consent is given? Prostitution, fornication, drunkenness, consumerism? All of these things go on under the guise of false justice, ie. live and let live, but in reality they continue to demean the integrity and intrinsic value of the human person. The justice based in the reality that all men are created equal is the justice of God for he has endowed men with such unalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each human person, all men, all women, those who believe they are homosexual and those who do not, those born, those unborn, those dying they are all worth so much to God that he he gave his only begotten son to die that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting, full, life. Christ speaks the freeing word, the word of liberty over all those who call on his name as they become who they truly are before sin and bondage and oppression came to foul our fallen race. Jesus saves. Jesus calls us to our original purpose, he is the fulfillment of our happiness. True morality and justice accounts to the full truth of the human being and human experiance accroding to him who knows all things and all things about us, according to him who walked among us and made a way for real people, and who calls us into realtionship with him and gives us to the power to live holy, lives of right action and right being by putting His Spirit in those who believe in him. This Spirit is the Lord the giver of life, who reigns with the Father and the Son, One God overall, for all, in love with all.
      including you friend,
      Peace,
      Spencer
      
      - Periannath December 29, 2008 11:53AM
      
      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.
    - I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that . . .
      
      SidAirfoil,
      If you REALLY believe the bible is "God's Word" not man's and as you say "In any case, my major concern is that the source of religious moral laws (in this case, the law against homosexuality ) is god and not man",
      then I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that I have assembled at http://WhatkindofGod.org/ and swear on the bible that you believe all of the horrible statements attributed to "God" in the bible! including for example:
      "No one born of a forbidden marriage (no "bastard") nor any offspring from such a marriage may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."
      If Deuteronomy 23:2 is taken seriously (which Conservatives must do, if they take the scriptures as seriously as they claim) , then these are the inevitable consequences :
      Not only are all the "bastard" children of the faithful to be unjustly punished (for something they had no power over), but all of the following as well:
      all of their children, (2nd generation)
      their grand-children, (3rd generation)
      their great-grand-children, (4th generation)
      their great-great-grand-children, (5th generation)
      their great-great-great-grand-children,
      their great-great-great-great-grand-children,
      their great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
      their great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
      their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as well,
      (which could number into the hundreds if not thousands of offspring).
      This also has serious ramifications going BACKWARDS, i.e. ,
      Can you be absolutely sure that you yourself aren't a bastard?
      How can you be sure that neither of your two parents was?
      What about your 4 grand-parents?
      What about your 8 great-grand-parents?
      etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
      
      - Rayosun September 10, 2009 5:05PM
      
      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.
  - The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
    
    I agree with SidAirfoil, that the bible is filled with immoral acts that are no longer considered immoral. They were made by man and they have been changed by man.
    
    But the passages of the Bible that deserve the most question include Genesis itself, within the chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah. When two male angels come to Lot's house the night before God is to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot protects them from the (homosexual male) crowd by what moral act? By offering up his two virgin daughters so that the crowd will leave his honored guests alone.
    
    And if that were not enough morality with which we would ALL DISAGREE, and see as reprehensible child abandonment or worse...the chapter ends with both of Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they can have incestuous sex with him.
    
    So our source of morality has homosexuality as sinful, but child endangerment as virtuous, and incest as perfectly okay.
    
    The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
    
    What else do you have to show that homosexuality is "immoral?"
    
    What harm is it to "moral"people, if otherwise moral homosexuals do their own thing in private?
    
    - bmkmd October 4, 2008 9:23AM
    
    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.
- Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3
  
  You should take them literally, because that's how it used to be back then, now those laws don't apply because of Jesus' death on the cross . Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3 talks about laws from the old testament. Because of Jesus' death on the cross, we can say that these laws don't have an effect on us.
  
  - ecs119 September 11, 2008 9:07AM
  
  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.
  - Huh?
    
    I'm confused.
    
    Jesus died for our sins, so now adultery and theft aren't sins anymore?
    
    Or if they are still sins, they require less severe punishment today than in the past because Jesus paid-it-forward for us?
    
    Either I'm missing an important theological point, or this is just a rationalization to reject the literal word of god (the bible) in favor of modern, humanistic moral standards.
    
    - SidAirfoil September 11, 2008 10:06AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
    - Not really
      
      It's not saying they aren't since anymore, but sin is not dealt in the same way as in the old testament. This doesn't mean that the condition of sin is lightened, it is the same, but Jesus sacrifice plays a huge role when it comes to forgiveness.
      
      Now because of Jesus we can be saved, we are able to be forgiven and called righteous as long as we repent from our sins (meaning turning away from our sinful nature) and chose to live for Jesus.
      
      Isaiah 53 talks about Jesus death on the cross. These are just parts of it.
      
      5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
      crushed for our sins.
      He was beaten so we could be whole.
      He was whipped so we could be healed.
      6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
      We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
      Yet the Lord laid on him
      the sins of us all.
      
      This part talks about How He became an offering for sin on the cross.
      
      10 But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him
      and cause him grief.
      Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
      he will have many descendants.
      He will enjoy a long life,
      and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
      11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
      he will be satisfied.
      And because of his experience,
      my righteous servant will make it possible
      for many to be counted righteous,
      for he will bear all their sins.
      
      Notice how it talks about many because not everyone will turn to Jesus for salvation.
      
      So just to make sure I answer your questions
      
      1) Adultery, theft as well as homosexuality and other sins are still sins. And I believe they aren't any less of sins.
      
      2) Basically the there is judgement, however Jesus did pay for our sins so repentance plays a huge role. He can take away judgement from us if we turn away from our ways and surrender to Him.
      
      - ecs119 September 11, 2008 10:41AM
      
      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.
    - Christians NOT under law - Romans 6:14
      
      The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God.
      
      That is not a license to sin. It simply acknowledges that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."
      
      To get saved and to go to heaven, we need the righteousness of Christ.
      
      "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
      
      To declare, I say, at this time, HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS..." - Romans 3:25
      
      "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and sanctification, and redemption." - I Corinthians 1:30
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Christians-Under-Law.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 2:52PM
      
      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.
      - I'm getting it, but still don't like it
        
        Thanks for the reply, Rick.
        
        You said "The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God."
        
        In other words, Jesus died not only so that we could be forgiven for all the sins committed BEFORE he died, but also so that we had a path to be forgiven for the one's committed AFTER his death (i.e. today). Right?
        
        But forgiveness still requires not only that we repent, but also that we accept Jesus as the only path to penitence. And that's the part I don't like. It's off the current topic, but to me forgiveness has to come only from the person I've wronged, and not from Jesus or god, or any other supernatural being. That's because my secular morality is based on respect for HUMANS, not respect for god. To me it's offensive that hurting another person is considered "sinful" because it violates the law of god, rather than because it violates of rights of a person. It's offensive that repentant murderers ask for god's forgiveness, rather than the forgiveness of their victims and their families, and find peace through god without regard to the person they've killed.
        
        But all this is for another discussion. Since homosexuality hurts no PERSON, it is not immoral, although I acknowledge that it is "sinful" according to your arbitrary religious dogma.
        
        Sid
        
        - SidAirfoil September 14, 2008 2:25PM
        
        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.
        
        I believe homosexuality is NOT a sin.
        
        Sid-
        
        You make a very good point about forgiveness being multi-faceted.
        
        Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
        
        As human beings, we need forgiveness from God - that forgiveness is available because Jesus' blood paid our sin debt (past, present and future sins) and because Jesus' physical resurrection demonstrated that God the Father has accepted Jesus' payment for our sins.
        
        But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness.
        
        I agree with you that homosexuality in general hurts no PERSON.
        
        Rick
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Moses-Law.html
        
        - Rick Brentlinger September 14, 2008 3:22PM
        
        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.
        
        Being gay vs. acting gay
        
        Rick said "But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness."
        
        I'm glad to hear that. It just seems to me that the forgiveness of one's victim much too often takes a distant back seat to the forgiveness of god. And that is consistent with my morality having a different source (respect for human rights) than religious morality (obedience to god's law).
        
        Also you said "Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership. "
        
        I realize that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I think you're on the right side of this debate (overall!).
        
        But I do have a point to make and a question to ask you or anyone else who is reading this. I have met many Christians who also say that they do not think BEING gay is a sin, only that ACTING gay is a sin. This presumably acknowledges (correctly) that sexual orientation is NOT a choice people make. You're either gay or you're straight. And just as I did not choose to be straight, homosexuals don't choose to be gay. Sexual orientation is simply one aspect of yourself that you discover as you mature. This is another reason why I don't believe that BEING gay is immoral. Where there is no choice morality does not attach. Being gay (or straight) is neither moral not immoral. Sexual orientation, like height or hair color, is simply not a moral issue.
        
        This being said, regardless of your orientation, whom you have sex with and what kind of sex you have ARE choices that we make. And so my question is; Is it reasonable for a Christian to accept that a person IS homosexual, while condemning them for ACTING in a homosexual fashion? Obviously I don't think it is reasonable. But I'd like to hear from anyone who does, since this is not an uncommon attitude in my experience.
        
        Sid
        
        - SidAirfoil September 16, 2008 8:53AM
        
        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
    - Who's Word?
      
      Neither God or Jesus wrote the Bible.
      
      - JNGII September 17, 2008 8:26PM
      
      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.
      - The Bible claims to be God's word
        
        The Bible claims to be the word of God. Thousands of times we read, "Thus saith the LORD" or "The word of the LORD came unto him, saying..."
        
        Exodus 31:18 and 32:15-16, Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:22, 9:10-11 are crystal clear that God did indeed write some of the Bible - the Ten Commandments - with His own finger, with His own hand.
        
        - Rick Brentlinger September 18, 2008 10:31AM
        
        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.
        
        Symantics
        
        According to the bible, God wrote the commandments on stone tablets with his own hand yet the bible was printed on paper. The Ten Commandments were written thousands of years before the bible was written. That answers that question.
        
        Many people believe the bible should be taken literally. Please then explain the following:
        
        In Numbers 31:1-18, God commands Moses to kill all the adult male Midianites and kidnap all the women and children. The the Lord commanded Moses to kill all the male children and kill all the non-virgin females. Moses then said that the remaining female children could be taken as sexual slaves.
        
        And people think Islam is a religion of violence? So, explain this passage but here is the catch: you cannot say every word in the bible must be taken literally but then write off passages like this as "parables" meant to teach us some other lesson.
        
        I will never try to tell someone that there is or isn't a God or tell them what to believe, that is a personal choice and I respect those who make that choice. But why not respect others for making their own choices? When one sect of Christianity tells me that members of other Christian sects cannot enter heaven, it is clear that many Christians do not espouse the principles of their own faith. When one sees a person treat their fellow humans like dirt six days a week but go to church on Sunday and have a "What Would Jesus Do" license plate frame, I have nothing but disgust.
        
        And do not forget that the text of the ten commandments are also found, almost word for word, in the Qur'an. ("or come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful" 017:032)
        
        And further more, the first five books of the old testament of the bible is also known as the Torrah from Judaism, written well before the bible.
        
        I think like Sid, I treat people as a result of human rights, not because of God's promise of heaven because the wrong motivation is a factor. If you are good to people only so you can go to heaven then you really are doing it for you, not your fellow human being.
        
        - Pliskin October 3, 2008 10:22PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
- reply
  
  both of those verses are in the Old Testament... Jesus came and gave His life for us so that we no longer have to live under the old law. Now we live by Faith in Christ Jesus.
  
  Each one of us will give account to Jesus Christ for how we lived our life. I sure want to make sure that I am on the right side so I read his word to see how HE wants me to live.
  
  - crash September 15, 2008 7:15PM
  
  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.
  - What did Jesus say?
    
    Crash makes an interesting point.
    
    What did Jesus say about all of this?
    
    Many non-gay and gay people insist Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality. I believe Jesus did address the gay issue when He pointed out in Matthew 19:3-12 that all men cannot receive His teaching about Adam and Eve style marriage.
    
    Jesus taught that "born eunuchs" were a separate group, distinct from eunuchs who had been castrated and distinct from eunuchs who voluntarily abstained from Adam and Eve style marriage in order to serve God without distraction.
    
    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
    
    Because Jesus intentionally differentiated between born eunuchs and metaphysical eunuchs who voluntarily decide not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage, it makes sense to conclude that born eunuchs are:
    
    a. not required to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage (since Jesus intentionally opts them out)
    
    b. not required to abstain from marrying an orientation compatible partner (since Jesus intentionally differentiates them from metaphysical eunuchs who make a personal decision not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage).
    
    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
    
    - Rick Brentlinger September 16, 2008 9:25AM
    
    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.
    - What's going on with the New Testament
      
      Who, exactly, goes to heaven and who, exactly, goes to hell? There's a bunch of lists. Does being a Christian trump those lists, and if so, why would anyone even talk about the lists?
      
      - quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:57AM
      
      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.
      - You tell me
        
        According to the Christians I grew up around (Southern Baptists), yes, being a "born-again" Christian trumps all. But since I am an atheist, I consider such debates about equal to debating which color of unicorns is more "fair".
        
        - KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:05PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
        
        I'm Jewish
        
        I have no earthly understanding as to why they act as they do. It's hard enough just figuring us out.
        
        - quantummechanik June 9, 2009 1:34PM
        
        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.
        
        It's even worse
        
        I was at a "revival" where the guest speaker was what they called a "completed Jew"; he was a Jew who had become a "born-again Christian". The part that stuck with me was this man sobbing from the pulpit because of his parents. He said that they had loved each other dearly in life, but since they had died without being "saved", they were now both burning in Hell and hated one another (there being no love in Hell). I was almost made sick by this. Still am.
        
        - KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:36PM
        
        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
        
        Southern Baptists
        
        No wonder you a atheist I was once a atheist and a southern baptist.They both are about equal in my book.They both deny the teachings in the bible .
        
        - countryboy June 9, 2009 6:29PM
        
        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.
        
        The Bible is abominable
        
        The Bible is fine with slavery. It only says how much you are allowed to beat your slaves; not that slavery is wrong, or that maybe your shouldn't beat them at all. It even says it is OK to sell your daughter into slavery. I'm not aware of any sect of Christians who don't deny that particular teaching. It also demands that a virgin marry her rapist in order to be made pure. Yes, I will continue to deny the Bible and its "teachings". I don't get my sense of morality from bronze-age shepherds who thought genocide, slavery, and treating women as property was peachy. http://www.godisimaginary.com /
        
        - KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:41PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) 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
      - Hay quantummechanik
        
        There's a bunch of list does being a christisn trumpm those list.
        What list are yiu talking about?I for you would love to set any one straght on this.
        
        - countryboy June 8, 2009 10:18PM
        
        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.
        
        The hell lists
        
        The lists of people who don't get into heaven. Whisperers, Back-Biters, Effeminate, etc.
        
        - quantummechanik June 9, 2009 1:35PM
        
        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.
        
        Lets some this up
        
        Jesus saying on these two commandment hang all the law and the prophets
        Matthew 23-37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOD with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind
        Matthew 23-38 This is the first and great commandment.
        Matthew 23-39 And the second is love thy neighbour as thyself.
        Matyhew 23-40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
        You see this is what a real christian is all about.Love,true love peace with god and others,
        If you follow these 2 commandments you wont be a whisperer,back-biter etc.
        And if we slip we are forgiven though the Blood of christ
        
        - countryboy June 9, 2009 6:14PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) 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.
        
        More comments in this thread
- why do you care?
  
  Why does anyone care that much about what goes on in someone else's bedroom? Is it hurting your life? No. If homosecuality is a sin, then let God deal with it. Your job as a human is to love thy neighbor and notice that there are no disclaimers in that passage.
  
  The other thing is that, and I don't care who you are, what is considered 'moral' in the bedroom is not something you want to start judging because odds are near 100% what ever you are doing, even with your wife, is considered immoral by someone else.
  
  For example, oral sex is illegal and immoral in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
  
  In fact, the bible is very clear that sex should only be performed for procreation and I am 100% sure that these morality police are not living up to that part of the bible.
  
  It astounds me how the far right of religon can throw out bible quotes to support thier opinions yet choose to overlook other passages.
  Hey Rick, try reading the whole bible some time.
  
  - Pliskin October 2, 2008 10:47PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (3) 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.
  - Apologies to Rick
    
    My last sentence was meant towards the other side of this argument, not you.
    
    - Pliskin October 2, 2008 11:44PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
  - I agree
    
    Pliskin (Snake?),
    
    Of course you're right that sex is a personal matter that is no one else's concern because it harms no one else. "Live and let live" is a pretty good basis for morality, in my view, precisely because its basis is respect for other humans,and not obedience to god's law. Clearly theists don't see it that way. To them "good" is doing what god says, "evil" is not doing what god says. How an act affects (or doesn't affect) other people is irrelevant to them. "Live and let live" is NOT the basis of religionist morality.
    
    I believe that most people choose religionist morality 1) because it requires less thought, responsibility and effort to do what your told than it does to decide right and wrong for yourself, and to live with the consequences, and 2) because it can be used to justify personal prejudices (i.e. homophobia) and give them divine support. Hence people cite bible passages that support their views, while ignoring (or "interpreting" others that don't. Often, people don't form beliefs because of what the bible says, they interpret the bible to support their preconceived beliefs. And the bible lends itself well to this kind of rationalization by being vague and downright self-contradictory on most issues.
    
    Sid
    
    - SidAirfoil October 3, 2008 7:22AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
    - Yes, Snake
      
      Ha! You have figured out my cheesy 70's movie nickname. What a great post and I agree with you 110% but I am going to add a couple of things. Hypothetically speaking, what if homosexuality IS evil? So what? I don't believe that myself but if you do, how does it really affect you? (not you Sid)
      
      My personal opinion is that so many things like this, both religious in nature and not, is really fueled by fear of the unknown and a lack of confidence.
      
      For example, if you are strong in your Christian faith, what do you have to lose by gaining a better understating of Islam or Buddhism? I have traveled extensively all over the world and with each journey, I gain a greater understanding of the world and it's people but traveling abroad only enhances my love for my country. It doesn't make me want to move there.
      
      I believe there is fear behind homophobia for most people. If you are secure in who you are, what does it matter?
      
      Fear may be the most crippling disease in the world: fear of homosexuals, fear of other cultures, fear of other races, fear of other religions and most of all, fear of change. Fear robs people of the most wonderful parts of the human experience.
      
      - Pliskin October 3, 2008 9:32PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (3) 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.
    - Live and let live?
      
      Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. It is the opposite of respect, sympathy and solidarity.
      But on the question of gay sex. It is real simple, if you are a religious person, most likely your religion speaks against sin and cherry picking passages from ancient texts won't change that.
      Since I am non religious and don't have to worry about "sins" I can base my moral decisions on the questions and values I have about respect, sympathy and solidarity. In that sense, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals they feel love, attraction, loneliness, despair of rejection and all the other things that come with passion and love, whether good or bad.
      Do what your heart tells you to do in questions of love; did no one learn anything from Shakespeare?
      
      - mangueken November 22, 2008 4:52AM
      
      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.
      - Yes, Live and Let Live
        
        Mangueken,
        
        I'm glad we agree on the non-sinfulness of homosexuality.
        
        But you also said "Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. ".
        
        I disagree. "Live and Let Live" does not preclude stopping one person from hurting another. There is no moral law that says one must tolerate gross immorality. "Live and Let Live" is a universal principle, not just my personal one. It applies not just to myself, but to other as well. When I accept it as my principle, I acknowledge that EVERYONE has the right to "Live", as well as the responsibility to "Let Live". If someone harms another without justification, then they violate the social contract and may be stopped/punished.
        
        Granted, on an individual level, one is not morally REQUIRED to intervene (If one fears for one's own safety, for example), but one is morally PERMITTED to do so. But on a social level, a civil society is both permitted and required to intervene. It is for this reason that invading Iraq was a moral thing to do (although not handled particularly well). But that's another topic.
        
        I reiterate. If everyone swore the following oath, we would need no other moral law. "Everyone has the right to do whatever they want." This oath demands that my rights be respected, and also demands that I respect the same rights of others. In a free society nothing else is necessary. To call homosexuality a sin, and to try and stop it, violates this simple idea.
        
        Sid
        
        - SidAirfoil November 24, 2008 9:10AM
        
        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.
- Judgement
  
  The law of the old testament is not valid anymore. No longer is it to be part of society to kill homosexuals, kill adulterers, kill children for dishonoring parents. We have found that Libery best reflects the life given to us, to live in that. Judgement is for observing life to make decisions on survival, pleasure, happiness. Each is to make these decisions upon the reflection of his own concience, and living true to that.
  Thank you for your thoughts.
  
  - Andante931 November 19, 2008 9:47PM
  
  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.
- The Rationalistic assumption
  
  You assume several things in your post. You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not, that rational truth is higher then spiritual or religious truth and thus that those who believe that Bible is the literal word of God are then irrational with the implications that such people are wrong and absurd. I would ask you why is so called rational truth higher then religious truth? How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective? What objective exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? I don't bring up these questions to spite you, and though I may be coming off sarcastic I want to make it clearly known that I am not I am just trying to respond to your argument.
  Peace,
  Spencer
  
  - Periannath December 29, 2008 10:39AM
  
  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.
  - Rationalism vs. religionism
    
    Periannath said:
    
    "You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not..."
    
    Yes I do. Rational truth, as you call it, is based on sensory-perceptual evidence that can be observed, analyzed, discussed, and debated. Those are things that the human mind is excellent at doing. Rational moral truth is based on the observation that people are all basically the same, that they have the same fundamental physical, psychological, and spiritual needs (by "spiritual" I do NOT mean, religious or supernatural. I merely mean needs that are not physical). "A rational "Live-and-Let-Live" morality is based on the observation that people thrive when left to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else. Hence homosexuality is NOT immoral. These observations can be made by anyone, and are clearly demonstrable whether we consider them on an individual level or on a societal level.
    
    In contrast, Religious truth is based on faith (i.e. belief WITHOUT evidence). I do think that people who believe that the bible is the literal word of god ARE irrational (at least in that one aspect of their lives). One can only believe the literalness of the bible by ignoring the immense body of historical and scientific evidence that utterly contradicts that assertion. It's not enough to believe something very strongly. Your belief must be plausible, supported by the evidence, and not explicable by a simpler, more plausible explanation. I would think that the existence of so many faiths in the world each claiming mutually contradictory moralities would give pause to theists who think that their particular moral biases are the "right" ones. Do you think you were just lucky to be born into a Christian society while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., were unluckily born into the "wrong" ones?
    
    You ask "How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective?" Well, how is religious truth objective when it is ALSO the product of the human mind? The fact that you deny that your beliefs are the product of human minds doesn't change the fact that they are. The bible was written, rewritten, altered, edited, interpreted, reinterpreted by PEOPLE. How many different versions of the Christian bible exist today? Why were some gospels removed by the Council of Nicea? What about the 80% of the human race that don't believe in the new testament? And I haven't even begun to list the myriad scientific proofs against literalism. The only way you can believe in the literalness of the bible in the face overwhelming evidence that it's not literally true is if you are willfully blind. And I believe that willful blindness is irrational and dangerous. Men of faith flew planes into skyscrapers on 9/11. Faith scares me.
    
    Lastly you ask "What objective [evidence] exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? " I just barely started to list the evidence above. There is much more. But it doesn't matter. You are the one making the claim that the bible is literally true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Given the thousands of different creation myths, moral systems and "bibles" that have existed since the beginning of the human race, it is incumbent upon you to prove that yours is fact while all others are/were fiction. Of course, since your beliefs are faith-based not evidence-based, I'm not sure why you would even want to "prove" the validity of yours by presenting evidence. Proving it with objective evidence, even if you could do so, would turn your faith into science.
    
    Sorry to be so wordy. But I'm as passionate about my beliefs as I assume you are about yours.
    
    Sid
    
    - SidAirfoil December 29, 2008 4:17PM
    
    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.
    - Begging the Question
      
      "'You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not...' Yes I do."
      
      You never came to respond to my critique; your concept that rational truth is objective and spiritual-religious truth is not and that thus rational truth is more correct is an assumption. You even concur that it is subjective but respond not by defending its objectivity but continuing to reinforce the idea of the apparent subjectivity of spiritual truth. In this case, for the purposes of argument, it can be said that both rational and spiritual truth are subjective and there is not basis to argue that rational truth is higher or more true because it also falls to the realm of subjectivity.
      You cannot argue...
      1.) Rational objective and spiritual truth is subjective
      2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
      3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
      when you concur that rational truth is not objective, the logic fails.
      Essentially when you answer "Yes I do" assume, you are begging the question. You are assuming the thing to which you are trying to prove.
      
      Furthermore, you assume that human beings are excellent rational beings. A capacity for rationality does not guarantee rational excellency. In reality most people are irrational and base choices off of not what one would could call rational and logical reasoning but on emotive persuasions and fanciful constructions that care less with the matter of fact, as is, and more with the matter of desire, what is wanted from their self. The idea then, that people are primarily rational is also unfounded.
      
      Following, leaving morality to the tending of human rational thought alone is foolish. It lacks good sense and sound judgment. It is of no coincidence that the founders of our nation invoked divine aid in much of the process of the framing of the constitution among a great many things. Congress opens in prayer with purpose. Even many of the central principles of American constitutional government are founded in Judeo-Christian principles because these principles were thought of as special revelation, truth give to man from God that is superior to any form of truth gained through rational thought. Even the Enlightenment thought of Descartes only justified the veracity of sensory evidence from which rational thought can deduct from because God guarantees the truthfulness of certain perceptions. Without this guarantee there is not trust that anything we perceive has any basis in actual, objective reality. The wise choice is not to leave moral truth to the realm of human rational alone.
      
      More on this but I have to go now.
      Peace Sid,
      Spencer
      
      - Periannath January 1, 2009 4:53PM
      
      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.
      - Finger. Pie. Stir.
        
        Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying.
        
        ...The Catholic church recognizes that homosexuality is not a sin... it is only a sin to act out the homosexuality...ness.
        
        If you say you believe in "God", and then call what "God" made imperfect, don't you think that's defeating the purpose? Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made? If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen.
        
        So, by you saying that homosexuality is a sin, you're completely destroying the very "God" you claim to believe in.
        
        Which doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Especially since you're the one who believes in him.
        
        Last, but not least, that wasn't a case of "begging the question".
        
        - SocialistBetty January 1, 2009 11:21PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.
        
        "by nature objects of wrath" part 1
        
        "Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying."
        Actually, I am not saying this. Nothing I said should have given this conclusion however I apologize if it did. Realativly speaking, all people are capable of morality. However, we are only capable in as much as we respond to the Good given to us, not out of our own selves since man is by nature sinful (Romans 5). Though I understand you may not agree with the Scriptures totally pherhaps we can share the common ground that no person is perfect, people are selfish and are not 100% good. This is comparable to what the Scriptures talk about that people have a sin nature that we have inherited through Adam by which we have an innate tendency to bend toward sin, e.g. selfishness, unloving heart and behavior etc. Since the Scriptures teach that God is reaching out to all people everywhere I actually believe that people may be able to act morally good in the true sense if they are responding out of grace given them and by the activity of the Holy Spirit in their soul whether they are Christian or not. There is even the posiblity of man acting morally good out of an original goodness of man that has not been totaly corrupted by the marr of sin. Even beside this sinful people may act morally good at a civil level, though not neccsarily in accordance with absolute good. That is why I say realativly speaking there is moral good that people who are not believrs can do. Even the good that Christians do, that nonbelievers supposdly cannot due, is the result of the goodness of God at work in them and not any more claimable by that person then any other. If it wasn't for God they wouldn't be any different. I hope that wasn't too confusing.
        
        In your second argument you assume many things. You assume that homosexuals are a class of people that have biological cause to their homosexuality. In other words, they are "born with it." Not only is this unverifiable it is not were good science is pointing. Obviously it is not a choice. As I have wresteled with my own homosexuality I will be the first to say "I did not choose this." But there is not way I was born this way.
        
        You say: "Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made?"
        Can't we I ask you the same question? How do you know someone living a homosexual lifestyle is living according to God's design? We know that it is not so because God has told us so through his Word. (1 Timothy 3:16, Leviticus 18:22)
        
        You say: "If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen."
        
        First off, God created sex and that "mix of chemicals" that all are a part of our sexuality are not sinful. God created sex and he created it good. The falleness of human nature lends what was originally good to all sorts of deviations. The Catholic church (although I am not Roman Catholic) does not teach that a homosexual orientation is sinful but acting on it is, you are correct. But, they do teach that it is an "intrinsic disorder" even an evil. Not that the person is responsible to that sin or evil but that the homosexual orientation is a manifestation of human falleness just like all sin is including deviations such as alcholisim and sexual addicition. The homosexul is a victim to sin like all of us are. Thanks be to God that he has provided a way out of this and brought life to us anew (Romans 5). The Scriptures teach:
        
        "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Ephesians 2:1-5, NIV)
        
        We were by natures objects of wrath but God still loved and loves us. This is preciesly why he gave his son to us that if we believe in him we shall not perish but have everlasting, full life now and later. The fact that all people are imperfect and have inclinations to sin is not a product of God's creative work but of Satan's twisting of the good creation through sin. God did not sin in making any of us but all of us have falleness. Homosexuality is just one of many manifestations of this falleness and like all mankind homosexuals are in need of a savior.
        
        - Periannath January 8, 2009 1:00PM
        
        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.
        
        "by nature objects of wrath" part 2
        
        By saying homosexuaity is a sin I am not destroying God because God did not create homosexuality. This is in part why homosexuality is a strong sign of rebellion against God in a society because it goes exactly against the created order and natural intention of the sexual gift.
        
        Lastly, that was a case of begging the question because he was assuming the thing he was trying to prove, rational truth is higher than spiritual truth. He elaborates, I see, in the next post so I give him credit. Thanks for taking the time to read Betty.
        Peace be with you,
        Spencer
        
        - Periannath January 8, 2009 1:06PM
        
        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.
      - NOT begging the question
        
        I most certainly can and do argue that...
        
        1.) Rational [truth is] objective and spiritual truth is subjective
        2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
        3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
        
        A belief is objective if it conforms to the facts of reality independent of how anyone interprets it. Like it or not, reality is what it is regardless of what you and I and any one else thinks about it. The key for humans is to use our senses to gather evidence about reality, and to use our rational minds to interpret that evidence and act upon it. Francis Bacon said, "In order to control nature, you must first obey it" (That may be a paraphrase). This means, among other things, that you can't change the nature of reality simply by interpreting it to your liking, or denying the facts, or praying real hard for miracles. Reality is. Our minds simply do their best to understand it and act accordingly. In contrast, spiritual truth as you call it is entirely subjective and has no basis whatever in the real world. I don't see why you would argue with this assertion. As a man a faith you should agree that there is no proof for your belief in christ or even god. The nature of faith, of which I assume you are proud, is belief WITHOUT evidence.
        
        The fact that we make mistakes doesn't change any of this. You are trying to argue that our fallibility as humans makes infallible faith necessary as a guard against our emotionalism, our occasional irrationality, and our inevitable errors. Wrong. Our numerous faiths are just as flawed as anything that humans do, you just deny it by claiming that god himself wrote your moral laws. He did not. Fallible people did, and fallible people like you interpret them and reinterpret them until they get the answers they want. Everything that humans do is flawed. But with my system, the flaws can be discovered and fixed through reason. With your system they are attributed to god and become the law for everyone no matter how ridiculous.
        
        The problem is that belief-without-evidence leads to total subjectivity. If you reject reality and the human perception thereof as the final standard for truth, then anything goes. Everyone can believe anything they want regardless of its incompatibility with the facts of objective reality. And this is exactly what we see around the world. Different religious faiths clash violently because they can't clash rationally through discourse. When there is no objective evidence to present in support of your religious, faith-based views, all thats left to do with those who disagree is kill them. So it has been for 5000 years (more probably). The one truth is objective reality. If we all accepted that, it would go a long way towards ending hate an violence in the world. In contrast, purely subjective faith releases our worst demons (metaphorically) and gives them free reign.
        
        You say "Even many of the central principles of American constitutional government are founded in Judeo-Christian principles because these principles were thought of as special revelation, truth give to man from God that is superior to any form of truth gained through rational thought." Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian morality is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the US Constitution. Christian morality is based on doing the will of god. Obeying god is good, disobeying is bad. The ten commandments are a list of things that we CANNOT do. The Constitution, in contrast, is based on respect for the rights of the individual human being, not on the will of any god. The Constitution is a list of things that CANNOT BE DONE TO US.
        
        The Constitution has the Bill of Rights, the ten commandments are the Bill of Wrongs.
        
        The fact that these two diametrically opposed moral systems frequently draw the same the conclusions (e.g. that murder is wrong) does not change the fact that they do so for entirely different reasons. To me murder is wrong because it violates the humanity of the victim. To you its wrong because it violates god regardless of the victim.
        
        In short, you can't reject rationalism because humans make mistakes and then accept without question (i.e. on faith) whatever the bible says just because you believe that it's the infallible word of god. There is no rational basis for you to believe that. It's just your claim, and it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. And criticizing my system for being imperfect (which it is) doesn't make yours any better or more reasonable. It just makes it more dangerous.
        
        Sid
        
        - SidAirfoil January 2, 2009 9:15AM
        
        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.
        
        faith and reason
        
        Peace Sid,
        
        You have changed your argument, I see, or perhaps more precisely clarified it from the apparent fallacies I lying there in. Now that we are on the same page we can move forward.
        
        I want you to know before I continue that I have no desire to belittle you or make you feel inferior because of your lack of faith, or the faith that you do have in rationalism. Sometimes I find these forums and online means of communication tiresome. I don't really know you, and you don't really know me. This isn't the most conducive to honest communication and dialogue. My overarching aim is to wish you the best in all that life has for you. When I write peace I do not write it as a mere triviality but as sincere request for peace to come upon you and your life. With this I shall continue.
        
        As arguments do often rest on premises so does yours. Your premise is "Rational truth is objective and spiritual truth is subjective." I beg to differ.
        
        Rational truth can be objective and it can be subjective it is not more bound in objectivity or subjectivity than spiritual truth or faith faith, for that matter. Rational truth can be objective as you argue, when it bases itself self out of conclusions drawn from the real including that which is material is this world and in the whole universe. Even here though, there is a principle assumption that is "believed," that is faith is necessary for reason to be valid objectively because we must assume, or believe with faith, that the human senses are actually and able to perceive the real and that the human mind is able to make sense out what is perceived in a manner that is true. This basic premise must be believed for rational thought to have any air of possible objectivity. Rational thought, is therefore, always dependent on a certain amount of faith.
        
        If faith is as you say, belief without evidence then it is a belief in something independent of any concept of the real, it is subjective and all rational truth is therefore subjective. This is a primary problem in metaphysics. The first philosophers to shed off the tradition Aristotelian scholasticism found it necessary to validate reality in faith. Descartes, for instance doubted that our perception of anything is guaranteed except that which is guaranteed by God. Later philosophers who "dumped" the idea that the real can be perceived because God guarantees it also dumped any notion of objective reality. Objective reality forever became something beyond human grasp nor could any such validation be made of whether there even was an objective reality. David Hume advanced this concept when he argued that humans merely receive impressions from the outside and makes sense of them internally through laws of association. This assemblage and putting together of external impressions is an entirely subjective feat. Immanuel Kant further advanced this when he said that our only understanding of reality is through our experiences. These experiences he called phenomenon and so humans a a phenomenological attempt at truth but had no access to what he called noumenal reality or what we know as objective reality. He said that it is the mind that shapes reality and not reality the mind since we put our thoughts together through our categories of understanding. Other philosophers and anthropologists have even yet further argued that these categories of understanding are primarily determined by our language, such as is argued in the sapir-whorf hypothesis. The point of my detour through some history of modern philosophy is to show that without God and without faith there is not real. If any of these Godless, worldviews are adopted then there is no objective reality metaphysically for there to be an objective truth let alone an objective truth that happens to be rational. Therefore, in either case, whether we can reach an objective reality guaranteed by God or cannot rational and reason is subjective or dependent on faith. Before I move on I would like to define more precisely what subjective and objective actually mean:
        "Objective: Having actual existence or reality."
        "Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world"
        Both from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition
        
        - Periannath January 15, 2009 5:17PM
        
        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.
        
        faith and reason part 2
        
        If rational truth is not subjective and it can be validated by this faith, a faith which requires God, then it is dependent on a spiritual truth. If this spiritual truth is merely subjective than anything built on its foundation must also be subjective. In this case there is again, no objective rational truth. However, if it is objective than rational truth can also be objective. Therefore, if rational truth is objective so must be spiritual truth. This is not to disregard the reality that each human does have different experiences and phenomenon and that our minds make sense often with our language and other systems of the world around us. However, there is an objective reality we can know because of God. God is just an abstract exterior concept that as a principle guarantees our true witness of reality but he himself is involved in this world. He was involved as its Creator, sustains all things and came into it most definitively in the person of Jesus Christ. Spiritual truth has a basis in reality. It is not just human belief but human belief in a real God, in the real person of Jesus Christ.
        "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."- (Hebrews 11:1, KJV)
        
        Faith is evidence. It is evidence not of that which is not real but that which, though unseen, is real.
        
        Notice that I have stated that rational truth, if it is able to be objective, can be objective. It is not always. By the nature of reason it should be sound but by the nature of the humans who reason we know it is often not. We are limited. Rational truth cannot be limited to only materialism or scientisim. That is rational truth is based in the real but that does not mean it is only based in matter or in the stuff we can see, taste, hear, touch etc. Nor is it limited to only being correct if it is scientific and is discerned through the scientific method. Spiritual truth can be perfectly rational but cannot be demanded to bow to the narrow views of materialism or scientisim or naturalism or other human philosophies. This does not mean that spiritual truth is automatically right because it is spiritual but it does mean that spiritual truth can be rational.
        
        You are correct in asserting that anything humans do is flawed. Including our rational minds. Why is it logical that our flawed system of rational should pluck out our flaws when it in itself is flawed. The Word of God however, is from God and through written through men is from him and perfect. Furthermore, faith is also a gift from God. Truth comes from God, without him there is not truth. Truth begins with him not with man. Man is not the measure, God is. That God has spoken to us is how truth comes to us, in the Bible. This truth came through the real, in real societies, in real men and woman in time and history. Likewise did Christ, the Word made flesh. This is the difference between Christianity and all other religions. As Bishop Fulten Sheen said, "If religion is mans search for God Christianity is God's search for man." We can't assume that all religions have the same origin as if they are all essentially the same when in reality they are not. The Bible did not come from man but from God. The pain, unrest and warfare that has spurred from religious conflict is truly tragic. We should be able to be rational but that does not mean that faith is irrational.
        
        The Ten Commandments are not the opposite of the U.S. Constitution, it historically undeniable fact of their and other Biblical influence on the U.S. Constitution. The summary of the commandments is not do not but do, do love God and do love your neighbor. They are laws that deal with God and people. To kill or murder is wrong in Christian faith because it is a sin against God and against that persons humanity. God does stuff with purpose, including give his laws. God hates murder because he loves all people. He wants us to trust him and obey him out of faith and trust but that doesn't mean that because we should obey him because we love and trust him that his laws have not reason, quite the opposite. God is definer of justice itself and he is the source of every reason for justice as he is the source of reason. Biblical faith is not irrational or foolhardy.
        
        ""To God belong wisdom and power;
        counsel and understanding are his." Job 12:13, NIV
        
        Again, peace Sid,
        Spencer
        
        - Periannath January 15, 2009 5:18PM
        
        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.
    - More begging the question and Non Sequitur
      
      "Rational moral truth is based on the observation that people are all basically the same, that they have the same fundamental physical, psychological, and spiritual needs (by "spiritual" I do NOT mean, religious or supernatural. I merely mean needs that are not physical)."
      
      This understanding of human sameness or shared anthropology is incomplete precisely because you leave out the actual spiritual element of man yet give the illusion that it is included. The idea that all people are basically the same, i.e.. created equal (again something only guaranteed by God), is a Biblical idea. One could suppose that in a modern rationalistic society why would we put so much stock in a principle from a "dusty old book?" Perhaps because this dusty old book is right. You include the physical, biological or bodily part of man (Gk. Soma) and the psychological part (Gk.psyche), but by defining spiritual by something that it is not you actually fail to give an adequate definition which is to state which that thing is. Equating spiritual needs to "merely...needs that are not physical" fails to distinguish between what is actually a spiritual need and what could also be a emotional need or a psychological need which can also not be considered physical in the biological sense. The implication of this vaguely communicated idea of spiritual need actually leaves out the real essence of spiritual need. This is necessary to fit the paradigm of "live and let live" because such a structure of apparent moral law fails to account for the totality of the human experience not just in the individual human experience but in the communal as well. It is incapable of doing so because the motive is not the ultimate concern for the common good but an excuse of the individual to unconcern them self with the good of the other. As the concept "live and let live" is shaped by the humanistic framework of individuals operating as laws unto themselves, it fails. When, as was originally meant in the phrase "live and let live," it is to literally do unto others as you would have them do unto you there is a change for hope. Here the common good and the good of the neighbor is established. It is not about how little should be done (tolerate, mind your own business about the life of others) but what should be done (how can I love my neighbor in this circumstance, what does it mean to love my neighbor?). This is the a central teaching of Jesus Christ and of Christianity. The modern evolution of the idiom however, has scarce remembrances of this original meaning and fails precisely because, again, it does not take into account the breadth of human experience both individually and communally (and is unequipped to address the full experience because its own ethos makes such parts and judgments of others off limits) and has no concern for the common good (because likewise the good cannot be established because the ethos of the modern "live and let live" make such judgments impossible). I should clarify by judgments I don't intend to imply being judgmental but rather only the ability to judge whether the actions, motives and intentions of the other are morally right or wrong according to the Good.
      Compare:
      "Live and let live, i.e. Do as you would be done by..."-1678, English Proverbs
      "Live and let live is a pretty good philosophy. If the guy in the next lane isn't buckled up, why not leave him alone?" (2001, Washington Times)
      Both quotes acquired from the The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs.
      [See also my other post, "Christ...fully reveals man to himself."]
      
      Secondly, you further beg the question, i.e. provide a circular argument, by stating that live and let live is good because watching people live and let live (without the ability to harm others) is good because you have observed it so. You then conclude, therefore, that homosexuality is not morally wrong. This is Non Sequitur; where the logic of your agrument does not follow from the premise to the conclusion offered.
      
      Peace and Happy New Year,
      Spencer
      
      - Periannath January 2, 2009 12:09AM
      
      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.
- please elaborate
  
  "(also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence)"
  
  Can you elaborate on the above statement?
  
  You say first that there is no objective evidence but continued to say there is objective evidence?
  
  - Questions are the door to knowledge April 19, 2009 2:55PM
  
  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.
- Don't respect conservative Christians, put them to this TEST!
  
  If Christian conservatives were sincere in their condemnation of homosexuals on BIBLICAL biblical grounds, as I show on my http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/God&gays.html they would be just as conscientious about applying the bible 's teaching that those who don't obey the sabbath demands that are repeated forcefully and frequently in "God's Word". How many rich Republicans would support such "Christian conservatives" for public offices, if they were demanding that people not work, or shop, or go to entertainment events one out of seven days every week?!?
  
  In contrast to a few rare and obscure references to homosexuality in the O.Testament, the sabbath command is one of the TEN GREAT COMMANDMENTS, and the penalty required by the bible is DEATH.
  
  How many show the sincerity of their view of "God's Word" by their insistance that people either obey the 4th commandment or DIE?!?
  
  (I would have asked, "should homosexuals be treated as parriahs?" (even if you view it as one of the MANY behaviors condemned by the bible)
  
  - Rayosun September 10, 2009 4:47PM
  
  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.
- is homosexulity a sin?
  
  Well you know how to use big words but didn't make a point I agree with the bible and both verses you quoted and believe that a man and a women should be married not two men or two women let's think about it we are suppose to reproduce two men can't do that or two women.I sit wrong well that is an matter of opinion and mine is that it is wrong I don't want a queer for a son ,or daughter.
  
  - popabear November 4, 2009 9:36AM
  
  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.

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