This is also the same "God" who said to kill girls who whernt heard yelling for help when being raped...

And the guy, who made a commandment not to kill people and yet he wiped out cities with storms of fire and flooded the planet...

I got more...

the bible also says that someone who cannot see should be killed too.

So are all blind people damned too?

ridesnowbrdr wrote: the bible also says that someone who cannot see should be killed too.

And there you have it.  The Bible, read slowly, does provide some support for an argument that god is against homosexuality, but not nearly as much as some people claim.  The "anti-homo" verses are quite vague compared to many other verses.  Yet it is the homo-verse that gets all the attention, both OT and NT.

Many christians of strong faith conclude that homosexuality is a very serious sin, based on relatively vague scripture, yet casually ignore some very clear and specific rules.

So - is homosexuality a damnable sin?  You better hope not, because if homosexuality is that serious, then so are many other sins that most people commit on a regular basis.

I didn't find anything exactly on point, Linus, but I do know this little tidbit about blindness:

Lev 21:18 and Lev 22:22

(I <3 Leviticus)

A-5 - those verses don't strike me as all that clear, relatively speaking.

What does it mean to "lie with a man as with a woman"?  Isn't that impossible by definition?  I'll need more explanation - does it include kissing?

And since I am a lesbian woman, am I excused?  All the verses mention men only...

And the Corinthian verses that say "homosexual offenders" say "effeminates" in some English translations.  I don't know what the original says.

So all of those verses combine, for me, to say "don't do icky stuff", but I don't get a clear prohibition.

But more importantly - notice how in Corinthians homosexual offenders are mentioned right next to adulterers and idolaters?  And if you check the surrounding verses in Leviticus, you will find a variety of prohibitions against all kinds of things.

Yet, we have a proposed constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage, but no proposed amendment against adultery or idolatry or sex with women on their period or disrespecting one's parents.  The biblical prohibition on those activities is much clearer than the apparent prohibition on homosexuality, but it is homosexuality that gets all the press.

Why is that?

A-5 08 wrote: Just because people dissagree doesn't mean they can't live side by side. ... If you are not a Christian then, you are not bound by Christian beliefs.

My new favorite Christian.

Jack Carver wrote: Clark Kent wrote: And what, pray tell, is the purpose of religion? To get the good seats in the afterlife.

That's not very noble...   In fact, it sounds rather selfish.  Not a club I want to belong to.

Pray for what - that I also become selfish?

As I understand it, there is limited room in Heaven.  Wouldn't the Christian thing to do be to let somebody else take your spot, instead of hogging it for yourself?

I stand for old ladies on the bus - I think the same principle applies.  Don't you?

Squishey wrote: i took a world religions also. (passed with 87 YAY!) from what i got out of it homosexualty is only a sin in the roman catholic church system.

Your school rocks.

Jack Carver wrote: It's not as selfish as it seems. The key is how you get that good seat in heaven. There are various things you should do, like get other people good seats, help them in this life, things like that.

Let me restate my point.

If your motivation for helping other people is to get into heaven, then you are being selfish - even if you help people along the way.

A true Christian would strive to be Christ-like, regardless of whether you go to heaven or not.  A true Christian wouldn't care whether he was headed to heaven, but would focus on doing right.

Not only is it selfish, but morally immature.  Children (morally immature) have to be bribed/threated with consequences to do the right thing.  Adults that are morally mature do the right thing without need for a specific consequence (or at least try to).

Example - a morally immature 2-year-old will randomly hit people, because he doesn't know/understand/care that it is not nice.  Parents scold (punish), and the child stops hitting because he doesn't like the punishment.  His behavior has changed, but he is still a selfish and morally immature 2-year-old.  The only reason he isn't hitting is because he is afraid of the punishment.

A morally mature adult, on the other hand, will not randomly hit people - not because of fear of punishment (return punch, jail, whatever), but because he knows that it is immoral to do so.

A morally mature person is internally motivated to do the right thing.  A morally IMMATURE person is externally motivated to do the right thing.

Therefore, anybody who does the right thing so that they can get into heaven is the moral equivalent of a 2-year-old.

Helping people, being good, and doing good deeds wont get you into heaven, you get to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior and being baptized and devoting your life to being like Jesus.

now im not going to lie to you and say Christianity is everything, Christians face every situation others do. christian men get addicted to porn, gambling, and adultry, like the rest, unfortunantly its this way. the main problem is they arnt willing to share what they are going threw and, never beat their addiction and it ends up ruining them. they are hypocrites, and glorified ones at that. they comb there hair, shave, dress in their best suit, and head to church with their addiction in their back pocket. it eventualy catches up with them, on some its noticable on others not so much. they always put on a mask when they are around church or church friends, i know because i was like this for about 1 and a half years, addicted to sex. its been more then 2 and a half since then. i do nice things because its my nature not because im selfcentered.

kinda got off topic sorry.

This train derailed quickly.  I think the underlying theme in the New Testament is "love the sinner hate the sin".  I also believe there is plenty of references to what will get you into Heaven and what will keep a "true believer" out, with "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (whatever that is) being the only unforgivable sin (i'll try to remember to post a reference tomorrow if it helps).  Yea, there are references to not inheriting the kingdom of God, but is that Heaven or something else?

I dunno.

__sneaky__ wrote: 1.  This is also the same "God" who said to kill girls who whernt heard yelling for help when being raped... 2.  And the guy, who made a commandment not to kill people and yet he wiped out cities with storms of fire and flooded the planet... 3.  I got more...

1.  I believe that was Allah, but I could be mistaken.

2.  The commandment was against murder and its a misinterpretation.  Premeditation involved in that one.  He told peps in the Old Testament even to establish safe cities for those who killed without premeditation (homicide).

3.  Bring'um.

OK...the reference.

Mark 3:28-29 says (depending on translation) that all sins except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit shall be forgiven.  I thin the King James said that the person guilty of the above would face eternal condemnation, whereas the American Standard said he would have an eternal sin (a little less harsh).

So, in answer to the original question, homosexual acts may be a sin, but forgivable. 

I think you are right on both counts.

And would that make the Witnesses the most Christian of all Christians?

;)

nrthsll1 wrote: __sneaky__ wrote: 1.  This is also the same "God" who said to kill girls who whernt heard yelling for help when being raped... 1.  I believe that was Allah, but I could be mistaken.

You are in fact mistaken.

Deut 22:23-24

Also compare Deut 22:25-29.  OT rules on rape are great.

In general, I encourage everybody to read Deuteronomy and Leviticus cover to cover, even if you can't get around to the rest of the Book.  Good stuff.

Clark Kent wrote: You are in fact mistaken.

Ain't the 1st time.  Betch it will happen again, too.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ah, read it.  (Just the passages above).  There is an assumtion to be made.  An interpretation.  In the case of the damsel in the city wasn't really raped.  She was adultrous.  The reader has to see that the woman in the city can call for help, yet she didn't, which calls into question..."was she being raped?" 

When the entire "law" is read, you see its not a blind charge to kill a woman who doesnt scream when raped, as sneaky's claim seemed to indicate.