Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

Instead of seeing two men guilt of sexual sin (as we all are to one degree or another) you see or will identify two Homosexuals. Then when the bible (as with the ERV) identified homosexuality as a sin you assume God hates All Homosexuals because God hates sin. You and the westbro Baptist have more in common than you think.

It cannot be said that this is how I identify homosexuality since I don't adhere to what the Bible teaches. Actually, what I said is very relevant to how those Baptists view homosexuality. Since there was no word for homosexuality, earlier translations did circumlocution to describe this particular sin. Since then this word has been created, and it was interpolated into the Bible. Now there is a very negative connotation towards gays, even if they have never had gay sex. You are clearly more mature in your interpretation of the passage, Drich, but how do you feel about people misrepresenting what you feel is right? God obviously doesn't give a shit what you or they think, otherwise he would have intervened by now, don't you think?

God clearly seperates Man from sin. We on the other hand in our pride, wear our sins as personal identifiers to who we are as indivisuals. Homosexual, Liar, Murderer, Gossip, and so on. Know this is a failing in your understanding of how God operates, It is not a 'character flaw of God.'

So, once again, if I have gay sex once in my life, am I to be identified as a Homosexual? The world is not as black and white as you think. Merriam Webster may specify two ways that people identify homosexuality, but the definitions are in no way empirical. The dictionary is a reflection on the common understandings of what people use in their speech. But I have proven to you that even if you think someone is a homosexual because your bible identifies a man having sex with another man as such, it is only the act that's homosexual, and not necessarily the demeanor of the person. I am on such person who is not gay, but has had gay sex. Arguing against this is a crime against reality.

Oh, I'm following you pretty close on this one. Notice how I never tried to refute this point?

what fantsy world do you live in? You have never once responsiably discussed this 'point' let alone refute it.'

Why should I discuss a point that is not up for debate? You want me to refute the fact that Christianity abhors what it deems as "sexual transgression"? Is this what you want from me? The Bible says it, so I see no reason to refute that fact. I do, however, refute the claim that the Bible is god-breathed, so the idea that it's a sin is irrelevant to me anyway. As I've said before, I'm against the blatant hatred for homosexuality: you misunderstand what's good and what's not good for society, you can't leave well enough alone, and the bigotry shows to the point of emotional and physical harm. I will hotly debate you on this any day, Drich, for singling out members of society that do nothing to drastically upset the "balance" is a crime against humanity, and it's a tipping of the scales in your favor for a sexual preference that should be none of your business anyway. You base your bigotry on a 2000 year old book that's probably not true; your worldview is in serious need of reevaluation.

Now that we have that done and out of the way, please address my other concerns:

Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.

However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.

So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.

If Marry was not a virgin it is most likely Joseph and or her would have been stoned. (They checked those sorts of things otherwise at the very least she and her family would have been disgraced.)

She wasn't stoned in the story, no. The timeline concerning the birth of Christ is kinda screwy anyway though, so there's no accurate way to tell when she got pregnant unless we build a time machine and witness the event ourselves. Could have very well been that Jesus was Joseph's son all along and the virgin birth was interpolated in order to make Jesus seem more divine.

Wow, Didn't you just say that there wasn't a koine greek word for homosexual in the Bible, and now you say because Jesus did not openly condemn Homosexuality specifically/by name, meant that He was ok with it?

If he was a Jew he probably wasn't okay with it. If he was then there would probably be something like, "And it's okay for men to think about lying with other men." If anything, this just proves that the bigotry against premarital sex and homosexuality was also held by Jesus.

I didn't really have a point to make about Jesus not saying it was admission that it was okay, but it was fun to point it out anyway.

Not all tangents are red herrings, and these points we're hitting upon all seem pretty close in the realm of what we're discussing. Why are you upset about that?

I am getting upset because you are using all of these tangents to skirt the primary issue.

Which is not what you think it is, as I've been explaining to you. You think the main issue is that the Bible speaks out against sexual sin? That's a no brainer and doesn't even need to be debated. Being anti-gay is not okay though because people are only against it because the Bible told them to, and holding the Bible to be true is a tough burden to bear in the first place. The Bible is not a very good authority on reality.