I've never understood why homosexuality is a sin.

Can you explain why, logos?

[quote]I've never understood why homosexuality is a sin.

Can you explain why, logos?[/quote]

It dishonors the marriage that was set up by God. God designed men and women so that when married they become one flesh (sex, obviously). I would be convinced that homosexuality is wrong simply because of biology and anatomy classes. lol.

[quote=noor][quote=American Atheist]I've never understood why homosexuality is a sin.[/quote]

Don't you know? Because the bible says it's a sin. God wants gays/lesbians to be stoned to death, but we aren't supposed to hate them.[/quote]

Yeah, I know.

But I wanted an explanation on why the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't see what's wrong with 2 people that care about each other.

[quote]But why can't marriage between two people of the same sex be ok with god?

Men can become "one flesh" (anal sex). But I don't think sex should be the reason for being able to get married.

It's about love, right?

Or are you saying that homosexuals can't get married because they can't reproduce?[/quote]

I don't know exactly why God created marriage the way he did. But I believe that he did define marriage as between a man and a woman when he created woman out of man. He didn't create man of out man. Also although men can have "sex" it seems obvious to me that this is simply not how the body is designed. Also yes, I would say since gays cannot reproduce is another indication that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Why is it that Christians (conservatives) are almost always the ones that claim homosexuality is bad? You don't get this from Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. often. Christian politicians are usually the ones who vote against gay rights also. And young Christians are usually the ones doing the anti-gay violence. Please read the news.

[quote=transientangent]I think it wrong to generalize and say that all Christians are homophobes. I know plenty who aren't. [/quote]

In my first post on this thread I clearly stated that religion is not the only reason for anti-gay violence. It seems to be a dominant force behind it, though.

[quote=logos][quote]Really? They aren't violent?

Shooting in gay bar

Gay shooting

Vandalism

Old article - violence against gays is rising

I could compile a much longer list of news articles on hate crimes against gays/lesbians.[/quote]

Doesn't say anything about them being Christians ... why do you assume it's talking about Christians?

[quote]No one ever said that Christianity is the sole reason for this anti-gay prejudice. I myself know people who couldn't care less about religion and are against gay marriage. But Christianity IS one of the main reasons for anti-gay prejudice. There are atheists who may be against gays, but their influence is nothing compared to the number of Christians who want to ban gays.[/quote]

They are not a main reason for anti-gay prejudice. Sure we vote against them. Doesn't mean we have a prejudice. Your statement is completely unfounded. And please no one bring up that godhatesfags.com stuff ... those people claiming to be Baptists disgust me.

[/quote]

There are more gay Christians than there are gay atheists. And you people get divorced more often to..

lol i was thinking about G-d when I said fictional character..

[quote]Why is it that Christians (conservatives) are almost always the ones that claim homosexuality is bad?[/quote]
Why is it always the atheists who distort the truth about such an issue? Muslims condemn homosexuality as bad too, but yet, this is not mentioned.

[quote]You don't get this from Hindus,[/quote]
Except for Hindu nationalists. According to Paola Bacchetta, a professor of world religions, "Queerphobia is one of the pillars of Hindu nationalism."

Except for that time when they banned a few movies (Fire, Girlfriend) from cinemas for "religious insensitivity."

Except for the fact that in India, homosexual activity is illegal, and the punishment for such "carnal intercourse" ranges from ten years to life in prison.

Except for the fact that Manusmriti, one of the law codes of the Hindu religion, gives several penalties for various types of homosexual relations.

Would you like to take that statement back?

[quote]Buddhists,[/quote]
You mean those Buddhists who specifically prohibit homosexuals from becoming consecrated?

Or the Chinese Buddhists who believed that homosexuality was a sin punishible by one of the nine hells?

Etc.

[quote]atheists, etc. often.[/quote]
If there were atheists against homosexuality, it would be very odd. Atheists have no real basis to call anything wrong outside of their own personal sentiment.

Atheists usually tend to be more liberal.

[quote]Christian politicians are usually the ones who vote against gay rights also.[/quote]
How many atheist politicians are there in Congress? How many Muslims, or Hindus?

That's simply an unfair comparison.

[quote]And young Christians are usually the ones doing the anti-gay violence. Please read the news.[/quote]
And yet, ironically, you haven't yet posted an example of an article that stated Christianity as the obvious cause of the violence.

[quote=Dave_G]There are more gay Christians than there are gay atheists.[/quote]

And maybe that has to do with the fact there there more Christians period?

[quote]And you people get divorced more often to..[/quote]

And your point being? do you happen to know why we get divorced? I should think you want to know that if you wanted to play the 'hypocrite' card.

[quote]And that unicorns are not real. (Job 39:39)[/quote]

did you have another verse in mind? Because there is no Job 39: 39? Job 30 ends at verse 30.

Oh and you're not a KJVo athiest are you?

[quote]When I was a Christian I used the KJV and I still quote it when I tell verses.[/quote]

Yes, well I have about a dozen different translations, and I use whichever is closest at hand(which usually isnt the KJV).

[quote]And yes I meant 39:9[/quote]

ah okay Got it:

[quote]Would the wild ox be willing to serve you? Would it spend the night by your feeding trough?[/quote]

Now what was that about unicorns?

[quote=Dave_G]The KJV says unicorns.[/quote]

And I dont put too much stock in the KJV.

[quote=P-Dunn][quote]I will when you demonstrate that the Tooth Fairy is a fictional character.[/quote]
Certainly.

The Tooth Fairy was never actually intended as a literal figure. It was merely invented out of amusement for children. The only people who really believe in the Tooth Fairy are children who haven't yet been told by their parents that there actually is no tooth fairy. We have no legitimate evidence of the Tooth Fairy, period.

Your turn.

___________________________________________________

OK the point is simple if something hasn't been proven
it's better NOT to believe in it. OK example:

Someone says there is an invisible fairy out in space controlling the universe. I ask why I should believe that, and my only answer is:
Well....it hasn't been dis-proven has it... So should I believe a fairy is controlling the universe after all prove there isn't one. Thanks you helped me invent a religion.

[quote]And that unicorns are not real. (Job 39:39)[/quote]
Idiot. The word "unicorn" literally means "one horn," and only after the word was invented, it came to be associated with the fictional creature. This word used to be used to describe things like rhinoceroses.[/quote]

No the word unicorn literally means unicorn. Now prove that the Earth is flat:(Rev. 20:8)( Isaiah 40:22 )

And why did G-d create evil? I(Isaiah 45:7)

[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote=Dave_G][. Now prove that the Earth is flat:(Rev. 20:8)( Isaiah 40:22 )[/quote]

Rev: 20:8:

[quote]and will go out to decive the nations at the four corners of the earth, God and Magog, to gather for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea[/quote]

I see nothing to indicate a flat earth. The phrase 'four corners of the earth' is almost certainly used to mean the 'whole earth.' In fact its still used today to mean just that.

Isiah 40:22

[quote]God is enthroned above the spheere of the earth; its inhabitiants are like grasshoppers, he streaches out the heavens like thin cloth and spreads them out like a tent to live in.[/quote]

Didnt I already school you on this one earlier in the other thread?

[quote]And why did G-d create evil? I(Isaiah 45:7)[/quote]

[quote]I form light and create darkness
I make success and create disaster
I, the LORD, do all these things[/quote]

I see nothing about God creating evil here. [/quote]

OK tell me witch Bible version is right and I'll use it. THX

OK lets see the Hebrew definition of evil:

er ra` rah

from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.)

Why would God make something like that?

Create:
arb bara' baw-raw'

a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):-- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote=Dave_G]OK lets see the Hebrew definition of evil:

er ra` rah

from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.)

Why would God make something like that?[/quote]

Great now that you've looked up the word I'd like you to point out a couple of things:

first note that the word ra can, in fact mean evil(as in moral evil), however it can also mean simply calamity or disgress and other things that dont necessarly equate with moral evil. In fact it used in both senses throughout the OT.

Now to tell in which sense its intented here, lets look at the rest of the verse. Spacificly the first line "I form light and create darkenss." 'light' and 'darkness' are intented as oppisits. Therefore its reasonable to assume that the second half was intented to be oppisets as well.

So now we take a look at the Hebew word for 'success.' The word is a well known one: shalom, which is probably better translated as 'peace' or 'prosparity.' But never is it used in the sense of moral goodness.

So the best conclusion is that the word ra here is being used in the sense of 'calamity' or 'disaster.' Now then as to why God would do so I ask: Is calamity always unjustified? Was it wrong for us to bring disaster to Natzi Germany? [/quote]

If he didn't create it there would be no Nazi Germany.

[quote=Dave_G]If he didn't create it there would be no Nazi Germany.[/quote]

You really love silly metaphors huh? You know what you said basically is the equivalent of comparing apples with no applies and saying no applies taste better. You can't compare nothing with something and conclude nothing would be better then something, that is meaningless. Now give us something that isn't a begged question, ok?

Crystal

[quote]No the word unicorn literally means unicorn.[/quote]
The word used in the Hebrew is re'em. This has been translated into a variety of words, all of which mean "one horn." The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).

Look, the only reason why think "unicorn" is a silly word is because it was [i]later[/i] ascribed to the fanciful horse.

[quote]Now prove that the Earth is flat:(Rev. 20:( Isaiah 40:22 )[/quote]
There is no word for "sphere" in Hebrew.

[quote]Or more accurately the word for 'circle' can also mean 'sphere.'[/quote]
It could, but it could also mean "flat disk."

I think it's largely irrelevant, since the language of the Bible isn't explicit about this sort of thing.

[quote=logos][quote]But why can't marriage between two people of the same sex be ok with god?

Men can become "one flesh" (anal sex). But I don't think sex should be the reason for being able to get married.

It's about love, right?

Or are you saying that homosexuals can't get married because they can't reproduce?[/quote]

I don't know exactly why God created marriage the way he did. But I believe that he did define marriage as between a man and a woman when he created woman out of man. He didn't create man of out man. Also although men can have "sex" it seems obvious to me that this is simply not how the body is designed. Also yes, I would say since gays cannot reproduce is another indication that marriage should be between a man and a woman.[/quote]

the main issue of "pro-gay marriage" isn't necessarily marriage; the issue is more about equal rights as heterosexual married couples. a lot of laws will prevent a couple who have been together for many, many years from being able to see eachother if one becomes sick in the hospital, or claiming social security after one passes away.
personally, as a gay person, i dont care about the whole "definition" of christian marriage. i care about the [i]equality[/i]. the second marriage became a governmental institution is the second it also gave up its right to be religious.