You are joking right? You can't obtain morals from science. Moral laws are not the same as physical laws of nature.

Just my paraphrases:

If you look at someone lustfully you have already committed adultery within your heart. Matthew 5:28

If you hate someone you have already committed murder with in your heart. Matthew 5:21-22

There are different types of love. I love my brother, but that is not a sin as I do not wish to have sexual relations with him.

If a guy loves a guy in a sexual manner that is still wrong. If you desire to kill someone but you do not go through with it would you not agree that the desire is not a 'right' thought?

What makes your heart more of an authority on morals then the Bible?

Out of curiosity what Swedish translation were you using, and where are you from in Sweden?

Why is Paul not an authority?

Another excuse for you not to be a Christian? Who said you chose that? Course that is another deep topic in itself.

So could you answer the question,please..

If you are using the bible as your source of morals then you are morally bankrupt.

How is it you ignore all the other injustice. Do you bash babies against rocks? It says you should do it in the bible. Do you stone disobedient children to death? It says you should in the bible.

Anyone who uses the bible as some moral basis and quotes passages where they get their morals from are completely ignoring the other phrases where it is absurd and barbaric. You can't just pick and choose your lines and say this is relevant and that line there is not.

Yes, the desire to kill someone is wrong. But if to people love eachother, and want to have sex, but not have children, does it matter if it is two guy/girls or a girl and a guy?

My heart is actually adapted to todays society. The Bible isn't. Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally wrong?

The old one, from 1917. I'm from the west coast.

Paul isn't God. I just thought it was a bit funny.
What? Who says that I don't chose that? Being a christian is for like trying to love a guy who's really a jerk.

To reply to Matthew 5:28 I say, how could the heart sin? Shouldn't the concept of the heart be left to that which strives for 'good' intentions.

I do not see how sexual orientation could be governed by choice. It may not be completely biological, but it certainly starts there. The environment would probably play a role in who out of the selection of their sexual orientation they'd find more attractive.

I know homosexuals, many of them are depressed over their orientation. They'll complain to god over why they had to have a woman's desire in a man's body. The simple fact of the matter is they - can't - help - it.

And why would god tell this person (through a text), well you're wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, bad, evil. Or more appropriately, how could any interpretation condemn moreso deterministic (as is pertinent) matters? What does that say of the interpreter? That's like denying reality. "This chunk of reality is wrong". "This chunk is right".

I have a question. When it comes to following the bible, and acting upon it's morals, I've noticed that many morals seem to conflict with one another. So which ones have priority over the other? And who decides this?

When Jesus says, "love thy neighbor", doesn't this imply the importance of empathy?


Doesn't it become important to care for the other who is homosexual if one is going to be interacting with such a 'sinner' in a way that would otherwise harm this person? Doesn't the will of the 'sinner' matter? All that pain and misery in this situation of being different, considered by many to be wrong, yet to be right to the individual. And all along there is a divinity who sets the flag down, "No ambiguity here, perfection will be cemented, this is an absolute sin!". All along, it did not matter whether the 'sinner' provided the greatest of wisdom, reason, understanding, or even simple knowledge over the matter, it was all not good enough for the simplicity of perfection. None of the sinner's feelings or passions or experiences mattered against the illuminating intransitoriness of a monistic source of transcendence.

That all of the imperfections are abject and overruled... it is this inwardly focused nature that causes a lack of empathetic understanding, that which arises the difficulties in man to follow the "love thy neighbor" quote.

You really shouldn't spout such lies off like that... Where does the Bible say that I, right now, in my daily life, should stone children to death?

You see your missing the point as well. We are NOT to stone children anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of bad behavior in children.
We do NOT kill homosexuals anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of their behavior.

The punishment for the action has changed but the views of the actions as wrong have not changed. If you would like to go on, please quote exact texts, we can take it one at a time for simplicity.

Alright, so you are saying, the bible WAS relevant at a time, but now it no longer is relevant? I'll agree with you there, the bible is NO longer relevant.

You want a pat on the back for not burning women accused of being witches? The ONLY reason you do not approve of homosexuality is because of your irrelevant bible.

But I'll let you have that one, but what I want to know is this. Disobedient children can have an effect on society through their behavior. Homosexuality does not harm anyone period. So why all the criticism against them wanting to be legally married?

It is ONE thing to not do it yourself, it is a completely different thing to tell someone else they are not allowed to because YOU don't approve. It is not hurting you at all.

You know what this parallels. Racism before the 1960s. This very statement is a reflection of that mindset. Oh we don't approve of their behavior and they should be killed for being who they are, but we are Christians and tolerant of others so we will be righteous and not kill them but still bash them and refuse them their rights.

Originally Posted by Krumple
It is ONE thing to not do it yourself, it is a completely different thing to tell someone else they are not allowed to because YOU don't approve. It is not hurting you at all.



What I said on abortion and murder applies here.

Uh, no it does not apply. I was not talking about YOU being the one hurt, I was talking about being hurt in general. Homosexuality is in no way the same as murder or abortion. Murder is causing harm, homosexuality is not causing harm.

And since you brought up the abortion aspect. I am not a supporter of abortion just so you know. I am all about civil rights and I feel that it is a "right to life" issue not a religious one. As it appears, we only are given our right to life AFTER the umbilical cord is cut. But even that is a gray area because you rarely ever see very late term abortions. The statements generally are that it is considered a baby. So I guess there is a magical moment when you are handed your civil rights but no one can clearly tell me when that moment is.

If homosexuality is the equivalent to murder, then so is practicing Christianity.

It is equivalent in that it causes psychological harm. Does abortion harm you? NO! So why are you against it? You think it is wrong, and I bet you still feel pang inside knowing that another child's life was taken. No?

Do you think about anything?

When did I say it had to cause me harm for it to be considered bad? I said harm in general. Abortion does cause harm. So where do you get this question from when I already pointed out my position?

However I do realize that there is often a trade off. If abortion was made illegal there would be lots of women who would still get them, but through illegal means. Often times those illegal abortions end with the woman dying of some infection or botched job. So in reality no lives are ever saved. But are we REALLY talking about saving lives because if so, I think making driving a car should be made illegal before abortion because cars kill more people than abortions.

Why does something have to cause physical harm for it to be bad?

How many cars driven each day cause the death of person?

How many abortions each day cause the death of a person?

Well because of two reasons. First emotional trauma is difficult to gauge and therefore in justice systems, the emotional damage clause tends to be ignored because it can't be easily quantified. Secondly just about everything causes some form of emotional trauma. If you really want to go down this road, there are dozens of things that would also need to be made illegal if emotional trauma is a considering basis for legality. Religion would be one of those things requiring banning if such were the case. I am not supporting a ban of any religion but we would have to if you want to use your argument.

I don't know but my guess is the first is higher than the second.

car accident deaths > daily abortions

You also asked why Christ did not condone homosexuality. That is a poor question. He may have, and because everything he said was not written down we can not simply assume that he did not at one point (or many) condone homosexuality. Now I'm not trying to argue that he probably did and therefore homosexuality is wrong. I am simply pointing out that just because it is not written in the synoptic gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's as if you were to ask, "Why didn't Jesus have a 6th birthday party with all his family?" Ummm.... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't I don't know but it isn't listed in the Bible.

You see your missing the point as well. We are NOT to stone children anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of bad behavior in children.
We do NOT kill homosexuals anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of their behavior.

The punishment for the action has changed but the views of the actions as wrong have not changed. If you would like to go on, please quote exact texts, we can take it one at a time for simplicity.

Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally right? Come on, lets not play these pointless games.

Not the best analogy...
Try this: All of your friends tell you that there is this guy whom you really should stay away from, they have all had bad experiences with him in one way or another. But you have never met him you have only heard things from people that you put your trust in. Then one day you meet this guy, you find out that all of your friends were wrong in their opinion of him. The guy explains to you that all of your friends would approach him and misunderstand him and instead of asking why they would just run off. Your parents and friends have probably all told you things to put you off of Christianity.

But have you ever really looked deeply into it yourself? Or are you too afraid that you will get pulled into it unwillingly some how?

You say that last sentence as if you know that to be a fact... hmm..

Have they ever considered therapy? There are plenty of stories of homosexuals attending therapy and breaking the addiction.

"Love your neighbor" does not mean "excuse your neighbors actions."

I do not go around bashing homosexuals. As that would be rather hypocritical of myself.

If homosexuality is biological, then thankfully one day the gene will be eliminated from the gene pool, meaning homosexuality will be NON EXISTENT. Though that will never happen as it surely isn't biological,

I sat at my high school lunch table with a girl who chose her orientation because she was abused by her uncle. Ask her yourself, she chose it. Never did I ever say to her, "Hey homosexuality is a sin!!!" Though hopefully through my actions she could come to me with questions not feeling as though she had to hold back.

Find out the ratio. My guess is that most daily abortions are pretty successful resulting at a near 1 success ratio. The ratio between cars driven and deaths related to those cars driven would be considerably lower.

That really was an awful example. Just as if you were to say, "Well maybe we should ban hospitals, more people die in hospitals per day then in abortion clinics."

Were we talking about frequency? I was talking about deaths in general. If you want to talk about frequency then you really are not talking about deaths at all but you are only focusing on how often the action occurs. So in other words if there were MORE abortions per day then it would be alright because the frequency of driving is much higher than women walking into clinics? Come on, are you serious?

Huh? You were saying snidely that cars should be banned because they are more of a danger to society then abortion. One abortion per year would still be an unwanted number. Why does it matter that there are other ways that cause people death? I just don't know why you tried to make such an analogy.