It doesn´t matter its a sin and unnatural.
And now here come the "they can´t do anything about it they are born that way" or " a woman in a mans body" waffle
Probably right, but you can say the same for child molesters or manic murderers, they were born that way they can´t help it. can´t help it but it doesn´t make it right!!!
There is quite a bit of difference between a homosexual person and "child molesters or manic murderers", and I don't see any reason why it should be considered a sin. The whole religious argument is flawed, and can be countered with "why did God make them like that then?" As there is no choice. A person doesn't choose to be gay, ergo he must be meant to be like that, and it seems odd that God would doom a person from the start by not giving them a choice.
Likewise, there are ten commandments, 7 deadly sins and many Christian texts say to be saved one merely has to ask God for forgiveness, and then live a good life. I see nothing in any of this that says homosexuality is a sin.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
It doesn´t matter its a sin and unnatural.
And now here come the "they can´t do anything about it they are born that way" or " a woman in a mans body" waffleProbably right, but you can say the same for child molesters or manic murderers, they were born that way they can´t help it. can´t help it but it doesn´t make it right!!!
So you are comparing murderers to homosexuals? Yes I see how that's a well thought out argument.
I also see how you scientifically backed up that statement. Oh Wait, you didn't. Child molesters and murderers (in general) are MADE not born that way. They are psychologically disturbed and cause harm to others.
As for homosexuality being unnatural, perhaps you should take some biology or animal behaviour courses. Homosexuality is present in a number of highly developed mammalian species. But I guess those animals are also sinners in the eyes of god, but Wait, those animals don't have souls, so they can't be sinning. They must just be reacting naturally to some characteristic or behavioral deviance (not used in the negative form) that encourages homosexual behaviour. How could god let this happen among these animals?!!!
Homosexuality is not inborn by any means. If you trace the backgrounds of these people, you will always find that they underwent some sort of trauma that began these unusaul temptations.
Ask yourself, "Do I have a one particular sin that I struggle with more than any other by far?" The answer has been yes for everyone whom I have asked. Homosexuality is just one of these temptations.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you are comparing murderers to homosexuals? Yes I see how that's a well thought out argument.I also see how you scientifically backed up that statement. Oh Wait, you didn't. Child molesters and murderers (in general) are MADE not born that way. They are psychologically disturbed and cause harm to others.
As for homosexuality being unnatural, perhaps you should take some biology or animal behaviour courses. Homosexuality is present in a number of highly developed mammalian species. But I guess those animals are also sinners in the eyes of god, but Wait, those animals don't have souls, so they can't be sinning. They must just be reacting naturally to some characteristic or behavioral deviance (not used in the negative form) that encourages homosexual behaviour. How could god let this happen among these animals?!!!
Name all the homosexual animals you know.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
Homosexuality is not inborn by any means. If you trace the backgrounds of these people, you will always find that they underwent some sort of trauma that began these unusaul temptations.
Granted, after severe trauma SOME people have made a concious or subconcious decision to avoid the opposite sex. But that is not homosexuality, homosexuality is the 'attraction' to the same sex,not the avoidance of the opposite sex.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
Name all the homosexual animals you know.
Homosexuality has been observed in Bonobo chimps, Gorillas Bottlenosed dolphins, Japanese Macaques, Birds ,and many other creatures.
Here are some references if you choose to research it:
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press
Bama, L. (1997, February). Macho rams “take a walk on the wild side”. High Country News, 29, 2.
Kluger, J. (1999, April). The gay side of nature. Time Magazine, 25-27.
Phillips, H. (2002). Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from htttp://www.newscientist.com/news
Vasey, P.L., Chapais, B., & Gathier, C. (1998). Mounting interactions between female Japanese Macaques: testing the influence of dominance and aggression. Ethology, 104, 387-398.
Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology themes and variations (5th ed.). United States: Thompson Learning, Inc.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Granted, after severe trauma SOME people have made a concious or subconcious decision to avoid the opposite sex. But that is not homosexuality, homosexuality is the 'attraction' to the same sex,not the avoidance of the opposite sex.Homosexuality has been observed in Bonobo chimps, Gorillas Bottlenosed dolphins, Japanese Macaques, Birds ,and many other creatures.
Here are some references if you choose to research it:
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press
Bama, L. (1997, February). Macho rams “take a walk on the wild side”. High Country News, 29, 2.
Kluger, J. (1999, April). The gay side of nature. Time Magazine, 25-27.
Phillips, H. (2002). Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from htttp://www.newscientist.com/news
Vasey, P.L., Chapais, B., & Gathier, C. (1998). Mounting interactions between female Japanese Macaques: testing the influence of dominance and aggression. Ethology, 104, 387-398.
Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology themes and variations (5th ed.). United States: Thompson Learning, Inc.
I never said homosexuality meant avoiding the opposite sex. But neither is it when one is attracted to the same sex. It's not necessarily bad to be attracted to the same sex, because this is merely temptation. It is not a bad thing to be tempted. However, it is a bad thing fall into the temptation and commit the sin. Jesus was tempted by Satan but he didn't let himself commit the sin.
But I think you missed the second part of what I said. Everyone struggles with one big temptation that they may or may not fall into. Some are tempted with lustful thoughts, homosexuality, or even murder.
Some homosexuals have convinced themselves that what they're doing is OK. Perhaps it is because of these occurrences with animals having sex with the same gender. If any one tries to put humans on the same level as an animal, that person is very wrong. I have heard of orangutans beating up cats and raping -- yes raping -- them. Also you have to remember that things that are natural have reason. Homosexuality yields no offspring and is thusly without reason. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
I never said homosexuality meant avoiding the opposite sex. But neither is it when one is attracted to the same sex. It's not necessarily bad to be attracted to the same sex, because this is merely temptation. It is not a bad thing to be tempted. However, it is a bad thing fall into the temptation and commit the sin. Jesus was tempted by Satan but he didn't let himself commit the sin.But I think you missed the second part of what I said. Everyone struggles with one big temptation that they may or may not fall into. Some are tempted with lustful thoughts, homosexuality, or even murder.
Awe, the religion defense. Humans are no better than animals. In fact, we just have the fortune of evolving into the smarter of the animals.
You asked me to name homosexual animals, I did and provided research to back my position. You responded with religious dogma. That is not science.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
Also you have to remember that things that are natural have reason. Homosexuality yields no offspring and is thusly without reason. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Your arguements are weak.
God made nature (in your view). Homosexuality occurs in nature. Humans are part of nature.
Of course, if god made animals that have the propensity to act out homosexual behaviour, perhaps your god made a mistake or was wrong, in which case, there would be no god for god is infalable.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I've heard that excuse before, and it obviously doesn't account for people who don't care what other people think, and those who want to make themselves happy.I don't know why this thread is still open. It can't be proven either way.
You can choose to supress or act on impulses, though. It's virtually the same thing. I'm straight as hell, but who are you or anyone else to say that I'm incapable of walking up to a guy that I am physically and emotionally attracted to, and engaging in something with?
You're not me, so there ya have it..
If you are as straight as you say you are than you are incapable of truely doing that. I mean you can, but it would be fake with no attraction or anything. The only way you would be able to do that emotionally is if you aren't as straight as you think you are. You may be Bisexual.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Awe, the religion defense. Humans are no better than animals. In fact, we just have the fortune of evolving into the smarter of the animals.You asked me to name homosexual animals, I did and provided research to back my position. You responded with religious dogma. That is not science.
If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Your arguements are weak.
God made nature (in your view). Homosexuality occurs in nature. Humans are part of nature.
Of course, if god made animals that have the propensity to act out homosexual behaviour, perhaps your god made a mistake or was wrong, in which case, there would be no god for god is infalable.
Religous defense? God is real. He is not religion but truth. Why? Because I am enough spiritually in tuned to actually feel his presence. God created science. He can make it change any way he wants. If you read the bible (which I highly recommend you do before trying to argue the truth with a strong Christian), you will find that it states homosexuality is a sin.
If you read the bible with an open mind and heart and you still don't believe there's a God, try understand this:
You have no way of knowing that God doesn't exist. If God is omnipotent, and omnipotent means more powerful than any of us. God can make it so that we would have no way of knowing that he was there except by faith.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
Religous defense? God is real. He is not religion but truth. Why? Because I am enough spiritually in tuned to actually feel his presence. God created science. He can make it change any way he wants. If you read the bible (which I highly recommend you do before trying to argue the truth with a strong Christian), you will find that it states homosexuality is a sin.If you read the bible with an open mind and heart and you still don't believe there's a God, try understand this:
You have no way of knowing that God doesn't exist. If God is omnipotent, and omnipotent means more powerful than any of us. God can make it so that we would have no way of knowing that he was there except by faith.
Sir, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and it does not prove the existence of God in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the only evidence you can go on is the similarity between passages, and recorded history.
Science is not a creation of God, because it would go against his idea of faith. Science is a creation of man to gain knowledge about the environment in which he lives.
Though Leviticus states "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," there is no proof that this passage is a message from God. Homosexuality IS a sin... in the eyes of the Church only.
Proving the nonexistence of God is not acceptable. I can no more disprove his existence than you can prove his existence. It's a stalemate.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Sir, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and it does not prove the existence of God in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the only evidence you can go on is the similarity between passages, and recorded history.
You're correct, the Bible never actually proves God's existence however it does provide a substantial amount of evidence. But lets say it actually did prove the existence of God. People wouldn't need to believe in him by faith anymore because it would be too obvious, thusly defeating the purpose of our existence. If its obvious that he is there, we would be like robots to him.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Science is not a creation of God, because it would go against his idea of faith. Science is a creation of man to gain knowledge about the environment in which he lives.
I'm referring to the things that happen every day (gravity, electro-negativity). We merely observe these things as laws of nature. Sorry, I don't think I was very clear on that one.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Though Leviticus states "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," there is no proof that this passage is a message from God. Homosexuality IS a sin... in the eyes of the Church only.
Leviticus 18:22? It looks like God's talking. If you look at the beginning of chapter 18, the speaker refers himself: "for, I the Lord am your God."
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Proving the nonexistence of God is not acceptable. I can no more disprove his existence than you can prove his existence. It's a stalemate.
You are again correct that we can't prove God's existence or nonexistence. You don't have to prove truth for it is still true.
Originally posted by Pyropsycho
You're correct, the Bible never actually proves God's existence however it does provide a substantial amount of evidence. But lets say it actually did prove the existence of God. People wouldn't need to believe in him by faith anymore because it would be too obvious, thusly defeating the purpose of our existence. If its obvious that he is there, we would be like robots to him.
The purpose of our existence? God must be an egomaniac to create life for the sole purpose of that life worshipping him. The Bible offers no proof whatsoever. Events like the Great Flood have never been proven.
I'm referring to the things that happen every day (gravity, electro-negativity). We merely observe these things as laws of nature. Sorry, I don't think I was very clear on that one.
Even so, only faith tells you that the universe was created by God.
Leviticus 18:22? It looks like God's talking. If you look at the beginning of chapter 18, the speaker refers himself: "for, I the Lord am your God."
Ah yes.
You are again correct that we can't prove God's existence or nonexistence. You don't have to prove truth for it is still true.
The truth is based on fact, though. There is no evidence to support a "fact" that God exists. I completely disagree with that statement. Truth is based in perception.
Originally posted by yerssot
of course it is, Oswald, it's been here for 2000 years (unaltered even) for a reason 😉
Unaltered? No, no, no. Originally written in ancient hebrew it was then translated to anciant greek and then to ancient latin. The bible has been rewritten and translated countless times. Being as NO language translates perfectly into another, one has to conclude that many bible passages probably bear little resemblance to their original documentation.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Unaltered? No, no, no. Originally written in ancient hebrew it was then translated to anciant greek and then to ancient latin. The bible has been rewritten and translated countless times. Being as NO language translates perfectly into another, one has to conclude that many bible passages probably bear little resemblance to their original documentation.
True, but I believe much of the spirit of the writings has been preserved. It truly is an interesting read if you ever have time.
There are many bibles out there that show the different languages including English for situations where translations may have altered the real meaning. For example, in one bible I've read, it illustrates Jesus' Arabic language when talking about how difficult it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven. Jesus relates this difficulty to either two different things (this is the translation issue). "A camel going through the eye of a needle," or "a rope going through the eye of a needle." In the Arabic language this bible illustrates a very small difference between the words "camel" and "rope".
However, most of the translation issues like this occur in smaller and less important parts of the bible like this one. But the main points are quite clear. The crucifixion of Christ, for example, was with little to no distortion in everything that happened and why as well as Jesus' intentions.