Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The men of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house -- everyone without exception. They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out' they shouted, 'so that we can have intercourse with them.' Lot . . . said 'No, my friends do not be so wicked. Look, I have two daughters, both virgins; let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.'" . . .
"The Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and destroyed all the Plain, with everyone living there and everything growing in the ground."
-- New English Bible, Genesis 19.
This is a very clear teaching against homosexuality, taken from a highly credible translation of the Bible (Oxford and Cambridge). It is also the origin of the word "sodomy," which, acording to the Oxford English Dictionary, encompasses homosexuality.
Immediately, apologists will attack Lot's behavior in offering up his daughters, or prattle on about the irrelevance of religion, or assert that God is a meanie. NONE OF THESE IS THE POINT HERE. Rather, the point is that anyone who claims that the Bible teaches against homosexuality only in a trivial way -- which is an old trick and which has been claimed in this thread -- is either ignorant, a liar, or both. Do whatever you want in your bedrooms (I couldn't care less), but stop misrepresenting Biblical teaching in an attempt to spread your sordid philosophy.
Why aren't more good Christian men offering up their daughters for mobs of sex crazed men to rape, then? Doesn't the Bible teach them to do that?
Can you prove that he does? The onus of proof is on YOU, my friend.
If I say I have a unicorn in my garage, it's up to me to present evidence of my claim. It's not incumbent on you to prove I don't. That's how logic and reason works.
(Oh, look who I'm talking to. Someone who believes in a big book of fairy tales. Never mind.)
Wait, you have a unicorn in your garage?
That's awesome!
You know, I am starting to think that some of you are just plain dumb.
The question is not about the validity of the Bible.
The question concerns whether a particular teaching appears in the Bible.
Can you not understand the difference between these two concepts?
For those of us who are Buddhists can you please show me anywhere in the Dhammapada or even in the entire Tripitaka where there is a prohibition against same sex marriage is mentioned. Or even a single thing about homosexuality?
Did you even read that before you clicked "submit reply"?
That makes no sense in any way on any planet anywhere.
One does not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who say their little imaginary friend named god actually exists.
Not that I really have a dog in this fight since I am neither religious nor particularly interested in a religious conversation. However, it would be easy for a person to say they could 'prove' God exists. All they have to say is that they either felt or heard God. I think you're searching for empirical evidence but by my understanding, a belief system, such as religion is primarily based on the lack of empirical evidence, hence it's very moniker of a belief system.
Not that I really have a dog in this fight since I am neither religious nor particularly interested in a religious conversation. However, it would be easy for a person to say they could 'prove' God exists. All they have to say is that they either felt or heard God. I think you're searching for empirical evidence but by my understanding, a belief system, such as religion is primarily based on the lack of empirical evidence, hence it's very moniker of a belief system.
Which is why it is called faith and not fact. I especially find it humorous that some fools actually use the bible as proof of "god" lol.
Religious people share numerous traits with diagnosed schizophrenics, and its time they start to be treated as such.
Which is why it is called faith and not fact. I especially find it humorous that some fools actually use the bible as proof of "god" lol.
Religious people share numerous traits with diagnosed schizophrenics, and its time they start to be treated as such.
I disagree strongly. Belief systems are important to society and have been throughout history. While you may reject the notion of a belief system, it is unwise to cast a wide net upon all those who do hold them. To offer that belief in some type of higher power is akin to a mental illness is fairly ignorant of history and arrogant. So, while I hold no such religious viewpoints, I also do not consider those who do have one as somehow a lesser being than myself.
I disagree strongly. Belief systems are important to society and have been throughout history. While you may reject the notion of a belief system, it is unwise to cast a wide net upon all those who do hold them. To offer that belief in some type of higher power is akin to a mental illness is fairly ignorant of history and arrogant. So, while I hold no such religious viewpoints, I also do not consider those who do have one as somehow a lesser being than myself.
belief systems are not all governed by organized religion though.. the problem with organized religious belief systems is they are not open and questioning.. to believe.. is to conclude.. there is no room for evidence based enlightenment... only dogma.. towing the line..and putting all your eggs in that basket in hopes that it will pay off for YOU personally in some sort of afterlife...the entire premise of this belief system is selfishness.. you are good or jump through the hoops to attain a personal reward..
This does not smell of anything godly or benevolent.. it smells of something tricky, deceitful, monopolizing and man made.. because all the worst characteristics found in a human being who seeks power and control can be found in these organized religions..
belief systems are not all governed by organized religion though.. the problem with organized religious belief systems is they are not open and questioning.. to believe.. is to conclude.. there is no room for evidence based enlightenment... only dogma.. towing the line..and putting all your eggs in that basket in hopes that it will pay off for YOU personally in some sort of afterlife...the entire premise of this belief system is selfishness.. you are good or jump through the hoops to attain a personal reward..
This does not smell of anything godly or benevolent.. it smells of something tricky, deceitful, monopolizing and man made.. because all the worst characteristics found in a human being who seeks power and control can be found in these organized religions..
No, not all belief systems are organized but I question your conclusion that organization equals close-mindedness. As I understand, there are belief systems rooted in the very concept of being open and 'enlightened'. These are primarily seen in non-Western civilizations I believe. However, while some belief systems demand adherence to certain customs and traditions, they cannot be categorized as all being one way or another. Plus, the very adherence to the customs and traditions will differ from person to person simply due to human nature.
Look, I think you want me to say that I believe religion (e.g. belief systems) is bad and close-minded and somehow stifles any type of open conversation. I find the very idea that you are suggesting all belief systems are rooted in dogma and do not allow any type of free will to be rather close-minded. You are, in my opinion, trying to cast all belief systems as being cult-like vice what they are - a set of beliefs held by a group of people that often center around the concept of some higher power. I think, perhaps, you are confusing the belief systems themselves with the behaviors of some of the people in those belief systems. How an individual, whether that be a person who simply participates or a person in a leadership position in an organized religion, interprets their own belief system (e.g. religion) is simply that person's interpretation and not necessarily an indication of the totality of thought for that particular religion.
I disagree strongly. Belief systems are important to society and have been throughout history. While you may reject the notion of a belief system, it is unwise to cast a wide net upon all those who do hold them. To offer that belief in some type of higher power is akin to a mental illness is fairly ignorant of history and arrogant. So, while I hold no such religious viewpoints, I also do not consider those who do have one as somehow a lesser being than myself.
Religion is nothing more than a crutch for weak minds, plain and simple.
Compare your average religious person and schizophrenics...you will see they share numerous traits, and that isnt even touching upon the numerous mental defects in those who consider themselves devout.
If religion ceased to exist tomorrow when we wake up, what do you believe the downsides would be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
