Evidence for God from Science

Shirtless wrote:Wait! It wasn't the lusts that made God turn them over; look:

You're right it wasn't the lusts; what made God turn them over was their suppression of truth by their wickedness. What were they turned over to? Even greater wickedness - one of homosexuality. Clearly homosexuality is being used by Paul in this context to show extreme depravity - it's not the ONLY thing that shows it, but one of the things.

It's like Paul's saying, "Hmm, what can I describe of their actions that shows just how evil and far from God they are? Oh yes, they practice homosexuality."

Shirtless wrote:Felgar, I don't mean this as a slam or anything, but not many use Sodom and Gomorrah as having anything to do with homosexuality. It's about rape, yes, but it being "gay" rape isn't relevent.

Except that it is again an act related to severe wickedness. Are you seeing the trend? No holy men are gay - but plenty of wicked and deprived peoples are shown as practicing homosexuality in the Bible.

You can continue to side-step the obvious interpretations as much as you want, but at the end of the day the record is clear. And yes, there's a good case to ignore part of the OT law. But the moral laws of the OT are universal, and the argument that God did not clearly define homosexuality as a universal moral law is weak. Consider whether the other sins listed along with homosexuality should also not apply as universal morals, which implies incest and bestiality should also become accepted.

This is not a slippery slope argument, but rather a clear demonstration that society's values have strayed so far from God's that what God considers equally detestable (incest and homosexuality) is now to the point where society has absolutely no problem with one of them.

Felgar wrote:You're right it wasn't the lusts; what made God turn them over was their suppression of truth by their wickedness. What were they turned over to? Even greater wickedness - one of homosexuality.

Nope. Again, look carefully:

28And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

29Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,

30Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.

31[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.

So, God did NOT turn them over to homosexuality, but to a depraved mind, which makes them do things emphasized by the sin list below it, which, ironically, not once mentions homosexuality or anything related to it.

Are you seeing the trend? No holy men are gay - but plenty of wicked and deprived peoples are shown as practicing homosexuality in the Bible.

In a sense you're right; the Bible never outright says that there were important gay characters, just like how the Bible never says that black people are ever characters (!). However in both cases, there are hints that may or may not mean that characters had a gay relationship, David and Jonathon for example.

But the truth is WE DON'T KNOW if characters were gay or not, because the Bible tends to leave out all that isn't relevant, and since homosexual acts are mentioned 4 times at the most, and 3 times at the least, in a book where other sins are mentioned hundreds and hundreds of times, we can only assume homosexuality is very, very irrelevant.

And yes, there's a good case to ignore part of the OT law. But the moral laws of the OT are universal, and the argument that God did not clearly define homosexuality as a universal moral law is weak. Consider whether the other sins listed along with homosexuality should also not apply as universal morals, which implies incest and bestiality should also become accepted.

Well, who decides what is universal and what isn't? Paul said that you must follow ALL of the Law, or none of it. When God said "Be fruitful and multiply" he damn well knew that this involved incest; Seth sleeping with his sister, his son's sleeping with his daughters; Seth sleeping with his daughter, or granddaughter; don't forget Shem, son of Noah; Abraham marrying his half sister.

I'm happy leaving it at that. People can make their own decisions based on what has been said as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: No, wait. One last point regarding the OT law and if it applies.

Shirtless wrote:Well, who decides what is universal and what isn't? Paul said that you must follow ALL of the Law, or none of it.

Well the issue came up amongst the apostles too, who were wondering if Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the other Jewish laws. So they all got toether to discuss the issue. The event is recorded in Acts 15 and I suggest that you read the entire chapter. Their answer was as follows:

Acts 15:28-29
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Since they didn't take the time to define sexual immorality, and given that they are discussing the application of the OT law to Christians, it's obvious that they are defaulting back God's definition as provided in the law, in Leviticus. In essense they are saying that they are guided by Holy Spirit to uphold the OT definitions of sexual immorality.

Now this part is more speculative, but I think they mentioned those things specifically because those are the laws that could possibly be argued NOT to fall under the universal commandment of loving one's neighbour (murder would be covered by that commandment).

Ok, for real that's all I have to say on the matter. Thanks for listenning.

Felgar wrote:Ok, for real that's all I have to say on the matter. Thanks for listenning.

No problem, Felgar! Thanks for hearing me out as well!

the following is a transcript of a conversation i had with a "reverend"

From: Rev. Donald Spitz [mailto:Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:46 PM
To: JAH
Subject: Re: FAGHATERS



There is absolutely no evidence that souls pre-exist in heaven and then come into a human being. God creates the human being at the moment of conception. This point has nothing at all to do with [homosexuals]. [homosexuals] are people who choose to become sexual perverts because of their lust. God did not create any human being to be a [homosexual], no more than He created a human being to be a murderer or a rapist.


SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.ArmyofGod.com

----- Original Message -----

From: JAH

To: Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod. com

Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:38 PM

Subject: FAGHATERS



John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



Romans 1:1

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,



Romans 2:16

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



Matthew 23:9

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.



Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so, born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.



Romans 1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;



Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.



I have to say, sir , that you are dead wrong when it comes to your position on the meaning of eunuchs.

God does not hate [homosexuals].



For in heaven, there are no sexes. The only reason sex was created was to bring souls into this world. Everyone that is alive now already pre existed as a soul in heaven.



Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.





The fact that pre-existent souls have already been created spiritually, and are not "thoughts" in Yahweh's mind, is emphasised in works such as Joseph's Prayer [29], which says of certain individuals possessing "distinction greater than other souls": "I (Jacob) am an angel of God, and a primaeval spirit, thje first-born of all creation, and like me were baraham and Isaac created before any other words of God." The Shepherd of Hermas (perhaps the most widely read book in the entire Church from the 2nd to the 4th centuries) [30] likewise says of the pre-existent Church, "She was created before all things...for her sake was the world framed" (Vis.2.4:1). It was undoubtedly amongst such "invisible things" that Yahweh used to "go about" before creating "the things that are visible" (2 Enoch 24:4 cp. Heb.11:3).

According to Matthew 13:33,38, the best of these souls were sown as "leaven" among the tares, i.e. as "children of the kingdom" in the "field of the world". There can be no question as to the exact meaning of these verses, for the oft-repeated theme was specifically explained by the early Church writers as "the scattering of souls into bodies" [31]. The Wisdom of Solomon (A Jewish book retained by the Chur4ch as her own scripture) [32] says that Solomon was one of the nobler of these souls before being sown in a physical form: "As a child, I was by nature well-endowed, and a good soulfell my lot, or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body" (8:19-20). Eventually, the doctrine of the soul's descent into a body emerged as one of the leading themes in the newly-discovered Nag Hammadi library, found in Upper Egypt in 1946 [33]. There we read the following concerning pre-existence of the soul, said to be a genuine statement of the Saviour, taken from "a sayinsg collection...more primitive than the canonical gospels" [34]: "Blessed is he who was before he came into being" (Logion 17). The Gospel of Philip (ca. 140 AD) similarly remarks: "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he both was and shall be" (Saying 57).

So, the one reason for sex is to bring souls into this world previously created by GOD. You must also know that there are no male and female in heaven. So why then do you say that GOD hates [homosexuals].



Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so, born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.



And I dare you to quote the blasphemer Paul(Saul). For I will go ahead and do it.



Romans 1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



But I will bet my farm on what the real gospel had to say.



John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



Or do you proscribe to what someone else had to say?



Romans 1:1

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,



WTF?!!!



There are no separate gospels,

When God said "Be fruitful and multiply" he damn well knew that this involved incest; Seth sleeping with his sister, his son's sleeping with his daughters; Seth sleeping with his daughter, or granddaughter; don't forget Shem, son of Noah; Abraham marrying his half sister.

The Bible is against incest.

My apologies . I never saw that post...where is it? I'm not blind BTW, I'm just not all-seeing.

It's called a search, hello.

You misunderstand; I meant in terms of less quality as opposed to quantity. Yes Christianity did spread thanks to the Church, but I just think it caused a lot of harm as well.

What harm?

Though I have no idea what you mean, I agree with you 100%!

The statistics don't exactly favor the liberals.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. I didn't ignore anything; I even gave a link to one of the denominations you were referring to.

You said Christianity doesn't meet people halfway, and I replied that if you don't like that type of fundamentalist Christianity, you can join a denomination that's more moderate or liberal.

Look, how 'bout this: just give me a website that supports your view and I'll read everything in it within reason, as long as you read material from the link I gave you. Would that be good?

I put biblical verses that condemn homosexuality. Let's get to the point: you think homosexuality is normal and acceptable, possibly for personal reasons.

InfiniteLoop, you have a respectable opinion, but I don't think anyone calling Paul a blasphemer should be taken seriously. Paul was the greatest Apostle, a true Christian, and a feminist...that's right, I said feminist!

ochotseat wrote:The Bible is against incest.

I guess Abraham is roasting in Hell then. Actually you're right, but it would be more accurate to say "The Law is against incest." However Felgar highlighted the fact that Paul said that all of the Law is null and void, except a few universal laws, which included "sexual immorality". Does that include incest? Who knows, I guess that's for another thread.

I put biblical verses that condemn homosexuality. Let's get to the point: you think homosexuality is normal and acceptable, possibly for personal reasons.

Are you hitting on me? Just kidding; actually you're right-- it IS for personal reasons! Read this. (it was written by me )

Shirtless wrote:Paul was the greatest Apostle, a true Christian, and a feminist...that's right, I said feminist!

Not in today's sense of feminism. Today's feminists want to redefine natural gender roles.

I guess Abraham is roasting in Hell then.

Where does it say he married his sister? No, it doesn't, because one sin doesn't send you to hell. You also have to keep in mind that ancient peoples didn't know many of the things we know today.

Shirtless wrote:Are you hitting on me? Just kidding; actually you're right-- it IS for personal reasons! Read this. (it was written by me ).

I skimmed through it, and it basically shows that you went from being a "homophobe" to a pro-gay activist or maybe even queer yourself. In any case, the Bible and nature are against homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Here's something from what you wrote:

I had no idea that a constitutional amendment would be proposed to ban gay marriage. Bush was losing credibility in my eyes at that time. He was becoming more and more of a deceiver and an advocator of a war that was unjust, even though I strongly supported it in the beginning.

More liberal drivel.

Your paper also stated that your father was an Arabic Bahai (whatever that is) and your mother wasn't religious, but you were still forced to go to Sunday school?

There are several views of homosexuality commonly held by Christians. The extremes are as follows:

At one extreme, there is the view that God hates people who are attracted to others of the same sex, and that they have no hope for heaven.

At the other extreme, there is the view that homosexuality is morally acceptable and that there is nothing wrong with it.

Both views are dead wrong.

The truth is that homosexual activity is a sin, but is no worse than even heterosexual lust, and I'm not even talking sexual activity here. Thanks to Christ, active homosexuals can be forgiven like all other sinners.

First off, homosexual attraction isn't itself sin; it's temptation. People attracted to others of the same sex are no more evil than those attracted to the opposite sex, and everyone of sufficient age is at least one of the two! Lust is wrong in either context. See Matthew 5:28 for why it is wrong in a heterosexual context. It is clear that Jesus is saying that lust = sex (from a moral perspective). Thus, lust is wrong whenever sex would be wrong. Of course, lust != attraction.

However, it would be no more reasonable to say that homosexual attraction is wrong than to make the same claim about heterosexual attraction to someone who isn't your spouse. Plus, it does seem that homosexuals can't immediately choose their desires. They seem to think it's genetic. Even though the scientific evidence doesn't seem to support this, people who consciously chose homosexuality would not hold this view. Therefore, they certainly did not choose to have the desires.

Even the claim that active homosexuals are incapable of attaining heaven is baseless. The most common source cited is in 1 Corinthians:

I Corinthians 6:9-10 (WEB) wrote:Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

To refute this view, it is simply necessary to point out verse 11. Yes, the very next verse.

I Corinthians 6:11 (WEB) wrote:Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

So obviously homosexuals, like everyone else on the list, can attain salvation through Jesus Christ.

See Romans 5:8 for the proof that God loves all sinners.

For a refutation of the view that homosexuality isn't sinful, see this article. Plus, there is the important point that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage, and defines marriage as heterosexual. This is sufficient to show that homosexuality is wrong even if the other passages have possible alternate explanations.

It is my belief that the movement considering homosexuality to be acceptable is partially the result of a loss of grounding in the Bible, and partially a backlash against the equally unbiblical view that homosexuality cannot be forgiven.

jerickson, I'm glad that you have a view that's more anti-sin as opposed to anti-gay, but I think you're taking Matthew 5:28 way out of context.

ochotseat wrote:

Shirtless wrote:Paul was the greatest Apostle, a true Christian, and a feminist...that's right, I said feminist!

Not in today's sense of feminism. Today's feminists want to redefine natural gender roles.

Too true. I like to think of Paul as a equalist, who calmly advised women not to turn into femi-nazis and to respect their husbands.

Your paper also stated that your father was an Arabic Bahai (whatever that is) and your mother wasn't religious, but you were still forced to go to Sunday school?

I've never heard of an "Arabic" Bahai before. The Bahai faith is a combination of all religions, mainly Christianity and Islam. It's like a New Age religion that started in the mid nineteenth century. It was Mom that made me go to church--in fact, it was just a week ago that I asked her "Mom, why did you make me go to church when I was a kid? I mean, I had to find out about stuff like the atonement on my own, and you never told me about that stuff before."
She said, "Well, I think the resurrection is symbolic. I just wanted to give you values that were more separated from your father's religion." I told her that without the resurrection, there is no religion. I think I'm getting through to her.

Where does it say he married his sister?

Abraham went with his wife Sarah to Gerar, and he told the people there that she was his sister. The King sent for Sarah and slept with her. God became angry, and told the King that Sarah was married! When the King asked why did Abraham lie, he says that he never lied, and that Sarah is in fact his half-sister.

Genesis 20: 11-13
10 And Abimelech asked Abraham, "What was your reason for doing this?"

11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' "

I skimmed through it, and it basically shows that you went from being a "homophobe" to a pro-gay activist or maybe even queer yourself.

Yup, you only skimmed through it . I guess all I can say is that I don't have an ounce of gay in me. But maybe we could end this on a more positive note with a word of prayer:

God, if I am on the right path, let your Spirit help me stay there and keep me strong.
If I, or anyone I agree or disagree with is not on the right path, help that person find the way.
I submit to whatever your will is. Give me the strength. Amen

Leviticus 18:

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

Shirtless wrote:jerickson, I'm glad that you have a view that's more anti-sin as opposed to anti-gay, but I think you're taking Matthew 5:28 way out of context.

Matthew 5:28 was a detail, not my entire case. I may have taken it out of context, but the rest of what I said still stands. Note that the case that homosexual behavior is wrong is in no way derived from Matthew 5:28, except for the detail about lust.

BTW, "!=" means "not equals". I used "!=" in "lust != attraction".

The Romans 1 passage provides more direct evidence that homosexual lust is wrong. Even if you can argue that it doesn't really prohibit that, though, it is important to realize that the Bible does not enumerate every single possible sin. Sometimes we must interpret a particular behavior in the light of passages that don't mention the behavior directly. For instance, is it ethical to pirate computer software? No, not at all. This is pretty clear from Biblical principles and can be derived from direct commands (e.g. the command not to steal) but is not directly stated. This is basically what I was doing with Matthew 5:28, anyway.

I saw on the epistle.us site one comparison of homosexuals in today's world to tax collectors in the time of Jesus. I believe that this comparison is correct but that epistle.us failed to explore it completely.

See, the tax collectors collected much more that what was due to Ceasar. They also stole lots of money from people by lying about the size of the taxes. This is why they were unpopular. When Jesus saw them, he went completely against the flow and loved them. However, his attitude wasn't, "Stealing? Whatever floats your boat!" It was more like, "Come follow me and learn to live a new life free from your sin."

We should have a similar attitude towards homosexual offenders today. Not "Homosexuality? Whatever floats your boat!" but rather "Come follow Christ and learn to live a new life free from your sin." And of course it must be done lovingly. This view is what neither extreme Christian view of homosexuality seems to get, but the biblical precedent is that this is what Jesus would do.

jerickson314 wrote:See, the tax collectors collected much more that what was due to Ceasar. They also stole lots of money from people by lying about the size of the taxes. This is why they were unpopular. When Jesus saw them, he went completely against the flow and loved them. However, his attitude wasn't, "Stealing? Whatever floats your boat!" It was more like, "Come follow me and learn to live a new life free from your sin."

Your right, I never thought of it that way.

Matthew 5:28 was a detail, not my entire case. I may have taken it out of context, but the rest of what I said still stands. Note that the case that homosexual behavior is wrong is in no way derived from Matthew 5:28, except for the detail about lust.

Oh no, I meant you were taking it out of context not in regards to homosexuality, but to lust.

Many say that Matt. 5:28 is referring to lust, and when it does, it means a self centered lust as opposed to normal human attraction which is healthy. This is a fair assessment, but people often stop short. There are things that need to be understood about this passage:

First off "lust" is an unfortunate mistranslation that comes from the Greek word epithumia. It would be more proper to translate this as "covet" or "to strongly long for". Now, some say that lust and covet are basically the same thing, but it's the subtle yet distinct difference that shows us that it's not a sexual desire that makes it a sin, but the longing of the heart.

The passage is a famous one, but few highlight the one before it:

Matt. 5: 21-22
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

This seems like a pretty outrageous rule to follow. That simply being angry at someone, or insulting them, you're subject to judgment? Here's a more famous passage:

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

At this point, someone might think that Jesus is a bit nutty. But though many of his words of the Sermon on the Mount are commandments, he's trying to make a point: that no matter how hard we try, no matter how righteous we are, we are still sinners. Compare this to the religious leaders of the time who thought that if they followed the Law to the letter, then they would be sinless. But here Jesus is giving us impossible tasks, but only for the sake of emphisizing a point: that evil thoughts corrupt.

So what's evil about lusting/coveting a woman who is not his wife? Well, this would be a big question to someone living in a low-context society, like the U.S. and Canada. But someone living in a high-context society, like the Gospel writers of the biblical world, would expect someone to know that Jesus was referring to married men. A great amount of people got married very early, as young as 11. If you weren't married by your late twenties, you should have been (with the exception of Jesus of course ). After all, "man" does not mean "boy", so "man" means "married man".

Jesus is bashing the unfaithful to marriage(Pharisees * cough!). The knowledge of good and evil makes us not only do evil things, but think them as well, and we can't control them. So Jesus is showing us how much we need a savior, because we can't tolerate the presence of a being as Holy as God with us being so sinful, anymore than we can tolerate something with as much heat as the Sun with our human bodies being so cold.

This is an interesting subject.

I wrote what's below, rather than try to explain biblical records. Biblical records need no explaining if people want to believe them. If some people don't want to believe them, then explanation is not too fruitful.

Why explain what people don't believe or want to hear. If they want to hear otherwise, then let them find, study and read other material that they want to glean from. That's their priviledge.

One thing is certain. Some people will believe the bible - others will not.

The bible says that the natural man will not understand the spiritual things of God.

The homosexual matter falls into a spiritual understanding thing. If the Word is true - then there will always be some apparent reasons or logic for certain people that homosexuality is okay.

The Word says in Romans that the men left the "natural" use of the women. The category of life outside of "natural" is "spiritual". Eating food could be considered "natural". Wanting to touch something can be a"natural" impulse. So when man starts thinking and acting in a way that's not influenced by nature - natural - then the spirital realm or spiritual influence comes into the equation.

To understand the depth of the matter, we need to understand the "spiritual" matters and powers that the Word unviels. This will involve God, angels, Satan, unclean spirits (the 1/3 of the angels that the devil drew), etc..

When the whole picture is put together in light of spiritual matters, then a spiritual believer will have spiritual understanding and believing.

And it falls down to whether the Word of God is true or false.

If it's false, then the rank and file man - the animal - is right. Each to his own, anything goes. Nor morals, no laws, no right or wrong.

If the Word is true, then there is right or wrong and God's stamp of approval or dissaproval is the judge for moral and immoral.

The bible has not one verse supporting homosexuality.

If someone finds one, they will probably try to force the dozen clear verses into the oddball rather than understand the oddball in light of the clear and abundant references.

So, God says that people will believe two ways. They believe His truth or not.

If God is right, and homosexuality is wrong, then it would not matter if God put 100 times more verses in the bible. And that's because some will believe and some won't.

Shirtless wrote: I've never heard of an "Arabic" Bahai before. The Bahai faith is a combination of all religions, mainly Christianity and Islam. It's like a New Age religion that started in the mid nineteenth century. It was Mom that made me go to church--in fact, it was just a week ago that I asked her "Mom, why did you make me go to church when I was a kid? I mean, I had to find out about stuff like the atonement on my own, and you never told me about that stuff before."
She said, "Well, I think the resurrection is symbolic. I just wanted to give you values that were more separated from your father's religion." I told her that without the resurrection, there is no religion. I think I'm getting through to her.

If she's an agnostic, why didn't she just try to teach you morals that aren't necessarily tied to Christianity? What hypocrisy. I guess when faced with death, most Western atheists and agnostics really do turn to Christ. Fortunately, they'll attain a lesser status in heaven than lifelong Christians.

Anyway, it's wonderful that you're trying to get through to your parents, especially your father who probably hates President Bush and respects Hamas, to try to save their spirits from the ravages of eternal flames of Hades.

Abraham went with his wife Sarah to Gerar, and he told the people there that she was his sister. The King sent for Sarah and slept with her. God became angry, and told the King that Sarah was married! When the King asked why did Abraham lie, he says that he never lied, and that Sarah is in fact his half-sister.

Genesis 20: 11-13
10 And Abimelech asked Abraham, "What was your reason for doing this?"

11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' "

I skimmed through it, and it basically shows that you went from being a "homophobe" to a pro-gay activist or maybe even queer yourself.

Yup, you only skimmed through it . I guess all I can say is that I don't have an ounce of gay in me. But maybe we could end this on a more positive note with a word of prayer:

God, if I am on the right path, let your Spirit help me stay there and keep me strong.
If I, or anyone I agree or disagree with is not on the right path, help that person find the way.
I submit to whatever your will is. Give me the strength. Amen

You're taking some events in the Bible out of context. Check out my rebuttal in my incest post.