Evidence for God from Science

There was no such thing as homosexuality in biblical times. Everyone was presumed to only be able to be aroused by the opposite gender

Do you have any proof of that?

Today, the reasonable and educated world accepts that homosexuality is not a disease or a choice.

It is far from being proven that it is genetic, how do you explain identical twins where one is gay and one is not?
I believe it is a choice, when I was a teen I had impure thoughts and could have easily become gay if I didn't resist it.

It is not "learned," nor is it curable. It's not a choice

Again this is opinion not fact, there are many cases of gay people coming to Christ who are either happily married into a heterosexual marriage or became celibate.

Paul wrote under the assumption that these were straight men who were "giving in" to some kind of primal/demonic urge.

Well it would be a fair assumption to make as God made them to be heterosexual and they are going against God's will.

You're going to need to really define your terms.
1. What is "full group protection under the law"? The thing you claim they do not have. You're going to need to define or list what "rights and privileges" you're talking about. Nobody has a "right" to adopt. Having children is a privilege. You seem to be utterly confused as to what a right is and the difference between privilege.
Go ahead and list everything, tell me if its a right or privilege, and then tell me if homosexuals don't have rights or privilege to them. I will be glad to correct it or inform you with proper information.

2. You're going to need to substantiate what it is from what it ought to be. I don't think you know what discrimination is. If I own a business and I have a right to refuse service. Let's say I refuse service to someone who I recognize as a registered sex offender because I don't want him around. Is his "rights" violated? Perhaps you should look into private and federal matters. Look into federal regulations. Do you think there should be federal terms and criteria that should be met by personal matters? Or should anyone indiscriminately qualify? How do you determine that? I eagerly await your answer.

3. I appreciate your honestly on what you flatly say. But what you flatly say is flatly not an objective statement on the matter. You're simply misinformed, and you simply shrugged it off as if it didn't matter. Does it matter to you that want to call something knowledge, and then say it is absolutely true with even some remote evidentary support? Or are we just exercising pragmatic and post modern ideas?

4. So you understand what cherry picking is and you understand you're very naive on biblical matter, yet you still somehow think you substantiated something? I would hardly say you know what "Jesus is cool with". You clearly just don't know and instead make baseless guesses as to what something means.

Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you think I am"? He didn't say, "Who do you want me to be"?

I suggest you go to Christian theology first before you try to make a claim to absolute truth on this social problem. There are plenty of really nice guys over there willing to educate on what the bible says.

I,

The Bible says specific things to specific people in specific times. In the Bible universal truth is revealed. But you also have dispensational truth. To say that the bible is outdated is incorrect. Certain aspects in the bible are out of commission. To say the bible is immoral says you have a standard by which to judge. Who are you to judge the Bible? By what objective standard can you say these things. Please be specific.

The system put in place by God to govern Israel is not universal. That doesn't mean that God approves homosexuality outside of Isreal's economy. Israel's system had a purpose. It did involve very intense penalties for behavior that violated the covenant. Paul Copan in his book, "Is God a moral monster" deals with all the cultural norms and conditions to help us gain better perspective on why things were the way they were. If you are remotely sincere in understanding the difficulties in the Bible, then take a humble pill and read this book. His research is exhaustive.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Those are all difficult things to understand. I can't say I have a full comprehension on them. I can however aprehend a little. I can also acknowledge that it would be totally unfair for me to judge a culture 2,000-3,000 years ago, by cherry picking things out of context.

I doubt that my opinions on right and wrong are the same as God's. I doubt my thoughts on sin are equal to that of God. For example. If I said, "If someone is caught in the act of torturing babies to death for pleasure, that person should be stoned to death," would you be concerned enough to put in a thread? No. You might even conceed that the punishment fits the crime. I hope that you and I would both agree that this is abhorrent behavior. Now we could also agree that you and I don't see a married couple having sex during menstation as abhorrent. It isn't a problem for us. Therefore, the punishment, in our eyes doesn't fit the crime. However, God obviously had a reason for this law with Israel. We simply don't have the perspective. What if I told you that people should go to jail for not making their beds? Without context, you'd say, "that's immoral." But, what if I said I am a drill seargent in the Army, and that the people I'm referring to are inlisted soldiers who in acts of insubordination refuse to abide by these rules. You may still think the punishment is extreme, but it would definately change your reaction. Why? Context and perspective.

We know that cerimonial purity is a big deal in the OT. It is a foriegn concept to us, but so are many customs of the anceint world. Just as many of our customs would seem barbaric to them. A lot of people get their jollies off of watching MMA fighters bash each other's brains in. Regarding Israel's laws, God definately had a higher standard regarding marriage, sex outside of marriage, and cerimonial purity than the average person does today. Just because we have a much lower view of these things doesn't make harsh judgment immoral. Nazi Germany did not view the torture and killing of Jews as a problem. You and I might say, people who torture Jews should be put to death or imprisoned for life. Yet, the Nazi following your line of thinking would think we were immoral for having such a distorted perspected.

MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

This shows that you really aren't interested in context, but merely plucking verses out of context that you don't understand. First, Jesus' quote of this verse is actually quoting the OPT to talk about how things will be in the resurrection.

The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

Where are you getting your talking points from? It doesn't say that it is acceptable for man to have sex with a prostitute. Polygamy was a reality of those times, but show me where the bible endorses polygamy. There is no prohibition on interracial marriage. In fact that is pure ignorance. I beg of you man, before you start condmening everything, take the time to get some real context. The OT makes provisions for ANY one in the HUMAN race to become a proselyte Jew. It had nothing to do with race. a proselyte would have the same priveleges of one born a Hebrew. In fact, there would have been little to distinquish a Jew from an Ammorite, Philistine, Jebusites, etc. In fact, physically they were likely the same. Except for one thing. A little alteration of the foreskin on the males.
The law of Moses made specific regulations regarding the admission into the Jewish church of such as were not born Israelites (Ex. 20:10; 23:12; 12:19, 48; Deut. 5:14; 16:11, 14, etc.). The Kenites, the Gibeonites, the Cherethites, and the Pelethites were thus admitted to the privileges of Israelites. Thus also we hear of individual proselytes who rose to positions of prominence in Israel, as of Doeg the Edomite, Uriah the Hittite, Araunah the Jebusite, Zelek the Ammonite, Ithmah and Ebedmelech the Ethiopians.

My point is that these laws are archaic and only apply to the laws of that time. Think of it this way: Homosexuality was not accepted as a way of life until the 19th century. Until then, we were under the assumption that all people were heterosexual, and homosexual sex was just a choice. The people in the Bible who claimed that men should not lay with another man wrote that under the assumption that "a straight man should not lay with a straight man." Just as we've learned that these other biblical laws are immoral and ridiculous, these archaic statements by human beings (not Jesus) are equally outdated.

The age of law doesn't make it valid or in-valid. That is chronological snobbery. If we examine homosexuality outside the context of the Bible, then we can still find plenty wrong with endorsing it as a normal lifestyle.

Again, by what standard is it ridiculous or immoral?

Jlay: I understand the idea that some of the laws in the bible no longer technically apply to us because God gave them only to certain people, but my question remains, where do we determine exactly which laws no longer apply? No one has yet showed me where the Bible says that homosexuality is a punishable crime for all time, while not being a virgin when married is no longer a crime.

When you cite a culture, that's my point about how homosexuality in that culture wasn't the same as today. I don't think it's fair to say I can't take certain biblical laws listed alongside bans on homosexuality (because the cultural context was different for them), but at the same time you say the law on homosexuality was absolutely not affected by cultural influences. Again, what is the distinction? I argue that all the laws I listed and the one against homosexuality were rooted in the cultural context of that time, and that just like the other ones, the fear of homosexuality is archaic and the product of that culture.

No one has yet showed me where the Bible says that homosexuality is a punishable crime for all time, while not being a virgin when married is no longer a crime.

Ivellious, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I haven't heard anyone say that they believe those caught having homosexual sex, should be prosecuted. Committing adultery is certainly wrong as well, but I don't hear anyone calling for prosecution for those guilty of adultery. This certainly isn't Saudi Arabia, where the country is ruled by religious law.

Then, in the legal/political sense, what is the legal basis for condemning and restricting the rights of homosexuals? Say it is a sin, just like adultery or any other sexual misconduct in the Bible. We agree that none of those deserve to necessarily be punished by mortal law in this day and age. In that case, just like we don't think our government should place restrictions on girls who lost their virginity at 17, I don't think homosexuals should be singled out in any laws because the only basis for such laws would be religious.

In my mind, the laws that want to restrict homosexual marriage and adoptions are just a rehash of the "separate but equal" argument used against black people in the US. The heavily conservative Christians use it as a means to sound civil and mask any bigotry by claiming to offer the same things with different names (marriage and "civil unions").

I don't think homosexuals should be singled out in any laws because the only basis for such laws would be religious.

I agree. And I also think we need to be consistent, and not offer special rights to people because of their sexual choices. To be honest, this is a very difficult subject for me. On one hand, I genuinely feel for people who love each other. And on the other hand, I believe homosexual sex is wrong. So, even though I can certainly be sympathetic to how they feel towards each other, I can't agree with the lifestyle.

In my mind, the laws that want to restrict homosexual marriage and adoptions are just a rehash of the "separate but equal" argument used against black people in the US.

I know that comparison is used sometimes to try to justify "homosexual marriage", but I don't think it's a valid comparison. Since I get my views of right and wrong, from the bible, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God in me, there us nothing in the bible that says people of different skin colors shouldn't marry each other. The bible does not say that being "black" is a sin. People who claim the name of Christ, to justify their racial prejudice, aren't being consistent with the bible. People who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, as being something other that what God intends for us, is being consistent with what the bible says.

I understand that it's a tough topic. While I don't follow that lifestyle, and personally don't find it offensive or something immoral, I do understand that some people do find it to be a bad way to live. But, to me, I don't think that the belief that homosexual relationships are sinful should be forced on other people. I understand that many of our laws in the US are based on Christian (and by relation, Jewish) values. But the vast majority of such laws are rather universal and not unique to Christianity. For the most part, our laws don't interfere with the religious freedoms of any particular group (nor should they).

On topics such as homosexuality, the prevailing arguments against allowing homosexuals to marry, adopt, and so on are entirely based on religion. In the US, that religious backing is mostly Christian. Because of this, I see it as anti-religious freedom to try to force homosexuals into a corner and say "I don't agree with your lifestyle, so I think you shouldn't get the same rights as me." I don't see the big deal about just letting them live their lives...You don't have to agree with it, but you also don't have a right to demand that everyone follow that religious creed. I think some Christians in power feel a sense of superiority in the political world, like they can force their religion on others but claim a breach of religious freedom as soon as someone even brings up something based in another religion.

Because of this, I see it as anti-religious freedom to try to force homosexuals into a corner and say "I don't agree with your lifestyle, so I think you shouldn't get the same rights as me."

I think this is where some will disagree with you. I think every adult should have the same rights. The problem is, that marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. If two men or two women are allowed to " marry", then they would be getting special rights. I think that's why people talk about civil unions, that would give certain couples all legal rights, without changing the definition of marriage. If marriage is changed to mean something it has never meant, then where is the line drawn, when one man wants to "marry" 5 women? Or one man wants to "marry" his sister? Once the legal definition of marriage is changed, then that opens up a whole can of worms.

I don't see the big deal about just letting them live their lives...You don't have to agree with it, but you also don't have a right to demand that everyone follow that religious creed. I think some Christians in power feel a sense of superiority in the political world, like they can force their religion on others but claim a breach of religious freedom as soon as someone even brings up something based in another religion.

We have the same right to object as you have the right to object, if they make it law well that is then their issue and until then I will continue to object based on my religious beliefs.
That is the beauty of living in a democratic society. I don't get involved in politcs much but our prime minister is an avowed atheist and is still against gay marriage, it is not just a religious issue.


Dan

Ivellious wrote:Jlay: I understand the idea that some of the laws in the bible no longer technically apply to us because God gave them only to certain people, but my question remains, where do we determine exactly which laws no longer apply? No one has yet showed me where the Bible says that homosexuality is a punishable crime for all time, while not being a virgin when married is no longer a crime.


When you cite a culture, that's my point about how homosexuality in that culture wasn't the same as today. I don't think it's fair to say I can't take certain biblical laws listed alongside bans on homosexuality (because the cultural context was different for them), but at the same time you say the law on homosexuality was absolutely not affected by cultural influences. Again, what is the distinction? I argue that all the laws I listed and the one against homosexuality were rooted in the cultural context of that time, and that just like the other ones, the fear of homosexuality is archaic and the product of that culture.

I, hope to write more later, but lost my post. For now here are two links that might explain a few things. First we need to understand that a strong case can be made for the immorality of homosexuality witout ever referencing the Bible.

http://crossexamined.org/articles-detai ... It's%20Bad

Which part of the law? I'm not advocating the claims in the article, but the author covers an essential point regarding the proper divisions of the law. I may be able to dig up some more commentary later. FWIW, no one here is saying homosexuality should punishable as in the OT.
http://www.tenth.org/qbox/qb_000806.htm

Regarding the culture. What if some new culture came along and said that laws against murder and rape were archaic? Would you agree? You are practicing cultural and chronological snobbery. We are not speaking of preference, but of universal right and wrong. If you say it is only a matter of culture, then you would have to conceed that some culture could come along where rape was virtous, and you'd be forced to agree.

First of all, upon further review, that "CrossExamined" website is a load of bias and propaganda. It's just a group of radical evangelicals who are anti-everything-but-Christianity and bash higher education. They seek to eradicate atheism like it's a disease (even going so far as to say it's an "epidemic").

I like how that article just quotes a couple of people, with zero actual evidence or data to support anything. Just the word of a couple supporters of their cause...because that's a good argument.

Their main argument is this:
Gay marriage will lead to less marriage.
Gay marriage thus will lead to more out-of-wedlock children.
This = devastated culture.

They cite Norway, where marriage rates are down after gay marriage was legalized. They make that go hand in hand with the concept that poverty and disorder come from out-of-wedlock children. Funny place to draw a correlation...seeing as Norway has and continues to have one of the strongest economies in the world and some of the happiest and healthiest people in the world. Huh. Yup, gay marriage screwed them.

Then they jump into a rant about divorce laws (?) saying that we should go back to the days of "if you knock up a 15 year old girl we hold a shotgun marriage and the girl is bound to the father for life, without exception." It's great when marriages last. Thing is, lots of dissolved marriages come from young couples...those who have a child early in life and impulsively marry, but realize later that they weren't going to be happy together, or their relationship was detrimental to everyone involved. I'm no advocate for saying "well...too bad, you can't get divorced." In those cases, especially involving abusive fathers, the children are likely to be even worse off with no fathers.

Bottom line, they end by saying that a child must have a mother and father to be successful and happy, and that gay parents would be detrimental to them. I've heard it before and I'll likely hear that argument again. But until somebody actually tells me why or how that affects children, and can give me some solid supporting data or evidence, that's a totally unsubstantiated claim.