Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

I was glad to see a posting that stated the fact that the Bible does indeed condemn practicing homosexuality. It is one of the few sins called "abominable." But the Bible does not condemn homosexuals. God loves everyone regardless of whether or not they obey His commands, and in His eyes all who accept the sacrifice of Christ are equally pure.

That was one of the most obscene comments I have ever read and it is unbelievable that anyone could stoop to such a level for any reason whatsoever.

Let's see - the others that I can think of that are that severe are:
- false weights and measures
- women wearing blue jeans
- eating shrimp or catfishAre there more?

quote:

---

That was one of the most obscene comments I have ever read and it is unbelievable that anyone could stoop to such a level for any reason whatsoever.

---

You should have seen the first draft. It involved puppies.Regardless, kind of puts that whole "homosexuality is abominable" thing in perspective, huh?

Never do that again.I'm sure you can use a slightly more tasteful example.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn![This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 09-28-2003]

Babylons -Are you going to address a single issue that I presented or not?Also, in reference to Lev 22:18: the word "abomination" is to'ebah. This word appears over 100 times in the OT. In arabic, the equivalent word is 'haram', if you are familiar with arabic. It means breaking moral or ritual law. For example, in Gen. 43:32, we see that "...because the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians." Other examples of things that are "to'ebah" are eating any aquatic creature that doesn't have fins or scales (lobster, shrimp, shellfish, etc); any "creeping creature" on earth (typically used to mean things like snakes and insects); sacrificing any creature which has a blemish or defect (you have to only sacrifice perfect animals!), remarriage to the same man (remarriage is ok); and many, many others. "abomination" is just how the KJV authors decided to translate the word. Not to mention that most Christians believe that Leviticus doesn't apply to them because of the NT - that's why you're not going around sacrificing sheep and bulls.Here's one more thing to consider. From the letter, "Dear Dr. Laura":
-------------
Dear Dr. Laura:Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 5:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree, bet the shellfish don't either. Can you settle this?g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
-----------------------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Why? It's precisely the kind of behavior that believers like you accuse atheists of every time you imply that we lack moral codes.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I am severely disappointed rrhain.

---

And I am severely disappointed in you, too.This makes two separate threads where you have cut around the essential issue at hand, run away from direct questions, and essentially avoid any attempt to engage you to carry your claims out to their logical conclusion.This is all very simple and should not be hard to understand. It is not about you being free from examination and criticism. I understand your definition perfectly and am merely showing where it leads.In both threads, the question comes down to consistency and in both cases, you are arguing that inconsistency can somehow be accepted.

quote:

---

To the Xtian God, the "natural use" for sex is reproduction.

---

Then we should describe all other uses as "unnatural," yes? It's a matter of consistency. You're very close, holmes. Can you think of any religious strictures regarding sexual behaviour such that when sex is carried out, it can only be done in a way that actively encourages reproduction?

quote:

---

The PENIS is a dual function "limb".

---

Why? Why is the penis "dual function" but not other parts of the body like, say, the anus?

quote:

---

this does not in any way mean the waste removal and reproductive systems are one and the same.

---

I never said they were. What I said was that the penis used for both. And if there is no problem with using an organ that is involved in waste removal for something else, like sex, then there should be no problem with other organs being used for multiple purposes.It's a question of consistency.

quote:

---

According to your argument then, the lungs are part of the digestive tract since the stomach and lungs share a mouth and trachea. This is simply ridiculous.

---

Indeed, it is ridiculous...which is why it isn't my argument.According to my argument, then, the mouth is used for both respiration and mastication. You've got the arrow going the wrong way.

quote:

---

The reproductive system has no waste removal organs (such as the bladder).

---

What do you think the urethra is?

quote:

---

Yes, pleasure is why people have sex. But the importance of reproduction to the life cycle is why pleasure is there.

---

Yes, but very few people are thinking about reproduction when they have sex. Compare this to other urges where the direct point is more closely related.

quote:

---

But this is not about impressing our own definition but understanding what the Bible's is.

---

But if that definition is inconsistent, what good is it?

quote:

---

We can't argue with a Book to say ours is better terminology,

---

We most certainly can. If the definition is of no use, if it cannot be carried out in any logical fashion, then it is worthless and is to be discarded for a better one.

quote:

---

It was also disengenuous to say that God's definition using biology as its basis

---

But that was your argument.

quote:

---

God has clearly defined "natural use" not based on what is possible, but what is primarily intended.

---

But that definition is inconsistent and therefore worthless.

quote:

---

When a penis is up its primary function (using the narrow definition) is reproduction

---

That isn't true. Only rarely when the penis is erect is it being used for reproduction or even possibly being considered for reproduction. Between the erections that happen when you sleep, the erections from sitting in the right way, etc., an erection is primarily a reflex action. One of the triggers is sexual, yes, but it is not the typical cause.

quote:

---

Pretending the definition doesn't exist

---

I don't.I do what you claim I cannot do:Judge it as worthless.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Speel-yi responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For example, gay people are less likely to have children

---

​

There are lots of homosexuals that get married and have children

---

Yes, but how many of them are there compared to all the others? That was the point of my statement. I didn't say gay people don't have children. I said they are less likely to have children.You will notice that I did not mention anything about how they go about having children. I simply stated that they are less likely to have them.

quote:

---

Then you have unmarried homosexuals that are in positions that require care of children.

---

Compare this to the straights who are in such positions. One of the big motivations for entering these professions is having children of your own. Your Boy Scout example is right in line: A big reason women become Den Mothers and men become Scout Masters is because their son is in Scouting and the parents get involved.Gay people, being less likely to have children, are less likely to wind up in those positions. It isn't that there aren't any (gay people who were Scouts as children and still find the organization fun, for example), but you've reduced a major source of interest: Having your own children.

quote:

---

I'm wondering what a gay person looks like anyway. Do you have any idea?

---

They're the ones having sex with people of the same sex.But think about it: Why would an unmarried man want to be around a bunch of kids? That was one of the big claims made against Michael Jackson. He simply had to be a molester because why on earth would a 40-year-old, unmarried man surround himself with children?

quote:

---

he don't look like a homo either.

---

Excuse me?"A homo"?Yeah, he didn't look like a nigger/kike/spic/wop/hooknose/wetback/beaner/faggot, either.

quote:

---

Maybe I'm handicapped in that way, is there some special sense that people have in detecting homosexuals?

---

It's called "gaydar."But one of the things that makes people suspect others of being gay is never having been married, never being seen going out on a date with somebody of the opposite sex, and being a man who is interested in children.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You have a serious problem with communication and I know I am not the first to mention it. I offer this criticism only in the spirit of constructive criticism.While you are obviously capable of developing consistent--- and for the most part agreeable to me--- positions, you seem incapable or unwilling to understand other people's positions.Even when people are simply trying to explain someone else's position you take on an adversarial role, as if understanding the position (or accepting a definition for sake of argument) is to undermine your own position. In fact, you often argue against the person as if that position or definition is what they believe in.Here's a very good example. After I said that God defines the "natural use" of sex and sexual organs is reproduction, you respond... Yes, and so? What is your point? Nothing can reverse the fact that God is using a different definition of "natural" than you or I use.I agree with you regarding the absurdities that this definition entails. Those make wonderful reductios to anyone desiring to hold that position.But the one thing that cannot be done is to reject that a person even holds the position. All I have said is that he holds that position. It is not inconsistent at all for a person to hold such a definition, and may be held as much as he wants to.It is absurd and shortsighted. That's why I don't agree with it.The lengths you have gone to simply not understand the position or that anyone can hold it, is equally absurd and shortsighted.In fact the argument about pissing versus sex is so asinine I can't believe I am having it. I own a penis, I use a penis. If you are telling me you don't know it is used for two totally separate functions involving two totally separate systems, then I just gotta conclude you don't have one. Either that or I am very sorry for any sexual partner you have.Even piss sex does not involve the penis being used in its ejaculative capacity. You can be semi-hard I guess, but then you aren't cumming. And when you are cumming you sure as hell aren't going to be able to piss unless you have some serious structural problems.A shared urethra for pissing/sex is similar to a shared esophagous for digestion/respiration.A shared urethra does not in any way shape or form mean the waste removal system is part of the reproductive SYSTEM. They share some bits of hardware, but not in function.And just because anal pleasure can be had, does not make it a part of the reproductive SYSTEM. It makes usable as a part of sex, but the same can be said for visions of leather boots, strangulation, or piercing the skin with needles.If you have such a serious problem with the penis being dual use, one can just as easily say that God is talking about the testes. You will not engage the testes and vas deferens for anything except reproductive purposes. To do anything else, which means there is no chance of pregnancy, means it is against the "nature" of those particular organs.But it shouldn't have to go that far. It is just a definition, it should be easy enough to understand.If everyone was having a problem with what I was saying then I might think it was me having the problem, but I see people understanding what I am saying.I have also seen people criticize you for the problem I am outlining,You have to loosen up and try to understand concepts outside of your own rigorously logical world-view. Even if just for the sake of argument. Until you do many debates will simply go nowhere. In the case of both threads we haven't even started on a debate, and it seems in this thread we didn't even need one.As doctrbill once told you, you are fighting someone on your own side.And I take particular exception to this comment... This is a pretty hefty accusation, and it is a childish tit for tat response to my very real accusation that you have been clipping my posts in order to make it look like I have left a question unanswered.I defy you to show me a question I have left unanswered. I have never intentionally avoided any question, particularly a direct question. If I felt an answer covered two questions I may not have cut and pasted both questions, but that is a space saver and not an alteration of your argument.On the other hand I can certainly prove my point and if you really want to I'll open up a whole thread for the community to vote on it. There simply is no question that my arguments have been unfairly edited to leave a hole that you can attack, and for the life of me I can't understand why except to simply argue!This is why I think we are through. I have had relationships with certain people where the point is simply to be contrary and keep the arguments going. It is a huge waste of time for me. I love getting to logical conclusions, even one's that differ from my own. A bad sign is when I can't get to a logical conclusion about a definition in order to begin discussion when I know for a fact beforehand that I hold the same logical conclusion about a subject as the other person.Brad McFall may be a genius but I simply cannot figure out what he is saying. Or when I do it takes about an hour. For that reason I do not deal with his posts anymore. It simply eats up too much time to begin discussion.You appear to be falling into the same category. If you cannot handle accepting definitions or concepts for convenience (ie for the sake of argument), then it is just too much work trying to start talking with you.I hope you take this in a constructive way.------------------
holmes

Sorry, did not mean to offend anyone.

quote:

---

It's called "gaydar."

---

I must have one of these gaydar gadgets, can I get one at Radio Shack? Are they expensive? I hope not since I have a limited budget.

quote:

---

But one of the things that makes people suspect others of being gay is never having been married, never being seen going out on a date with somebody of the opposite sex, and being a man who is interested in children.

---

I think a lot of people would benefit from relaxing about some things, it is a terrible thing to be homophobic, dating people to simply prove you are not gay is a terrible reason to get involved with somebody. I think it is better to be blind and not know who is homosexual than to be nosy and evaluate people based on some crazy definition that may or may not be valid. It is too much work to figure things like this out and I have better things to do with my time.

quote:

---

I must have one of those gaydar gadgets

---

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/crg942.htm------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Now that is funny! I really had no idea.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then we should describe all other uses as "unnatural," yes? It's a matter of consistency

---

​

Yes, and so? What is your point?

---

That if we find that we don't describe those other uses as "unnatural," then our argument is inconsistent.Since inconsistent arguments are useless, we necessarily discard them. If someone says that homosexual sex is "unnatural" and gives a reason for that "unnaturalness" that does not get applied in other, identical cases, then the claim of "unnatural" is inconsistent and therefore useless and is to be discarded.

quote:

---

Nothing can reverse the fact that God is using a different definition of "natural" than you or I use.

---

But that definition needs to be consistent.If it isn't, then it is useless.

quote:

---

But the one thing that cannot be done is to reject that a person even holds the position.

---

I don't.What I reject is that they have any logical basis for holding that position. You do understand the difference between having an opinion and having a justified opinion, yes?

quote:

---

And just because anal pleasure can be had, does not make it a part of the reproductive SYSTEM.

---

Nobody said it did.Instead, I pointed out to you that sex is not the same as reproduction. In fact, most sex is incapable of starting reproduction. So if having sex for sex's sake is not "unnatural," then on what basis is some forms of non-procreative sex "unnatural"?Consistency, holmes. We have to maintain consistency.Neither the mouth nor the hands are part of the reproductive system, but most forms of sex use them. Therefore, the idea of using something that isn't part of the reproductive system for sex is not such a bizarre notion and is not considered "unnatural."Thus, we are left wondering why one form of non-procreative sex is "unnatural" while others are not.Consistency. We have to maintain consistency.

quote:

---

one can just as easily say that God is talking about the testes. You will not engage the testes and vas deferens for anything except reproductive purposes.

---

So having a nocturnal emission is a sin? God's commandment for males is to have vaginal intercourse every day in order to make sure that no sperm goes wasted?Consistency, holmes. We have to maintain consistency.And as to the rest of your post's whining, well, I'll just let it go...Well, maybe I'll say one thing:How interesting that you feel no qualms about providing critique about my posting style but suddenly get quite defensive when the tables are turned.Oh, but that goes back to the base problem you have:Consistency.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offendersI don't know if anyone else has posted that but, there it is anyways.God hates the sin, not the sinner.