Yeesh, some people really do live in the dark ages. This is abuse.

[mrstickball]

Rath said:

mrstickball said:

stof said:

Mr. Stickball, I think you're one of the reasons so many people posting in this thread are angry about what they're seeing in that video.

you're defending abusing a teenager over his sexual preference based on what some people wrote in a book thousands of years ago, and yes, that is abuse no matter what way you slice it, even if the poor guy signed up for it.

While extremism can be the result of may isms: race, ideological, national... only religion is provided with inherently inflexible documentation to justify that extremism. You say that they're (and your) condemnations of homosexuality are justified by a very old book. That seems like a pretty good argument to toss out that book to me.

Stof,

How did these people abuse this teenager? What exactly about the video constitutes abuse?

I am sorry that my religion offends you, but I take it very seriously. You can argue that it's archaic, irrelevant, and useless, but I do not feel that way. I cannot in good faith take certain parts of the book and say 'Hey! Taking care of the poor is something I need to do!' and then throw out the part that says 'Don't be sexually immoral'. That's my opinion on my religion, and I'm entitled to it. My opinion on my religion effects no one but myself. If I am deluded, then that's my fault and no one elses.

Yet at the same time, I would like to challenge you and everyone else: Prove my religion wrong. We spend far more time and money on helping the poor, and offering services to the needy. Prove us wrong by doing right

 

Where does the bible explicitly condemn homosexuality?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

I find your link hilarious in it's arguments. It offers no valid argument to explain away how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, other than pervert the context. The site offered no direct quotes from scripture in any language or translation. How can it argue with the validity of the statement without even quoting it?

As for Biblical statements concerning homoseuxality, among other things:

Leviticus 18

 ²⁰ " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

 ²¹ " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed ^[a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

 ²² " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 ²³ " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

In this chapter, the Bible is discussing the laws concerning sexual morality, and what not to do. Homosexuality is mentioned among a littany of other immoral behaviors incuding incest, bestiality, adultery. No where does it (as the website you mention) attempt to discuss the passage, other than mis-direct the intention of the chapter into something else. Again, how is this not clear cut?

As for the meaning behind the words:

שׁכב
shâkab
shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): -  X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

את
'êth
ayth
Probably from H579; properly nearness (used only as a preposition or adverb), near; hence generally with, by, at, among, etc.: - against, among, before, by, for, from, in (-to), (out) of, with. Often with another preposition prefixed.

זכר
zâkâr
zaw-kawr'
From H2142; properly remembered, that is, a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex): -  X him, male, man (child, -kind).

משׁכּב
mishkâb
mish-kawb'
From H7901; a bed (figuratively a bier); abstractly sleep; by euphemism carnal intercourse: - bed ([-chamber]), couch, lieth (lying) with.

From those root words, which were translated as 'lie with a man' - How is one to argue the meaning when it's an absolute certanty that it specificly states the prohibition of going to bed (sexual intercourse) with that of the same gender? You really have to stretch, distort, and destroy the original translation (Hebrew in this case) to appease the idea that the Bible is saying something other than that it's OK to have sex with another man. Furthermore, if this idea is true, then the prohibition against incest and beastiality must be lifted, should it not? What's also interesting is that Leviticus 20:13 uses the exact same wording concerning sex. How could two sections of Biblical law use the exact same wording, and mean something totally different? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'd gladly continue to discuss the contexts of all other major passages concerning homosexuality. If you want to discuss this further, then we should probably move it to a PM or something, as this is mostly OT. Nevertheless, I will gladly debate and discuss the merits of what the Bible states concerning homosexuality.