Why is homosexuality wrong?

Greatest I Am · Post by **Greatest I Am** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:44 pm

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:32 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1396 by DefenderofTruth]

The burden of proof is on you not me. I don't know how am supposed to come up with proof for you. You keep saying there is tons of information lots of evidence yet you won't present it. Is the evidence really that we that it can't stand up to scrutiny?

If the facts are in your favor it shouldn't be all that hard to present them. I am more open to evidence then you might think. It is awfully presumptive to assume I would ignore evidence that has merit.

If homosexuality is a sin and that is an objective fact. What is the proof of this claim?is this a fact?

no i didn't ask you to prove to me anything... I asked you
"Tell me what proof would convince you?"

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:57 pm

[Replying to post 1398 by DefenderofTruth]

If the evidence has merit I will consider it. When you ask what proof will I accept, you could possibly rule out evidences that I am unaware of. Let me put it this way, I will accept evidence equivalent to its veracity. Take the scriptures for instance it is evidence that one or more individuals fostered a philosophical revolution withing Judaism around 0-30 CE. Beyond that, I just don't know. I lack the sufficient information regarding the specifics. There are to many contradicting sources to accept significant specific claims made within the available literature. Without access to original source material the accuracy of the available material is impossible to say as far as I know.

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:28 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1398 by DefenderofTruth]

If the evidence has merit I will consider it. When you ask what proof will I accept, you could possibly rule out evidences that I am unaware of. Let me put it this way, I will accept evidence equivalent to its veracity. Take the scriptures for instance it is evidence that one or more individuals fostered a philosophical revolution withing Judaism around 0-30 CE. Beyond that, I just don't know. I lack the sufficient information regarding the specifics. There are to many contradicting sources to accept significant specific claims made within the available literature. Without access to original source material the accuracy of the available material is impossible to say as far as I know.

Its funny how you specifically use the word "proof" when pressing the issue, and then go to "evidence" when questioned about it... Can you explain why you do that? Because "proof" and "evidence" and not the same things... To me it looks like a way to taunt people about the subject....

enviousintheeverafter · Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:17 am

DefenderofTruth wrote:Isn't that what the gospels are?

No, there's a very strong consensus among Biblical scholars that the Gospels were not written by actual contemporaries of Jesus, but were written something like 40-70 years after his death.

What are you going to scrutinize the authenticity of the authors?

Well, yes... That's an important part of the scholarly study of the Bible.

It is the content in which we look to to see if it is true or not, not who wrote it.

Of course, who the sources/writers actually were is hugely important, since it goes to the very credibility of the source. But even evaluated on the merit of its content, one would certainly have to conclude that the Gospels are not historical accounts, given that they frequently contradict one another, as well as known historical/geographical facts.

And i'm not an expert on literature in the days of Jesus but a 'single contemporary account of Jesus and his exploits'? There are tons of books about Jesus, dating all the way back to the time itself

Um, no... The earliest documents we have are from Paul, who didn't himself know Christ. The Gospel accounts, as noted above, come from even later. We have nothing until several decades after Christ's death- no contemporary accounts- and the earliest don't even purport to be eyewitness accounts.

But even if there was NO 'contemporary account of Jesus and his exploits' other then what we have (which is a sure lot), that doesn't say anything about the content in the Bible and if it is true or not.

Of course it does. It means it is not as credible as it would have been, if there were any accounts written by people actually present for the events they recount.

So whats your point anyways? There is not enough information to investigate the truth of Christianity? Is that what you are saying? That would be so irrational to think like that, there is an abundant amount of info on the topic

Well, sufficient to evaluate Christianity's empirical/factual claims at least- which fail, sufficient to conclude that Christianity cannot be true.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:31 am

[Replying to post 1400 by DefenderofTruth]

Can you explain why you are apparently unwilling to provide any evidence to prove your supposed facts. Not gunna quibble over this non sense, there comes a time when one needs to put up or shut up.

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:51 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1400 by DefenderofTruth]

Can you explain why you are apparently unwilling to provide any evidence to prove your supposed facts. Not gunna quibble over this non sense, there comes a time when one needs to put up or shut up.

Go read the Bible because it is the reason i have such strong beliefs that Christianity is true. In fact i dont think i have heard a strong enough opposition against scripture that invalidates its teachings or raises doubt in me, and thats because the scripture has offered more truth and clarity then anyone has ever offered to me.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:54 pm

[Replying to post 1403 by DefenderofTruth]

But I have read the bible, the gospels in particular are specifically unverifiable claims and opinions. Can you validate these claims?

You make statements like Jesus is the son of god and that's a fact or homosexuality is a sin and that's a fact. But you won't offer anything to support your spurious claims. This is nothing more than your opinion of your interpretation of someone else's subjective claims about something they heard. I see very little fact in what you are talking about and a lot of opinion.

I see a lot of avoiding having to substantiate your claims.

lia15 · Post by **lia15** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:05 pm

[Replying to post 1 by Greatest I Am]

What about thou shall not put falls Gods before me? God is the "victim" to that one. God is also the victim in homosexual marriage. God created marriage and yet the being in witch he created marriage for is trying to take it and destroy it with worldly opinions. That is like a slap in the face to anyone in Gods position and yet he still loves us all. But his love does not give us an excuse to destroy his creation.
God bless

Debating Christianity and Religion

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Re: Why is homosexuality wrong?