Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[preacher]

what kind of other source do you want? and what kind of confirmation are you looking for? everything in history can be dismissed in your way of thinking. the crusade, world war 1 and 2 can also be dismissed because they all depend on testimonials of people (we only have their words, but not hard evidence). I can even argue that documentaries are fabricated. and the bible is written from multiple sources (more than one person over a long timespan), just compiled into a single book. if you're looking for certainty, it doesn't exist in this world, well, at least not for things as complex as events in the past.

[The Ex-Mormon]

what kind of other source do you want? and what kind of confirmation are you looking for? everything in history can be dismissed in your way of thinking. the crusade, world war 1 and 2 can also be dismissed because they all depend on testimonials of people (we only have their words, but not hard evidence). I can even argue that documentaries are fabricated. and the bible is written from multiple sources (more than one person over a long timespan), just compiled into a single book. if you're looking for certainty, it doesn't exist in this world, well, at least not for things as complex as events in the past.

I mean such sources which were not exposed as fakes; such as the statement of Flavius Josephus about Jesus Christ. E.g. this were:

Jewish or Roman notes or documents.
The statements of real homosexuals, which were Jews or/and Christians; and lived in the time of early christianity.
Research results of scientists who do not belong to any church.

Can you for positions do something like that?
What the Bible concerns:

In a council in the 4th century, something was chosen from the documents disposed at that time and included in the Bible. Many other documents, the Christians also were regarded as sacred, were not selected. Why not? The people who compiled the Bible perhaps because it was more around politics and power; than about religion?

[preacher]

how do humans decide that the texts in the bible are fakes? how do they expose that? what were the criteria to determine whether it's authentic or fake?
one of those documents were just testimonials whose reliability can be questioned. I'm a simple man, so the structure of male and female genitalia already strong enough a testimony about whether homosexuality is right or not.

as for why some books are rejected, the main requirement for a book to be included in the bible, it must contain in it the prophecy about or the story about Jesus. not just diaries of some ancient people.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 43:

how do humans decide that the texts in the bible are fakes? how do they expose that? what were the criteria to determine whether it's authentic or fake?

I think the better question is why do some consider these texts authentic.

one of those documents were just testimonials whose reliability can be questioned. I'm a simple man, so the structure of male and female genitalia already strong enough a testimony about whether homosexuality is right or not.

Ask the gay man how compatible he thinks these parts may be.

as for why some books are rejected, the main requirement for a book to be included in the bible, it must contain in it the prophecy about or the story about Jesus. not just diaries of some ancient people.

And don't it beat all, none can show this Jesus fellow ever set foot on the planet, much less to have fulfilled a "prophecy".

[connermt]

@connermt:
no, I don't eat pork anymore after I heard the case of these tapeworms (before converting to christian). as for the so-called "removal of death punishment", it just simply meant God won't strike you dead the moment you did those sins anymore. it doesn't mean that the consequences of ancestral sins just disappear. however, if you managed to walk with God like Enoch or Elijah did, then perhaps you'll experience rapture where you're lifted up to heaven alive --> meaning you won't experience death.

Do you eat meat at all?
It's fabulous how one can attribute meaning (no matter how illogical) to something that can't be shown to be true.
We could honestly say that this means god picks & chooses whom he wants to live or die without any logic, no?

[The Ex-Mormon]

how do humans decide that the texts in the bible are fakes? how do they expose that? what were the criteria to determine whether it's authentic or fake?

Scientific research!
An example: Is in 1st Corinthian, that women shall be silent in the municipality. Bible scientists found out that this quotation dated from the 2nd century and therefore can't be written by Paul.
If only a source exists, it can be wrong. If several different sources say the same, the possibility is, it is very highly that it is true.

one of those documents were just testimonials whose reliability can be questioned. I'm a simple man, so the structure of male and female genitalia already strong enough a testimony about whether homosexuality is right or not.

For heavens sake, can't you not understand this,; or do not you want to understand? Homosexuality has to do nothing with genetalia! Homosexuality has to do something with feelings, with proximity, with love and tenderness. Things which one feels for a person of the same sex/gender. And the Bible does not talk about it! It only talks about people who leave God and the covenant with God and turn to heathen divinities.
This gets clear from the context. And as well if one uses the original words. Particularly the one from the 1st Corinthian (Malokoi); because this refers single considerably to the "pederasty"

as for why some books are rejected, the main requirement for a book to be included in the bible, it must contain in it the prophecy about or the story about Jesus. not just diaries of some ancient people.

If I would claim that Santa Claus existed because I would have seen how a stout man came by a chimney into my apartment; I must be able to prove this. By a photo, a sworn declaration of other witnesses, or by another piece of evidence. I would otherwise be implausible.
And saying it apart from the biblical one, which one moreover being being missing often interpreted there; no other proof exists, it is to assume that large portions of the Bible are a fake.

[preacher]

@Ex-Mormon:
how do those scientist determine those texts dated back to 2nd century? can they confirm with absolute certainty that their dating method is infallible? 100% accurate? you also said that if several different sources say the same thing, then that something is most likely to be true. that's exactly what happens in the bible. hundreds of prophecies about Jesus given by more than one people spanning over thousands of years. so, by your own criteria, bible is true.
I know that homosexuality is about attraction. I'm saying that just by looking by structure of human genitalia, you can easily determine that the right thing to do is union between different sex (heterosexual). I never said that homosexuality is only about genitals.
bible talked about homosexuals : Leviticus 20:13. the punishment is also quite clear : death. Is it not enough to say it once? do you need the bible to say it repeatedly to pass as "law"? what else do you need? the only way to cheat this verse is to just feel "love" to your same sex partner, but not lie with the partner. but then again, even lusting is considered adultery.
and again, the bible is a list of testimonials given by different people spanning over thousands of years period of time. each books in the bible acts as "other proof" to each other that confirms and corroborates each other. you want to prove by a photo? photos can be doctored, sworn declaration can be falsified. just because it's "sworn" doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be free of perjury. any evidence can be faked. that's why humans won't have history at all if your criteria is used to verify the accuracy of historical events.

@connermt:
which part of the bible you consider illogical in this matter? I'll assume that to live and die here means to go to heaven (live) or hell (die). yes, God makes those rules, not us humans.

@joeyknothead:
the bible is considered authentic because many different individuals living in different time period spanning thousands of years all prophecy the same thing about Jesus. you know, multiple testimonials, different location, timespan and nationality (not all books written by Israelites like Esther).
there's also no evidence that hitler once walked the earth, no evidence that mother teresa walked the earth, etc. yet, people still believe it.

[The Ex-Mormon]

@Ex-Mormon:
how do those scientist determine those texts dated back to 2nd century? can they confirm with absolute certainty that their dating method is infallible? 100% accurate?

I think nobody can do this! But these scientists have the reputation to carry out an investigation exactly. And therefore I think; that her statements have more evidential value as the opinions of laymen.

[preacher]

I think nobody can do this! But these scientists have the reputation to carry out an investigation exactly. And therefore I think; that her statements have more evidential value as the opinions of laymen.

exactly, that's my point. that's why when you ask for hard evidence about events happening in the past, no one can provide such thing. and that's what you're asking about the bible. that's why I said repeatedly that no such thing as irrefutable proof exist anywhere in this world. at some point, you just have to trust other people's words, even when they cannot provide absolute proof. that's the case with the bible and with everything else in this world. and about reputation, that's quite subjective don't you think? some might regard this scientist as a genius and reliable, while others may consider that same scientist as a fraud.

[The Ex-Mormon]

I think nobody can do this! But these scientists have the reputation to carry out an investigation exactly. And therefore I think; that her statements have more evidential value as the opinions of laymen.

exactly, that's my point. that's why when you ask for hard evidence about events happening in the past, no one can provide such thing. and that's what you're asking about the bible. that's why I said repeatedly that no such thing as irrefutable proof exist anywhere in this world. at some point, you just have to trust other people's words, even when they cannot provide absolute proof. that's the case with the bible and with everything else in this world. and about reputation, that's quite subjective don't you think? some might regard this scientist as a genius and reliable, while others may consider that same scientist as a fraud.

I believe only the ones whom a convincing proof can present. And these scientists could do this. Questions still consist in some points but the main questions were answered by them. Here one example which I found in an English-speaking internet page:

Leviticus 18:22 :

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV
'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman: that is detestable' CEV

This verse prohibits male homosexual acts. The major area of debate has then been over the hermeneutical question of whether and how this text applies to the modern Christian or Jewish situation (see The Bible and homosexuality and Biblical law in Christianity for that debate). As noted in the separate article on Leviticus, the book uses the word "abomination" 16 times, with the Hebrew word "sheqets" being used in describing dietary prohibitions (for example prohibiting shellfish and pork), mostly in Leviticus 11, and once for physical uncleanness (Levitcus 7:21), while "tô‛êbah" is used often for idolatry (Dt. 32:16) and specific other sins (Deuteronomy 24:4), for people who disobey God (Deuteronomy 25:16), and collectively for lists of sins. Leviticus 18:27–30; Proverbs 6:16-19).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18


And here another quote:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm

In this you could find this quote:

When "to'ebah" refers to the breaking of a ritual law it might be better translated "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice." Some of the "to'ebah" passages are considered without significance to Christians today. Many activities which were "to'ebah" transgressions to the ancient Israelites simply do not apply to modern cultures.

Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote that:

"Jews do not obligate any other religion to the observance of the Torah laws, which were given specifically to the Jewish people and their descendants, including converts. This is with the possible exception of the seven Noahide Laws, and there is dispute among the halakhic authorities as to which seven laws non-Jews need observe IF they are indeed required to observe any Torah laws at all."