The Bible does not say to kill gay people. If I am wrong please show me the Bible reference. The Bible says it is a sin, as is lying. It also says we should turn from our sins. The Bible does not say we should kill sinners, because it also says all men are sinners. Therefor if we killed all sinners there would be no men left on the earth.

Anyone using the Bible to spread hate is wrong, and is using the Bible in an evil way.

trust me, if there was any proof either way, one group or the other would be shoving it in their opponents faces. there's nothing we here on ff are going to suddenly discover that theologists never thought up.

the bolded belief is just a moral. i believe that it should be for love, not pleasure, and only between married couoles.

And the part you're talking about is the old testament. In the new testament, there's a story in which the people brought an adultress to Jesus, asking him to help them stone her. he told them that he who had never committed a sin could go ahead and throw the first rock. none of the people stepped foreward. we can take this as a re-inventing of the laws of moses. Jesus even attributed some of the laws due to the isrealites themselves, and their hardened hearts.



i honestly doubt anyone would make that choice.

i think it says that somewhere in the old testament, but what they're forgetting is that Jesus reformed and rebuilt the laws of Moses.

"And if a Man should sleep with another man as a man would sleep with a woman, Let that man be stoned to death, For I am god, The Lord"

Says it pretty clearly here. Oh and also
"If man were to sleep with an animal, Then they have done the unthinkable, And must be stoned to death"

Covers up gay, AND bestiality.

I am sorry but you have miss quoted the Bible.

The reference you have shown is actually.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

The reference of the chapter is the judgement of God upon these sins. Not Man judging these sins.

They shall be put to death by God and punished by God not by man.

Man is not to judge other men only their actions.

I was quoting from King James, So it's gonna be a lot different, lol, And i think when they say "Their blood will turn against them" it's referring to what we now know as HIV/AIDS
Makes sense, no?
And how is "They shall surely be put to death" not saying that they are gonna die?

No offence but That was the King James version of the passage.

It is Gods death upon them not ours.

I'm pretty sure i quoted it dead-on, I have to book right here, You're probably reading one of the less watered-down ones.

I'm wayyy too lazy to read this entire thread (sorry), and I don't have time... just thought I'd say that I voted for the second to last option. :P I'm too scientific to believe in any sort of God. Plus organized religion breeds a lot of hatred, even though that isn't what's intended...

I too am too lazy to read everything.

While I do agree that science explains a lot, and manly "miracles" have a scientific explanation, science cannot explain our true origin. You can look at the biogenesis theory, "All Cells come from Pre-existing cells".

That means humans and everything on earth came from a single cell at some point. However, what could have made this cell? Many can say chemical/molecular reactions occurring in a small area could have sparked the need for a shielded area to do these reactions (end product: a cell)

Then we run into the whole, "Well where did the first Atom come from?" then we say, "Energy." but then, "Where did energy come from?" and it stops there. Science may only go that far. We either leave it as nothing turning into something (Which isn't possible since you can't make something into nothing), or use divine theory to fill in that gap. Divine theories have their own gaps too but they do help clear the haze.

I'd have to believe like the deists back during the enlightenment. The one god set the world in motion and lets it operate on it's own (much like a clock).

Well, the idea that a god set the world in motion but no longer has any part in it would make sense, but I still can't bring myself to believe it. Dx It's a good explanation though. Because I honestly can't believe like some people that God/gods watch over us and choose our lives for us and all that.. :urweird: If that were true, that'd be one... malicious god. ._.

Eh, I can't honestly say I believe god or any spiritual entity affects the current world right now. Maybe in a future time but not right now.

Some Christians do think that God's got a plan for it all and God's "watching over us". Though nothing in the bible suggests that God is doing anything in our world right now. He put things in motion (Genesis, Birth of Christ, Departure of Christ, etc), and according to the book of Revelation, he will come to put an end to what he started later. Those Christians that believe that God has planned all this stuff to happen so far here are wrong. God is not responsible for the trash our world is. We are.

My point is WHY is homosexuality a sin? Why should they be put to death whether it is by man or god?


Divine theory does not fill any gap. Well, it does, but it only creates a bigger one. It creates a complex, capable-of-anything creature who does not need a creator.


And I'll put this in one last time in case someone else understands.


God foresaw picking option A.

In effect, he foresaw NOT picking option B.

Now, my question is, can he change to option B now?

I did mention that Divine Theory has it's gaps. Ultimately, nothing can explain true origins. Divine theory can at least tell us where energy and matter possibly came from, since there's no real scientific explanation. Of course, like you said, we then ask "Where did the creator come from?"

For the options A and B, I'm not sure I get it. If you mean God changing something in the world that is about to happen/has already happened, I'll have to say no/yes. At least, by the Christian example, God is not capable of looking into the future. When the people were building the tower of Babylon, he never saw it coming. Though when it did happen he was able to change it indirectly. Mainly by wiping the slate clean, but it still changed it.

It only further supports my clockmaker god belief.

But the Bible states that God is all knowing and all powerful.

If you look up Genesis 18:14, Luke 18:27, Revelation 19:6, it states that god is all powerful.

If you look up Psalm 139:2-6 and Isaiah 40:13-14, it states that god is all knowing.

The fact that he didn't see the Tower of Babylon coming is just another contradiction in the Bible.

So therefore, if God can change his future mind, he is not all knowing, and if he cannot, he is not all powerful.

Vasu, i thought we agreed that neither of us were going to understand the others point. *Sigh*

And as for homosexuality, the general idea is that sexual things done simply for pleasure are wrong, though as previously stated i dont neccesarilly agree with that doctrine.

Christianity doesnt have that as the doctrine. we believe that if you pray enough, he may intervene, but he allows us to have freedom of choice.

I put it out there for others who didn't read the full thread, in case somebody else would understand. You really should pay closer attention while reading.



My question is why the Bible doesn't seem to agree with it, and why you are picking and choosing the doctrines in the Bible to follow.

im not picking and choosing. not in the slightest. you seem to only think of the old testament when you think of the bible, though.

And since you get to remake your claim, i'll go ahead and remake mine:

God CAN be omnipotent and all powerful at the same time, but you also have to factor in that he's all knowing and the epitome of wisdom. He forms a plan that is 100% correct, and therefore needs not change it; he knows he could if he wanted to, but he doesnt. He has the power to, but decides not to use it.

All the OT laws still apply today.


And you did not answer as to why you think the Bible hates homosexuals.

By fufill, he ment make them complete; bring them to their full glory. Christ taught a doctrine of forgiveness and love. and i think the old testament days required some strict action, seeing as it was pure chaos without any true moral code before the 10 commandments. I believe that Christ reformed those laws and brought them to their true glory as a thing of forgiveness and love for humankind.

By fulfill, he also meant fulfill the prophecies, as is clearly mentioned, and some prophecies are meant to be fulfilled in his second coming.


And you still haven't answered.

What havent i answered? i told you why they considered it a sin in the old testament, and i told you how i can reconcile it with my personal beliefs through the coming of my Messiah. What more do you need?

And I have told you why you have to wait till the second coming of your messiah to reconcile it with your personal beliefs.

No. you said SOME of the laws will be fufilled in the second coming. not neccesarilly all of them.

Yes, and not a tittle of the laws will be broken until all is done.

It's not their belief though. Just as i dont shove my own beliefs upon those of different religions, i dont say that they should change their lifestyle to fit my beliefs. i dont think homosexuals are going to hell, though. and we're getting far, far off track here. we're talking about deity existance in general, not specifically Christianity.

Why don't you answer my question, and tell me why you are picking and choosing?

i just did. I told you that it's their lifestyle, not mine, and they have just as much of a chance at being right as i do.

Being right at what?

On which way we're supposed to live our lives. As i stated before, none of us can tell what's going to happen after we die, so all religions really have about the same chance of being right. I think Christianity makes sense, so i choose that.

Why are my personal beliefs being called into question, though? does it not divert us from the topic at hand?

Okay, do you also think Pastafarianism has about the same chance of being right? Be honest, now. I do.

No. Spagghetti was a man-made invention, therefore negating the possibility that man could be created by spagghetti.

I counter that God was also a man made invention, hence negating the said possibility, which is the whole POINT on which the FSM was invented.


EDIT: Also, how do you know spaghetti didn't exist way before man, and man in his pitiful intelligence think that he had invented it? After all, he is capable of anything with his noodly appendage.

Ah, but is there any proof that God is a manmade invention? there's proof that man created pasta, therefore throwing more odds on my side than on yours.

And you fail to consider that God made us in his image and as a reflection of himself, not the otherway around. if it WAS the other way around, people would've probably created him as a form of gargantuan beast, considering the psychology of the times; the "my God is stronger than yours" mindset.

Counter Edit: because man created spaghetti long after first being created himself; if spaghetti had existed before, we would've discovered it long before.

Yes, but there is still a possibility that they are right, right?


Which is what plenty of religions did.


That's what you THINK, but like I said, he is capable of anything, including hiding from us the recipe for delicious pasta until the time was right. After all, the world was created just 500 years ago by the FSM, not a lot of time.

*shrugs* It's a possibility, though a very small one at that, especially since it was created with atheists who wanted to defuse all religion, and was meant to be a parody.

And do you think Hinduism has a similar probability with all it's elephant headed gods and contradictions and meaningless rituals?

i've never studied Hinduism deeply, so i cant comment on it. my knowlege on it exists entirely of what i learned in 6th grade.

But you just said that all religions had the same chance of getting it right.


And besides, Pastafarianism was invented by deeply touched believers who had a chance to look at his noodly greatness.

that's false, acctually, since you said yourself that pastafarianism was made to point out what they considered flaws in religion. However, them making it was their own biggest flaw in their attack.

and i didnt say that i felt Hinduism was wrong, i simply cant comment on it since i havent studdied it deeply and dont know about any of the supposed contradictions you brought up.

Yeah, but I'm not a pastafarian, so who am I to say?


Well, I could bring them up if you wished, but it seems kinda pointless since you don't know much about it.


Oh, and I'm sorry to be naggy, but I can't remember and can't find how you responded to the making a stone so heavy thing. Can you remind me?


Aaaand it's late, so I'll be back tomorrow.