Why is homosexuality wrong?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Greatest I Am
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3043
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:04 am

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Post #1

Post by Greatest I Am »

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

User avatar
DefenderofTruth
Banned
Banned
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post #1391

Post by DefenderofTruth »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1384 by DefenderofTruth]
Objective

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Facts

something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:



I am talking about provability. Not true or false. Take true and false out of it, I am talking about a claims provability. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is true or false. Jesus is the son of god cannot be proven one way or the other, hence the subjectivity of the claim. It cannot be shown to be true or false. Objective claims can be shown to be true or false.

Yes there can be false objective claims but they are still provable. Facts are provable, they are not unprovable. The claim about a fact can be true or false be we can prove the validity of it.
You are wrong, that is not what makes something objective but i don't care to debate "objectivity" with you anymore. You are ignoring the very fundamental idea of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" and i can only assume that is because of your own personal beliefs about Christ. Talk about ironic....

But lets talk about proof (which isn't what 'objective' means)... By who's claim is it unprovable? your's? why because you weren't there to witness the resurrection? Or how about because there is many other religions? So Christianity can't be proven because of that? How about those...

Is that what makes Christianity 'unprovable'?
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes ~ Paul

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1392

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 1388 by DefenderofTruth]

It is a lack of tangible evidence, sort of like how we don't know Abraham Lincoln's exact speech for the Gettysburg Address it is unprovable as to what he actually said( there are multiple copies of his speech but they all differ.)
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
DefenderofTruth
Banned
Banned
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post #1393

Post by DefenderofTruth »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1388 by DefenderofTruth]

It is a lack of tangible evidence, sort of like how we don't know Abraham Lincoln's exact speech for the Gettysburg Address it is unprovable as to what he actually said( there are multiple copies of his speech but they all differ.)
But you can't conclude that there was no speech, or that Abraham Lincoln was a myth, or that the words he did speak where therefor false, or a lie. Or that the speech was totally different then what the eyewitnesses accounts actually did say. Based on that...

In fact thats exactly how these things work, eyewitness testimony in the 1800's had discrepancies in the exact words of the speech... That doesn't mean there is no tangible evidence of it, which is precisely what you are claiming...
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes ~ Paul

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1394

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 1390 by DefenderofTruth]


But you can't conclude that there was no speech, or that Abraham Lincoln was a myth, or that the words he did speak where therefor false, or a lie. Or that the speech was totally different then what the eyewitnesses accounts actually did say. Based on that...

In fact thats exactly how these things work, eyewitness testimony in the 1800's had discrepancies in the exact words of the speech... That doesn't mean there is no tangible evidence of it, which is precisely what you are claiming...
Except there is no eyewitness account of Jesus, the only evidence that exists are anonymous incomplete texts that differ greatly especially considering all the other documents not included in your particular collections i.e. the gnostic gospels which contend that Jesus was a spiritual entity not a physical human. Other than that there is not a trace of his existence or his disciples. You can visit the theater where Lincoln was shot. For crying out loud you can visit the Lincoln Log cabin http://lincolnlogcabin.org

The evidence for the historicity of Lincoln is significantly greater than Jesus.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
DefenderofTruth
Banned
Banned
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post #1395

Post by DefenderofTruth »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1390 by DefenderofTruth]


But you can't conclude that there was no speech, or that Abraham Lincoln was a myth, or that the words he did speak where therefor false, or a lie. Or that the speech was totally different then what the eyewitnesses accounts actually did say. Based on that...

In fact thats exactly how these things work, eyewitness testimony in the 1800's had discrepancies in the exact words of the speech... That doesn't mean there is no tangible evidence of it, which is precisely what you are claiming...
Except there is no eyewitness account of Jesus, the only evidence that exists are anonymous incomplete texts that differ greatly especially considering all the other documents not included in your particular collections i.e. the gnostic gospels which contend that Jesus was a spiritual entity not a physical human. Other than that there is not a trace of his existence or his disciples. You can visit the theater where Lincoln was shot. For crying out loud you can visit the Lincoln Log cabin http://lincolnlogcabin.org

The evidence for the historicity of Lincoln is significantly greater than Jesus.
Dude, we had the ability to actually witness and record history. Jesus is historical and so is much of Jewish history from Moses up to David, up to John the Baptist. And the from Peter to Paul, to all the early Christians up to today.


What a leap of faith it would be to say that this all appeared from nothing. Or do you have an explanation of where this stuff came from? Well other then the straight up answer of taking it as is, which isn't true...
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes ~ Paul

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1396

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 1392 by DefenderofTruth]
Dude, we had the ability to actually witness and record history. Jesus is historical and so is much of Jewish history from Moses up to David, up to John the Baptist. And the from Peter to Paul, to all the early Christians up to today.


What a leap of faith it would be to say that this all appeared from nothing. Or do you have an explanation of where this stuff came from? Well other then the straight up answer of taking it as is, which isn't true...
Ok the above is what we call a claim, what I am getting at is that it is an unsubstantiated claim. That lacks sufficient evidence to declare it a fact. This has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

Can you provide eye witness accounts of Jesus?
Can you provide a single contemporary account of Jesus and his exploits?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
DefenderofTruth
Banned
Banned
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post #1397

Post by DefenderofTruth »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1392 by DefenderofTruth]
Dude, we had the ability to actually witness and record history. Jesus is historical and so is much of Jewish history from Moses up to David, up to John the Baptist. And the from Peter to Paul, to all the early Christians up to today.


What a leap of faith it would be to say that this all appeared from nothing. Or do you have an explanation of where this stuff came from? Well other then the straight up answer of taking it as is, which isn't true...
Ok the above is what we call a claim, what I am getting at is that it is an unsubstantiated claim. That lacks sufficient evidence to declare it a fact. This has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

Can you provide eye witness accounts of Jesus?
Can you provide a single contemporary account of Jesus and his exploits?
Isn't that what the gospels are? What are you going to scrutinize the authenticity of the authors?

First of all, say we don't even know who wrote it. Lets imagine hypothetically that we have no idea who wrote anything in the Bible (which isn't true in the slightest but for the sake of argument). Say we have no knowledge of any author of the Bible, that doesn't say anything about the content in the Bible, that is what we call a Genetic Fallacy, or "Fallacy of Origins" look it up. It is the content in which we look to to see if it is true or not, not who wrote it. People believe in the scripture because of the message that is in it, and the actual authors identity has nothing to do with why people believe.

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, if you are saying there is nothing i see that as nonsense, look at all the information we have on Jesus Christ... It is abundant... That would be completely irrational to say we have no information on Christ and Christianity.. In fact we probably have more on Christ then anyone that lived in the time period and even people who lived after Jesus... To say there is nothing is ridiculous...

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. That would have no baring on it's content at all. Just another irrelevant argument to hold against Christianity.


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, more so on Christianity then nearly anything we know of... But even if we had the bare minimal, I mean say an archeologist found 1 single clay pot at an entire excavation, he surely could conclude that people put it there. If we said "there isn't enough information to know" because of only one clay pot, thats nonsense....

When would there ever be enough information?? This kind of scrutiny against Christianity is irrational, i doubt you would hold such irrelevant and irrational arguments agianst any other kind of knowledge we know about...

Thats because Christ is the Son of God and you yourself demonstrate the power that is held in the name of Jesus Christ.
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes ~ Paul

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1398

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 1394 by DefenderofTruth]
Isn't that what the gospels are?
No it's not what they are. They are anonymous manuscripts written decades after the events depicted. We have no idea who wrote them.
What are you going to scrutinize the authenticity of the authors?
I would like to know how you propose to do this without knowing who they were?
It is the content in which we look to to see if it is true or not, not who wrote it.
Ok, how would you prove the content of the gospels is true or not? This is sort of the point. I will redact everything I said so far in this exchange and concede to you if you can prove the content of the gospels is true.

that doesn't say anything about the content in the Bible and if it is true or not. That would have no baring on it's content at all.
I agree it would only having bearing on what we are discussing.

So whats your point anyways?
That your position on homosexuality and scripture is your opinion and not fact. If it is fact you should be able to prove it.

I have noticed you have a penchant for making claims of fact and then not providing any proof of this fact. If there is enough proof that Jesus is the son of God surely it should be easy for you to provide that proof. Go ahead I am waiting.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
DefenderofTruth
Banned
Banned
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:30 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post #1399

Post by DefenderofTruth »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1394 by DefenderofTruth]
Isn't that what the gospels are?
No it's not what they are. They are anonymous manuscripts written decades after the events depicted. We have no idea who wrote them.
What are you going to scrutinize the authenticity of the authors?
I would like to know how you propose to do this without knowing who they were?
It is the content in which we look to to see if it is true or not, not who wrote it.
Ok, how would you prove the content of the gospels is true or not? This is sort of the point. I will redact everything I said so far in this exchange and concede to you if you can prove the content of the gospels is true.

that doesn't say anything about the content in the Bible and if it is true or not. That would have no baring on it's content at all.
I agree it would only having bearing on what we are discussing.

So whats your point anyways?
That your position on homosexuality and scripture is your opinion and not fact. If it is fact you should be able to prove it.

I have noticed you have a penchant for making claims of fact and then not providing any proof of this fact. If there is enough proof that Jesus is the son of God surely it should be easy for you to provide that proof. Go ahead I am waiting.

lol, "easy for you to provide that proof."... Dude, you would not only reject any argument i gave you for Christ as the Son of God, but if it had any merit to it then you would also debate against it... And you call that "easy"..lol

Tell me what proof would convince you?
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes ~ Paul

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1400

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[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?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Post Reply