Bulldrek v3.0

I am a Christian. Therefore, I think gay sex is a sin.

Does this mean I am not a compassionate person?

That's fine as long as you don't pass legislation regarding it. Let God handle it.

Agreed.

Pretty much the "let God handle it" thing works really well in situations like these. Because you're absolutely entitled to your own opinion regarding other people's behavior. And, if you were in a situation where your opinion regarding gay sex was appropriate to discuss (i.e. may not at the committment ceremony of a gay couple, but if a friend mentioned a movie where homosexuality was a theme), then you should absolutely feel free to voice it (though, if you want to maintain a "compassionate" label, I'd suggest you be, well, compassionate about the whole thing).

Seriously, the problem is not in your opinion on the matter, but you (or anyone, for that matter) choose to do with that opinion. Voice it in a calm, rational, non-shitty manner in social contexts where it is at least marginally appropriate to do so? Go for it. Scream epithets and threats at a gay couple holding hands on the street? Not so much. I think you get the idea.

Honestly, so long as you don't treat gay people any worse than you treat other people you see on the street who you believe are "sinners" (I don't know if that's a word you use even, but you get the idea), then there isn't much of an issue. I mean, if you throw stones and scream epithets at teenagers kissing at the bus stop, and do the same to gay people, well.... you're not compassionate, but at least you're consistent.

Personally, I get maddest at the people who hate gays because "gay sex is a sin" (which is not my belief personally, for the record), but who are just fine with adulterers, thieves, etc. etc. They seem very selective about which sins "count", which makes me suspect they're just using religion as an excuse for being mean people, instead of owning up to being assholes and not making other religious people look bad.

Buzzed wrote:I am a Christian. Therefore, I think gay sex is a sin.

Does this mean I am not a compassionate person?

The two aren't really related; one cannot logically cause the other. Let's exchange "gay sex" for "premarital sex," which is just about as wrong by your faith's standards; simply because you believe it's a sin, does that mean you are not compassionate? Of course not. The decision of what is and is not a sin is made by god. Your compassion cannot alter the basic facts of what are considered sins.

If you think gay sex is a sin, and are cruel to people who have gay sex, you are lacking compassion [and are a horrible Christian]. Instead, you must show compassion to the people having gay sex, because, though they are sinners, they are still humans who deserve compassion.

Compassion is a state of mind in relation to a person [or other living thing.] Sins are not living. You can hate the sin, but not hate the sinner. You can be anti-compassionate in regards to gay sex, while still remaining compassionate to people who have it.

Amen, 3278.

I'm Christian as well and I think that gay sex isn't.

So far, I agree with the posts that i have seen, except Cash's post of course. If you don't think gay sex is a sin, then you are being a hypocrite by calling yourself a christian.

Which brings me to my point, well more like reminds me of a point. Simply being a compassionate conservative does not make you a hypocrite automatically. Compassion can coexist with strong religious beleifs. God treats all sins as equal. Also God says to love thy neighbor. This is key to true christianity. It is ok to hate sin, but not to hate people. If you hate a particular sin more then another, then you definately do lack compassion.

I find nothing wrong with being a hypocrite and a Christian. That said, I think the Bible and the culture of my religion is such that homosexuality most definately is a sin, but one more between the sinner and God (the whole gay bishop issue aside).

Buzzed wrote:Simply being a compassionate conservative does not make you a hypocrite automatically.

No. That's stupid. Anyone who told you that is an idiot. Compassion and political conservativism are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Nor are Christianity and compassion, Christianity and political conservativism, nor even Christianity and political liberalism. In fact, I would anticipate most "true*" Christians to be compassionate, and politically conservative. Political liberalism encourages several behaviors which "true" Christians would find abhorrent. [Although political conservativism frequently does the same.]

I think the error is in liberal thinking, which equates political conservativism with a lack of compassion because political conservatives don't generally support things like welfare and foetus-killing. I don't know, though; I don't know very much about the objections to compassionate conservativism, or from whence they spring.

*"True" is a funny word in this context. Whenever anyone talks about a true Christian, what they really mean is someone who follows the precepts of Christianity in accordance with the /speaker's/ opinions about what Christianity entails. In this case, Buzzed and mine happen to agree, so we're likely to agree on the ramifications of the word "true." However, many Christians whose interpretation of Christianity is different from mine would likely disagree with my statements. It's a word that gets tossed around lightly, and shouldn't.

Fanatics of any religon causes the problems.

How does being a Christian make one think gay sex is a sin? To follow Jesus' teachings is to lead a life of love, tolerance and forgiveness. In fact, Jesus' primary teaching was to love everyone equally. And the whole point of his death was to free everyone who believed in him and followed his teachings of sin.

So where does "gay sex is a sin" fit into that?

Sticks wrote:(the whole gay bishop issue aside).

Don't be bringing me into this. And I'm not gay.

So where does "gay sex is a sin" fit into that?

Old Testament, mainly. Iron Hand and Velvet Glove thing, God and Jesus. Soddom and Gomorrah.

Bishop wrote:Don't be bringing me into this. And I'm not gay.

I was actually referring to the huge stink over the Episcopal Bishop.

Yeah. That was, you know, a joke. Ha ha.

Buzzed wrote:I am a Christian. Therefore, I think gay sex is a sin.

Being a Christian means that you believe that Jesus was the messiah, and the word of God. Jesus overruled a lot of things that were established in the Old Testament. Jesus made the new covenant with God, and in Hebrews 8:13, he made the old one obsolete

Heb 8:13 wrote:By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin, never ever. If you believe that as a result of being Christian, you have to believe that homosexuality is a sin, you're just a retard.

Go crawl into a corner and die, you fucking troglodyte.

Buzzed wrote:If you don't think gay sex is a sin, then you are being a hypocrite by calling yourself a christian.

Strictly speaking, a Christian is somone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. Belief that the Bible is the Word of God is entirely optional. Since it is not logically inconsistent to state that a) Jesus is the Son of God, and b) homosexual intercourse is not a sin, it is possible to believe both of these and still quite rightly call yourself a Christian according to the generally accepted definition of the term. Furthermore, a hypocrite is one who pretends to have beliefs or virtues that he does not really have, and is thus unrelated to the statement that one is a Christian.

Buzzed wrote:If you hate a particular sin more then another, then you definately do lack compassion.

Untrue. It is possible to be a compassionate person, and hold that some moral transgressions are more severe than others. For example, I can argue that rape is in most cases a worse sin or moral transgression than theft, as the former tends to cause a greater degree of suffering, and still be perfectly compassionate.

3278 wrote:I think the error is in liberal thinking, which equates political conservativism with a lack of compassion because political conservatives don't generally support things like welfare and foetus-killing.

While I'm nitpicking over definitions, I should point out that a true liberal - a liberal in the John Stuart Mill sense - would be unlikely to support the welfare state. The welfare state is more a product of social democratic thought, than it is of liberal thought. Sorry. I know that was unnecessary. It just pisses me off when people use the words "liberal" and "conservative" like they're diametrically opposed, when they're not.


As for whether you can be a compassionate person and hold that homosexual intercourse is a sin: yes, you can. Your God, however - presuming he is omnipotent and could make homosexual intercourse not sinful if he so chose, but does not - is a cruel and cold-hearted piece of shit.

Sticks wrote:

So where does "gay sex is a sin" fit into that?

Old Testament, mainly. Iron Hand and Velvet Glove thing, God and Jesus. Soddom and Gomorrah.

I have thought about that. Does it actually say it is gay sex that is wrong or that it is sodomy that is wrong, cause they are not necessarily the same thing.

from dictionary.com 'sod·om·y'

1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

Even thou the gay thing is numbero uno ... Hmmm never really though of oral sex as sodomy. Well well live and learn.


But back to the question from Buzzed. Does it mean you are not a compassionate person? I'd say not necessarily. After all one can't be approve of every single little thing. Compassionate isn't sainthood or anything like that. As long as you are fin with it being a sin and in your mind in the hands of God to do something about it then I'd say no. But if you start going around doing some serious gay-bashing then well perhaps not that compassionate.

I think the idea is that Jesus accepted everyone. THAT is the important part. Jesus does not care who you are. Also, I would say that Jesus is trying to encourage everyone accept each other even if he knows it is futile, but he wants to continue to do so because he loves people so much.

The important thing that Jesus said somewhere along these lines: Love thy neighbors and enemies as you love yourself. He mentioned that as one of the most important commandment. From what I understand is that he does not look at sins, but rather, look at how he can help the world.

Buzzed wrote:I am a Christian. Therefore, I think gay sex is a sin.

Does this mean I am not a compassionate person?

Everyone is allowed to have their own views and opinions, as long as you do not try to force these beliefs on others, I do not see a problem with it.

Crazy Elf wrote:

Buzzed wrote:I am a Christian. Therefore, I think gay sex is a sin.

Being a Christian means that you believe that Jesus was the messiah, and the word of God. Jesus overruled a lot of things that were established in the Old Testament. Jesus made the new covenant with God, and in Hebrews 8:13, he made the old one obsolete

Heb 8:13 wrote:By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin, never ever. If you believe that as a result of being Christian, you have to believe that homosexuality is a sin, you're just a retard.

Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

Did Jesus call anything a sin, really? He seemed more of a Bill and Ted type - "Be excellent to each other." Possibly even Wiccan, "As long as you don't mess with anyone else, do whatever you want." I mean, the most I remember him saying was go be poor because wealthy people don't go to heaven, but I don't see many Christians striving to do that.

Anguirel wrote:

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

Did Jesus call anything a sin, really? He seemed more of a Bill and Ted type - "Be excellent to each other." Possibly even Wiccan, "As long as you don't mess with anyone else, do whatever you want." I mean, the most I remember him saying was go be poor because wealthy people don't go to heaven,

There ws the whole table kicking incident with the money changers in the temple.

And I don't remember him saying, "Don't steal," but it remains a sin to do so. Simply because there's a new covenant doesn't mean the old one is invalidated, as Jesus pointed out. Which is why, to be Christian, you can't simply read the New Testament and call it good; the old ways - those not overruled by the Christ - are still in effect. That's why I don't buy Mooky's opinion that to be Christian all you must do is believe Jesus is the son of god; after all, once you accept Christ, you accept the god, and you accept, thus, his Word.

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

VERY loaded and rethorical question 32. As far as I can see it, there are only two possible answers: "It's a sin", "It's not a sin". Now, ironically, though I'm agnostic, christianity answers this for itself, if people only bothered to look. IF the Law, the whole of the Law, is rooted upon "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you", "Love God above all else" and "Love thy neigbour as thyself" (as Jesus insisted it was - Matthew, chptr7 v 12, Mark, chptr12 v 28 - 34)* then it doesn't really matter, now does it?

The whole message of Christianity is that none of us are without sin. None of us. Therefore, a little hangup like sexual preference should hardly matter in the great scheme of things. And certainly not to Christians, who above all elese are called, even obligated, by their belief to forgive and not judge and condemn.

So, you Buzzed think it's a sin, even Jesus said that ALL sins would be forgiven by his new covenant? Fine, your opinion. But might I remind you about this little passage right here (and I only have the Norwegian translation of the New Testament, so this translation could be a little shaky):

"Not all who say unto me, Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but those who do my Fathers will / Many will say to me on that day; Lord! Lord! have we not spoken profecy by thy name, and exorcised evil spirits in thy name, and done many mighty deeds by thy name? / And I will say unto them: I have never known you; begone, You who have done wrong." - Matthew chptr7, v21-23.

There's also quite the charming little passage about splinters and beams. I'm sure you know it. Also one about being sinless and throwing stones.. But since you're a good christian, I'm sure you know where to find them and don't need a heathen like /me/ going around telling you where they are.

And now... How about we all just bugger off and leave the state of our souls and our "sins" to the one, ONLY entity capable of having any relevant position worth a damn; God! Hmh? Sound good to anyone else?

Oh and... PS: Buzzed, I /do/ believe in god. Wholeheartedly and without reservation. Just thought I'd mention it since I just know if I left it at "agnostic" you'd confuse it with "atheist". If anyone's interested, I can even post my reasons why, though it won't matter. The sooner we tear down organized religions the better. The odd work of art aside, it's caused nothing but grief.

TLM wrote:

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

VERY loaded and rethorical question 32. As far as I can see it, there are only two possible answers: "It's a sin", "It's not a sin". Now, ironically, though I'm agnostic, christianity answers this for itself, if people only bothered to look. IF the Law, the whole of the Law, is rooted upon "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you", "Love God above all else" and "Love thy neigbour as thyself" (as Jesus insisted it was - Matthew, chptr7 v 12, Mark, chptr12 v 28 - 34)* then it doesn't really matter, now does it?

Well, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't matter, now does it? It doesn't matter if murder's a sin, by this reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Perhaps it's right to avoid the question of sin altogether, but it seems to me that's a dangerous path; you really ought to know what god approves of so you can make sure to do it. Sure, everyone is with sin, but that doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

Toon wrote:How does being a Christian make one think gay sex is a sin? To follow Jesus' teachings is to lead a life of love, tolerance and forgiveness. In fact, Jesus' primary teaching was to love everyone equally. And the whole point of his death was to free everyone who believed in him and followed his teachings of sin.

So where does "gay sex is a sin" fit into that?

http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html

Bible.com wrote:God loves all homosexuals! However, He hates the deeds of homosexuality because they are sinful.

Bible.com wrote:God loves all homosexuals! However, He hates the deeds of homosexuality because they are sinful.

Hrm, sounds like the Bible.com dudes talk to God on a daily basis.

Which reminds me . . . why doesn't anyone make a jesus blow up doll?

Their commentary is fairly ill-thought-out, but the relevant passages from scripture are all certainly there.

TLM wrote:I /do/ believe in god. Wholeheartedly and without reservation. Just thought I'd mention it since I just know if I left it at "agnostic" you'd confuse it with "atheist".

You aren't agnostic. Agnostic literally means in a state of not knowing. An agnostic questions whether there is a God and will not take a solid stand on either side. An atheist believes there is none. I was going to say deist (Day-Ist) is the antonym of atheist, but it isn't. A deist believes there is a God, but he abandoned the universe (more or less). Essentially most physicists and rational-materialists might as well be Deists -- they can't explain what caused the Big Bang (so it might as well be God), but they're pretty darn sure there's been no interference since then from any divine source.

Though not a common word, the actual antonym of atheist is fairly straight forward: theist. One who believes there is a God (at least one, possibly many). No other beliefs are expressed by this term beyond the unreserved belief in a divine power. This is the correct word to use to describe yourself.

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

New answer! No, he wouldn't say it's a-ok. The proper response would be, "Only if they're married."

I dunno. Things like homosexuality and premarital sex seem more like social taboos than actual sins to me because neither actually harm the individual, yet both are seen to be sinful for some reason. I mean, is there an actual justification for opposing homosexuality and premarital sex or are we just going for the "because God said so and that's that" route?

3278 wrote: Well, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't matter, now does it? It doesn't matter if murder's a sin, by this reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. Perhaps it's right to avoid the question of sin altogether, but it seems to me that's a dangerous path; you really ought to know what god approves of so you can make sure to do it. Sure, everyone is with sin, but that doesn't mean you have to wallow in it.

No, you don't. But when I was younger and less rabidly anti-organized religion I was taught in church and sunday-school that if you honestly repent your sins before God (the beard in the sky), then HE will know what they are. And as long as you honestly and truly repent he'll let you into heaven. So, theoretically, Adolf Hitler could be in heaven right now, sipping margaritas with John Wayne and Patton for all we know. So, yes, I really, really think we should avoid the whole issue of "sin" here. Especially since there are so many other sins that are more... pressing than what goes on in the bedrooms of adult people.

Anguirel wrote: Though not a common word, the actual antonym of atheist is fairly straight forward: theist. One who believes there is a God (at least one, possibly many). No other beliefs are expressed by this term beyond the unreserved belief in a divine power. This is the correct word to use to describe yourself.

Duly noted. Theist it is. Sorry, I was agnostic for about 8 years. I'm used to describing myself that way. Mea culpa.

ak404 wrote: I dunno. Things like homosexuality and premarital sex seem more like social taboos than actual sins to me because neither actually harm the individual, yet both are seen to be sinful for some reason. I mean, is there an actual justification for opposing homosexuality and premarital sex or are we just going for the "because God said so and that's that" route?

Apart from the big beard in the sky? None comes to mind right now. I'll give you a proper answer after I've had some more time to think.

Anguirel wrote:You aren't agnostic. Agnostic literally means in a state of not knowing. An agnostic questions whether there is a God and will not take a solid stand on either side. An atheist believes there is none. I was going to say deist (Day-Ist) is the antonym of atheist, but it isn't. A deist believes there is a God, but he abandoned the universe (more or less). Essentially most physicists and rational-materialists might as well be Deists -- they can't explain what caused the Big Bang (so it might as well be God), but they're pretty darn sure there's been no interference since then from any divine source.

An interesting summation. I think it's probably important to underline the difference between a Deist and a deist, and how that differs from a theist. It's also important to note that there's more than one kind of agnostic: the "soft" agnostic, who says, "I don't know; I'm not sure," and the "hard" agnostic who says, "The nature of divinity is unknowable." This is similar to the line between soft atheists ["I don't think there's a god."] and hard atheists ["There is no god."].

Most physicists and rational-materialists are much closer to soft atheism or soft agnosticism than they are to Deism, in my experience. By this point, most have cast off the baggage of 18th century thought brought about by the combination of Newton and frustration with organized religion, and simply decided that there is not only no need for god or gods to bring about the creation, but that it is actually illogical to suppose that there is a god or gods who did so. [After all, if organized complexity - the universe - is what you're having trouble explaining, introducing more complexity - in the form of a deity who is capable of creating universes, forgiving sins, and so on - is irrational. It helps that we have a decent idea of the many ways in which a non-miraculous event could initiate the universe.]

Homosexuality is also referred to as the sin of sodomy.

By which, I'm pretty sure that almost all of us are guilty of...based on the definition of sodomy...

(by the way, the quote is from that bible.com

I am most happily guilty of oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Gunny wrote:I am most happily guilty of oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Hell yes. And in typical BD fashion, a thread about christian compassion swings towards discussion of 'teh blowjob.'

I am definately all for oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. Anyone who says that it is a sin to bring pleasure to another without causing anyone else any pain or damage really needs to straighten out their priorities.

And frankly, I look at the Bible and I can no longer see a book consisting of words of wisdom handed down from a higher source. What I see is a book that was written by the hands of men, and what men touch they corrupt. There may or may not have been a divine inspiration for what was written, we can never truly know. But to me so much of organized religion seems to be nothing more than another way to control the masses.

One of my favorite quotes on religion comes from Matthew Woodring Stover:

Stover wrote:A religion that teaches you God is something outside the world - something separate from everything you see, smell, taste, touch, and hear - is nothing but a cheap hustle.

Buzzed wrote:So far, I agree with the posts that i have seen, except Cash's post of course. If you don't think gay sex is a sin, then you are being a hypocrite by calling yourself a christian.

Fuck that. There are branches of christianity that do not consider homosexuality as being wrong, so bite your tongue on speaking for every christian. You can speak for yourself or maybe even your sect/branch/denomination, whatever you want to call it, but not all christians are opposed to homosexuals and that's that. You can think whatever you want, but don't expand it further than it is.

3PO wrote:And I don't remember him saying, "Don't steal," but it remains a sin to do so. Simply because there's a new covenant doesn't mean the old one is invalidated, as Jesus pointed out.

*sigh*

Heb 8:13 wrote:By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Now, by soon, I figure 2,000 years runs well past the point of when it should disappear. Remember that there was never an actual commandment: "Thou shalt not be a Ross". Jesus reffers to the ten commandments as being good ideas, but he doesn't say that dietry requirements and mildew hut burning has to still take place. Ross-killing is in amongst all that stuff, with the pot breaking and menstral blood stoning. Seeing as none of that other stuff seems to be supported by the large bulk of the Christian faith, I don't see why this one statement about homosexuality holds so much fucking water. It makes no sense, unless you're also burning down your mildew infested hut, getting expelled from the tribe for seeing menstral blood, and avoiding shellfish and badger eating like the plague.

If you're not following ALL of Leviticus, then you sure as hell shouldn't be following just that one bit.

Nah, I always thought Jesus was at his most charming when he challenged some sanctimonious motherfuckers to examine themselves before they started tossing rocks.

Crazy Elf wrote:Now, by soon, I figure 2,000 years runs well past the point of when it should disappear.

So does that mean any of the instructions in the old testament that Jesus didn't reiterate are now expired? Because I feel like that includes a lot of things that Christians typically don't think they're supposed to do.

I think there are some injunctions against homosexuality in the New Testament too, just not from Jesus personally.

Yeah, fom Paul, I believe. He was somewhat...neurotic.

3278 wrote:Simply because there's a new covenant doesn't mean the old one is invalidated, as Jesus pointed out. Which is why, to be Christian, you can't simply read the New Testament and call it good; the old ways - those not overruled by the Christ - are still in effect. That's why I don't buy Mooky's opinion that to be Christian all you must do is believe Jesus is the son of god; after all, once you accept Christ, you accept the god, and you accept, thus, his Word.

Sure, that would follow - but only if you accept the premise that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. While a large number of Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God, it isn't requisite of Christianity that they do. Thus, it would be possible to believe - as many people do - that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Bible is not the direct Word of God. People with these beliefs would be perfectly consistent in claiming that they are Christian, and that they find no compelling reason why homosexual intercourse be considered morally wrong.

lorg wrote:Does [the Bible] actually say it is gay sex that is wrong or that it is sodomy that is wrong, cause they are not necessarily the same thing.

Neither. It says that intercourse between two males is wrong, and that extramarital sex is wrong. It does not say that sodomy in a married relationship is wrong. And I challenge anyone to find a verse where it says lesbian intercourse is wrong.

dictionary.com wrote:sod·om·y

1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

So, does this mean that oral copulation between two men, or copulation between three or more people of the same sex, is not sodomy?

3278 wrote:Seriously, someone tell me they think that if you got in a time machine and went back to chill with the Jesus and asked him, "So...fucking a man in the ass; sin, or no?" he'd say, "It's a-ok with me!"

I don't think anyone could be sure what he would say, but if he said it was ok, would it be inconsistent with anything else he said? If no, then the possibility of him saying, "it's a-ok with me," remains a live one.

3278 wrote:Most physicists and rational-materialists are much closer to soft atheism or soft agnosticism than they are to Deism, in my experience. By this point, most have cast off the baggage of 18th century thought brought about by the combination of Newton and frustration with organized religion, and simply decided that there is not only no need for god or gods to bring about the creation, but that it is actually illogical to suppose that there is a god or gods who did so. [After all, if organized complexity - the universe - is what you're having trouble explaining, introducing more complexity - in the form of a deity who is capable of creating universes, forgiving sins, and so on - is irrational. It helps that we have a decent idea of the many ways in which a non-miraculous event could initiate the universe.]

Yeah, but I'd be willing to bet that many physicists would be uncomfortable with the idea of this non-miraculous event happening without any preceding thing causing it. God has an advantage over the Big Bang as a first cause, because a transcendent object could exist without a preceding event, while it seems as if a giant explosion should have something earlier to cause it.

mrmooky wrote:While a large number of Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God, it isn't requisite of Christianity that they do.

I think, as a practical matter, that's really quite untrue.

mrmooky wrote:Neither. It says that intercourse between two males is wrong, and that extramarital sex is wrong. It does not say that sodomy in a married relationship is wrong.

That's a tough sell, given god's feelings toward Sodom.

mrmooky wrote:Yeah, but I'd be willing to bet that many physicists would be uncomfortable with the idea of this non-miraculous event happening without any preceding thing causing it. God has an advantage over the Big Bang as a first cause, because a transcendent object could exist without a preceding event, while it seems as if a giant explosion should have something earlier to cause it.

Rationalist-materialists don't believe god is any more "transcendent" than anything else; they still ask what the prime cause for /god/ was. At the same time, the laws of physics allow many possible interpretations of what could have happened before the Big Bang singularity, including the concept that "before" had no meaning in this case, since time is a function of space, which did not exist until the initial singularity. Suffice it to say there are many more logical, material, rational ways for the universe to have got its start than there are logical supernatural ways.

3278 wrote:

mrmooky wrote:While a large number of Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God, it isn't requisite of Christianity that they do.

I think, as a practical matter, that's really quite untrue.

In a country where the vast majority of Christians are Bible-believing, it probably is. In other parts of the world, there are plenty of Christians who don't take every word of the Bible as the direct Word of God. I myself was one for several years.

3278 wrote:

mrmooky wrote:Neither. It says that intercourse between two males is wrong, and that extramarital sex is wrong. It does not say that sodomy in a married relationship is wrong.

That's a tough sell, given god's feelings toward Sodom.

The men of Sodom were also would-be rapists. Unless God expressly mentioned oral and anal sex between married couples as among the reasons he smote them, I see no evidence in the Bible that He disapproves.

3278 wrote:Rationalist-materialists don't believe god is any more "transcendent" than anything else; they still ask what the prime cause for /god/ was. At the same time, the laws of physics allow many possible interpretations of what could have happened before the Big Bang singularity, including the concept that "before" had no meaning in this case, since time is a function of space, which did not exist until the initial singularity. Suffice it to say there are many more logical, material, rational ways for the universe to have got its start than there are logical supernatural ways.

There are an infinite number of logical supernatural ways.

And depending on how he thinks the universe started, your rational materialist is still left with either an uncaused event, for which he must make an exception to his material view, or an infinite regress of causes, which does not provide an explanation for the universe.

Mr. Mooky wrote:Unless God expressly mentioned oral and anal sex between married couples as among the reasons he smote them, I see no evidence in the Bible that He disapproves.

I guess I understood the bible incorrectly the few times I have read it. (Which is admittedly not often, as I am not a christian.)

I thought he, Gawd, frowned on Sodomy period. Is this incorrect?

mrmooky wrote:Neither. It says that intercourse between two males is wrong, and that extramarital sex is wrong. It does not say that sodomy in a married relationship is wrong. And I challenge anyone to find a verse where it says lesbian intercourse is wrong.

OK just where exactly does it say in the bible that man on man action is wrong? I'd like to look it up. I need references here people.

mrmooky wrote:So, does this mean that oral copulation between two men, or copulation between three or more people of the same sex, is not sodomy?

Ah so perhaps then God is pro-gangbangs, good to know. Does he say that anything is wrong with bestiality or necrophilia or does God condone that type of action?


So if they where sodomites in Sodom what exactly went on in Gomorra?

lorg wrote:Ah so perhaps then God is pro-gangbangs, good to know.

Well, there is the story with Lot's daughters...

Serious Paul wrote:I thought he, Gawd, frowned on Sodomy period. Is this incorrect?

As far as I know, the Bible does not say that God disapproves of intramarital sodomy. This site is a fairly comprehensive guide to what can and cannot be done within a Christian marriage, according to the teachings of the Bible.

lorg wrote:OK just where exactly does it say in the bible that man on man action is wrong? I'd like to look it up. I need references here people.

Sure.

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

These are the two most unequivocal condemnations of male homosexual intercourse in the Old Testament. Some Biblical scholars also cite Deuteronomy 23:17, Judges 19:14-29, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 24:36, and 2 Kings 23:7 as further evidence, but these verses are all very ambiguous in their meaning. Genesis chapter 19 is the story of Sodom, which is about interspecial homosexual rape, and is thus also ambiguous with regard to God's position on homosexuality. There are plenty more verses in the New Testament, all of which have translation issues.

lorg wrote:Does he say that anything is wrong with bestiality or necrophilia or does God condone that type of action?

No, He very clearly says they're wrong:

Leviticus 18:23 wrote:Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it, that is a perversion.

Leviticus 20:15 wrote:If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

Deuteronomy 27:21 wrote:Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal...

Leviticus 21:11 wrote:Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother...