Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

quote: How do you know what Jesus said? Where you there?No but that it what the bible is for, to tell us what happened.

NotAHero jabbers:

quote:

---

I've explained the meaning of the word righteous in the context used by Peter and so has someone else.

---

No you haven't. You've claimed that a rightous man can indeed pimp out his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a mob, but your claim isn't very convincing.

quote:

---

Fornication includes homosexuality which in turn classifies homosexuality as sin...for the umteenth time.

---

Yes, and "for the umteenth time" you've failed to provide any evidence for this silly claim.

quote:

---

I already demonstrated how an argument from silence is no argument at all

---

Once again, no you haven't. What you've done is attempt to replace his silence with your words. Hence, you put words in Jesus' mouth.

quote:

---

The Bible passage not once says that not leaving the family and clinging to a wife is sin.

---

Not precisely, no, but it comes much closer to saying that than it does to saying homosexuality is sinful.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should read the Bible first and then formulate arguments?

---

I have read it. You haven't. If you had, you'd know that Lot was lying when he said his daughters were virgins. You still want to use this "rightous", pathetic, cowardly excuse for a man as an example of why homosexuality is wrong.You'd also know that Lot's immorality is even further enhanced by the fact that, a few passages later, he gets drunk and impregnates his daughters himself.

quote:

---

Now, as I understand it, the only marriage ever condoned and expressly promoted in the Bible is that between a MAN and a WOMAN.

---

Yes, and as has been established, the bible is NOT an adequate guide to morality, not in any sense of the word! The story of Lot is but one shining example of why.

quote:

---

Not only did I bring up the subject of Lot, but the subject has been beaten to death since you can't seem to understand how a "righteous" man can sin.

---

I can understand that quite well. What I can't understand is how a "rightous" man can offer his daughters to be gang-raped by a mob, even enhancing the appeal of those daughters by lying about their virginity, and who also gets drunk and impregnates his daughters. I don't understand how the name 'Lot' and the word 'rightous' belong together at all. The fact that you do says far more about you than it does about me. It shows that you have no morals to speak of.

quote:

---

The evidence are the writings of the Bible because the THREAD IS ABOUT WHETHER THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY.

---

But the thread is still open to discussion of whether that condemnation really means anything at all worthwhile, which it obviously (to borrow one of your favorite words) does not!

Or whether or not you throw your daughters to a mob to be raped. (Let's not loose sight of what we're talking about, right? ) But that broaches on circular reasoning: "Gay sex is fornication because they aren't married. Gay people can't get married because gay sex is fornication." I don't see that that's the least obvious. In fact, when was the last time that when somebody told you something was good, you assumed they meant that was the only thing that was good? If I tell you that vanilla ice cream is good, does that mean that chocolate is an abomination? I guess that explains why you're going such a bad job. Let me illustrate how your case looks from my perspective:Me: So, how do we know that homosexuality is bad?
You: The Bible says so.
Me: Where?
You: Well, er, not in so many words. But there's the story about Lot, which doesn't mention homosexuality by name - but we assume it does, even though the Hewbrew word they used as a euphemism never refers to sex any other time it appears. And then there's all the times they talk about fornication, which we assume means homosexuality, because we all know that gay sex is bad, right? And what's-his-name talks about how bad temple prostitution is, but we assume that he means homosexuality in any context, even though temple prostitutes had both straight and gay sex. And Jesus answers a question about a man divorcing his wife by saying that men are supposed to stay married to their wives, but we assume that means that men are only supposed to marry women."I see a whole lot of assumptions, and not a whole lot of actual statements from either God or Jesus that say homosexuality is wrong - none, in fact. You're telling me that God hates gays so bad that they go right to hell, but on his Top Ten list of bad things, not honoring your mother and father is that much more important?The fact that there's no commandment against being gay suggests one of two possibilities - that either the Deuteronomic authors failed to command against it because they didn't realize that it was happening (which would be weird, because there's a strong tradition of same-gender sex in the ancient world), or because they just didn't think it was a big deal.I'm sorry but the case for homosexuality's prohibition in the Bible just isn't that strong. All you've shown me is a strong intolernace for homosexuality by the Bible authors (by which I mean the human ones, of course) but not by either God or Jesus.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

I fully see your point sidelined, however I think it is very difficult to pass judgement on the little information we have regarding Lot's situation. We already know that Sodom was renound to well 'sodomy', thus anyone that stood up against this act would most likely also been sodomised. I have little doubdt that the incident at Lots house was not out of character for the Sodomites, thus Lot probably knew very well what would happen to him should he try and resist. This was also not merely a small mob of people , but all the people of the city. Lot probably realised the futility of trying to resist by force.I don't condone Lots action by any means, yet difficult to judge a man under such circumstances.

I have no idea what sodomy or anal sex is like crash, so I probaly don't provide the best point of reference. I do however think the consequences of sodomy are worst that being bowlegged for a week.You mentioned godliness. Do you follow any faith or believe in a God for you to make this comment ? 1. Try not to put words in my mouth. My words were that should I have no choice, I would rather have my daughter raped than my son. As for your sexist comment, you are are on a Christian forum or atleast one discussing Christianity. If you are to be offended by sexists remarks (or any other non politically correct statements for that matter), I suggest you avoid topics such as this one that could offend you. Alternately, feel free to report me to the admin. Again crash, do you have to revert to putting words in other people's mouths to try evoke empathy for your opinion ? Had Lot's daughters not been virgins, you probably would have claimed he didn't care about them because they weren't virgins. If you have difficulty understanding the value of a virginal daughter in a society where promiscuity will results in unwanted pregancy, well your choice.

Assumptions berberry.1. What makes you believe I am a 'born again'. Or is that just another christian-hate statement.2. Why do you possibly believe I would not love my son and my daughter equally or put my life down for either child ?My statement is that biologically anal is more damaging that vaginal rape. Should I have the choice over whether a mob will beat up my son or my daughter, it would be my son. Does that mean again I am a sexist, but only reversed ?Yes, I open the door for my wife, yes I would lay my life down for my wife, yes I carry the heavy luggage when we go on holiday, and yes should someone break into my home I would not expect my wife to fight them off. And lastly, yes, the idea of laying a hand on a woman is disgusting to me, yet should another man give me sufficient reason, I would not have a problem fighting him. Hey, if that makes me sexist.. bring on the parade. Yeah, well you lack the comprehension skills of a 6th grader. Does that make us even ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 03-29-2004]

Worse than pregnancy? Worse than death?I submit that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. No. But the Bible provides the example of Jesus's godliness. Sexism isn't a part of that. Right, because you view sodomy as worse than involuntary coitus, for reason you refuse to clarify. In the absence of your own statements I'm forced to supply my own speculations as to your motives. But you can address the issue by explaining why you would choose to risk your daughters life and infertility to protect your son's anus.By the way, what kind of gutless coward son are you expecting to raise? I have a sister, and there's no way in hell that I'd let a mob rape her except through my dead body - and let me tell you that it would involve a few of the mob's dead bodies, too. There's no way I would let my dad choose her over me for that grisly fate, and no way I would expect my dad to insult me by making such a choice. Your statements are light-years from being Christian. If you find it uncomfortable when I tell you that I find your position morally repugnant, gutlessly spineless, and quite literally a sickening slap in the face to persons of decent moral character, then I suggest you re-examine your position.Were I a Christian I should be insulted that you claim to share the faith. Why would I come to that conclusion? Perhaps you don't know that it's barbaric to suggest that it's a father's duty to ensure his dauther's virginity? That that's a throwback to a time when women held value only as property? And if you don't understand that reasonable people don't put value on someone simply because of their sexual status, because that's demeaning and barbaric, then I suggest that there's no place for you in civil society. But that's your choice as well.

No, it would mean that you'd realized that your son isn't going to get pregnant and possibly die, and therefore come to the reasonable choice.We fully understand the hypothetical situation that you're describing. What you don't understand is that sex with a man is far more risky for a woman than for a man, even though that's been made plain to you. So it appears that you dismiss the risk to your daughter simply because she's a woman. Ergo, you're sexist.By all means, please clear up the misapprehension.

Fascinating. You manage to compare my analogy with a choice between sodomy and death based on the assumption that not only will the woman fall pregnant, but on top of that, she will have complications during labour and die. No pulling the wool over your eyes huh ? So which parts of the Bible do you subscribe to ? Only those that you like of Jesus ? Curious "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." ... do you agree that to be of your opinion of godliness ? I view involentary sodomy as worst that "involuntary coitus". Again I ask, you have any point of reference to which is more physiologically damaging, anal or coital rape ? I happen to have 2 family members that are medics that have had to deal with both types of rape. In most cases of coital rape, coital evidence of the rape dissapears within 24 hours, thus it is essential for the medic to examine the patient ASAP for legal purposes should the victim wish to press charges. In anal rape cases, vascular surgery is often immediately required. You didn't really think an anus was designed for sex did you ? I care very little what you think of me crash, sorry. You would need to understand first what being a Christian entails. You clearly do not. Ah ofcourse, promisquity is perfectly civil. Sorry mate, promiscuity is immoral and putting yourself at risk by bearing a child that your father (instead of your husband) will be responsible for financially is disrespectfull and self centered.Any more insults ... ?

I'm just looking at worst-case scenarios. That's what you do when you assess risk.Worst-case scenario for your son: bleeding and hemmoraging of anus. Prognosis: not fatal.Worst-case scenario for your daughter: complications in pregnancy. Prognosis: death.I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that, in the time period we're talking about, the odds of your daughter dying in childbirth are one in 100. Do you think your son has the same chance of dying from anal sex?Even nowadays, with Western medicine, your daughter has a one in 12,000 chance of dying in childbirth. Do you think that the recipient dies in one out of every 12,000 anal sex acts? I doubt it.This assumes that the victim survives the mob rape. Again, your daughter is much less likely to survive by virtue of her smaller frame and more delicate genital tissues. I'd estimate she's twice as likely to die from the mob rape than your son.Again, this is information that it's not hard to come by or estimate. Any time you care to outline what risks anal sex has to your son that outwieghts the drastic risk of death to your daughter, feel free to do so.But you seem content to discard consideration of the risks to your daughter simply because she's a woman. That's what makes you the worst sort of sexist garbage I've ever had the intense displeasure to encounter. I'm still willing to admit a misapprehension of your beliefs, but how can I when you so stubbornly refuse to tell me what it is about anal sex that you feel outwieghs the risks mob rape entails to your daughter? How many men have died from anal rape? How many men have gotten pregnant? You seem to forget, or perhaps you didn't know, that a woman is statistically almost twice as likely to be impregnanted from sex if the sex is involuntary. I understand perfectly - it means following the teachings and in the example of Christ. So what part of Christ's teachings do you feel justifies tossing your daughter to a mob when your son is better-equipped to defend himself and less likely to die?I simply don't understand your thought process, and you refuse to explain it. What other conclusion can I come to than that you value your daugheter much less than your son, and are therefore a sexist? Sure. You're a gutless, spineless, cowardly piece of turd, and if I ever caught you so much as looking at a woman under my protection I wouldn't hesitate to stab you through the heart. What self-respecting woman would consent to bear your children knowing that you'd throw your daughter to the wolves to keep your son from having a bad day?

Wait, you truely trying to convince me that anal hemoraging cannot be fatal ? Just get atleast some idea of what you are talking about. I've explained this to you already. You need to go outside and take a breather. Come back inside and re-read my last 3 posts. Perhaps then you will find the answer to your question, although I have to say that is wishfull thinking on my part. You avoided the question I posed you. Re-read and explain to me. Or did you not understand ? You don't listen to what I have to say. On top of that, you actually made a death threat online. I dont know if this is against forum rules, but I would well imagine it would be both that aswell as illegal indeed.You need to get a grip.

Untreated, I imagine it could be. Do you think a penis is going to create a fatal anal hemmorage?Do you think the likelyhood of a fatal anal hemmorage for your mob-raped son is as high as the combined likelyhood of vaginal hemmorage, childbearing mortality, and suicide from post-partum depression? Please, show me where. Quote exactly where you showed me how mob rape and pregnancy is going to be safer for your daughter than mob sodomy of your son. I guess I didn't understand the question, or I didn't see the relevance, because I don't know which question you're talking about. I know you asked me what Christianity was, and I answered. Are you referring to a different question? Have you done any of what I said it would take for me to want to kill you? No? Then it's not a threat, yet.Nonetheless I'm not about to take moral instruction from the likes of you. The minute you can convince me that you've rationally chosen the lesser of two evils, I'll be happy to retract my statements. Until then, I have no recourse but to conclude that mob rape of your daughter is the lesser of two evils to you because your dauther is the lesser-valued child, and my statements must stand. You're a danger to women.

Your behaviour is not acceptable. Sorry, I don't care to discuss anything more with you in your state.

Look, I'm really trying hard to understand your position, but I can't do that until you explain it to me.Maybe we're not communicating. Let me make another attempt. Given that my thoughts on your position are on the record, I won't repeat them. Maybe we can de-escalate, here?Ok, here's what I've got from you, so far: mob sodomy will cause anal hemmoraging in your son. Ok, this is true. From a mob there's a good chance it'll be fatal.But your daughter is going to have equivalent or worse vaginal hemmoraging, plus the risk of pregnancy, plus the risk of death from pregnancy, plus infertility from the damage to her vagina, plus cultural ostracism by virtue of being a raped woman. There's the very real possibility in the Middle East that she would be killed by male relatives for being a rape victim to preserve the family's honor.Can you help me understand why you don't think that stuff adds up to worse than what's probably going to happen to your son? I'm begging you, please![This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

Zealot squirms:

quote:

---

...I think it is very difficult to pass judgement on the little information we have regarding Lot's situation.

---

Why? Knowing that Lot was a man willing to pimp out his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a mob is not enough information to pass judgement? Knowing that he was lying about their virginity in order to sweeten the deal for the mob isn't enough? Knowing that Lot later gets drunk and impregnates his daughters himself isn't enough? You STILL say he was a rightous man? How much information about the pathetic, cowardly, incestuous, adulterous Lot do you need in order to pass judgement?The fact that you still don't have enough information to pass judgement on Lot is quite curious when you stand ready to pass judgement on homosexual acts based solely on your own prejudice!

quote:

---

Lot probably realised the futility of trying to resist by force.

---

Yes, and his reaction demonstrates his cowardice admirably. In any case, you showed your own low character and lack of morals when you described what you would do in a similar situation. It stands to reason that you will stop at nothing to defend this disgusting pervert.