This is scary. More proof of why marriage must remain between one man and one woman.

I came across this article today while I was reading an article about the Anti-discrimination law that is trying to be passed in Moldova. This law is a cover up for the homosexual movement, to give them the freedom to persecute any person who does not “believe” and think the way that they think (homosexuals). You can read the article by clicking here.  There is a reason God condemns homosexuality, because it is a danger to society. Homosexuals are very violent, aggressive, and intolerant and if you give them “power” they will abuse it. Never be deceived by the deceptive argument of homosexuals and those who promote the homosexual agenda.

Advertisements

101 comments on “This is scary. More proof of why marriage must remain between one man and one woman.

  1. No, Mr.Brewer, your words are violent,aggressive,condemning and intolerant. Irrationality permeates your articles and this is no exception. There is no law or rule that says marriage should be between one male and one female, save the very archaic texts some states and countries base these mandates upon.
    Gay people are known for how loving they are to their children. They are as apt for parenthood as anyone.

    You are the one trying to deceive,sir. You are the one who is trying to destroy households and prohibit us from being happy with whom we LOVE. Yes, love. Do you understand the meaning of that word? I highly doubt it. You only deal in fear and servitude.There is no love there, mere mindless obedience because you are too damn frightened to stray from whatever it is you have been led to see as *right*.
    Shame on you,sir. Don’t you dare deprive people from their rights–they harm nobody. But you are awfully concerned with their lifestyle–why is that?
    Latent homosexual tendencies?

    • Please tell me how not agreeing with the sin of homosexuality is violent,aggressive,condemning and intolerant? Do you live by the motto “your intolerance will not be tolerated”?

      There is a great law, God’s. Also, all of human civilization is based on one man and one woman pairing up and raising the next generation. Only in the last 60 years have ignorant people decided to try to erode the foundation of society. We are starting to see the consequences of it. The old African proverb is fitting here, “do not tear down a fence until you first know why it was built”.

      Gay parents model a lifestyle that is dangerous and degrading for children. They pass on their sinful lifestyles and put the next generation at risk. Marriage is the best place to raise children, sociology even agrees that it is the optimal choice.

      Homosexuals do not know what love is, agape, self-sacrificial love. They only know eros, selfish, where the word erotic comes from. They cannot love sacrificially because they do not have the ability. That type of love only comes from God and He only gives it to those who obey Him.

      I obey God because I love Him and respect Him. There is no fear. I once feared when I was lost in my sins but now I have been set free. Perfect love casts out fear. You can have this love too. It is available for all, even to homosexuals. They must repent and turn away from their sinful lifestyles.

      Shame on me for telling the truth about homosexuality and its dangers? I do not understand your logic. Your rights end where mine begin. I have the right to protect myself from homosexuality and also my kids from its dangers.

      If homosexuals were not so aggressive in their promotion of homosexual propaganda then they would not be criticized so much.

      • LOL! Your ridiculous reply has been posted to the “Fundies Say the Darndest Things” (fstdt.net) website for appropriate ridicule. Thanks for the laffs, Eric. At least you’re good for something.

      • You can laugh and mock all that you want (just shows what kind of person you are). Debate the facts if you think that you can.

      • Mr. Brewer, you seem to be a bit ignorant of a few facts.

        First of all, polygamy has been the rule for many cultures over the last several thousand years. Even up through Enlightenment Europe it was considered normal for a man to marry for family reasons, and to keep a mistress or two on the side and provide for any children born of those unions.

        Also not a single state in the Union requires fertility as a condition of marriage. I am physically unable to father children, and will celebrate my 20th anniversary to a woman who would be killed by any pregnancy in a few weeks.

        Is our marriage legitimate? If my 75 year old mother were to decide to marry again, would you find it legitimate? The fact is marriage, in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with procreation.

        Your claim that homosexuals do not know what love is is simple ignorance and bigotry. You repeat that claim over and over not because it is true, but because you need to dehumanize homosexuals. You need them to be bestial animals, violent and incapable of love to justify your bigotry.

        I have many friends and family who cover the spectrum of sexual orientation, Mr. Brewer, and all of them having a better understanding of true love that far outshines yours.

      • From the beginning it was not so. Sin came on the scene and mankind chose to deviate from the standard. That does not mean that we change the standard. Try building something by changing the standard of measure according to each builder’s whim. You chose a very bad example to counter argue. It was a nice try though, although, not very original of you.

        No one said that you must be “fertile” to get married. That is what you assumed I would say. I have seen this trick many times. It is also not very original of you.

        I am sorry that you are physically unable to father children, because of that, should we allow homosexuals to marry? Does not seem very logical to me. I never said you have to be able to procreate to marry. BTW, that is a regurgitated argument from the homosexual agenda (I am very familiar with it).

        Here is a little commentary on homosexual “love”. This comes from God. I am just the messenger. Your problem is with God, not with me. Maybe you can duke it out with Him. Let me know who is victorious.

      • Sorry, I don’t believe in your deity, so arguments to authority based on that fail. Your god also said that wearing clothing made of two different fibers and eating shellfish were also death penalty offenses.. do you support those as well?

        If you don’t consider procreation important, why did you bring it up?

        “Your problem is with God, not with me. Maybe you can duke it out with Him. Let me know who is victorious.”

        I just challenged God to show up in my kitchen. Even offered him my last good beer. Nothing happened. I win by forfeit.

        But you have dodged my question, is marriage between two people who cannot or chose not to have children legitimate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

      • Your belief in God or lack of belief in God do nothing to change the facts. You can choose to be ignorant in the face of the enormous evidence for the existence of God. That is your right and your choice. I support your right to believe reality or not.

        Oh my, you compare moral laws to religious cultural laws. That takes a lot of intellectual integrity on your part and it is such an original argument. I laugh every time I hear another “free thinker” regurgitate this ridiculous claim. BTW, if you all think the same way, does that really make your thinking “free”. Just a thought.

        Procreation is quite important for the continuation of the human race. Maybe you know of another way to continue the human race? I am sure the scientific community would love to be enlightened by your wisdom.

        He has a date set for you to show up. He works on His schedule, not yours. Just keep living and one day you will show up (on His time) and on that day, (I pity you), you will find out who has won. BTW, one day you will bow before Jesus Christ (you can do it now by choice or then by force) and confess Him as Lord. After that confession, the grand meeting with God that you mock will take place. Remember this conversation when that day takes place.

        Marriage is between one man and one woman! God does not take it further than that. Although, one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. That does not mean that if a couple (man and woman) is barren then they are “cursed” by God (that would be your conclusion).

      • “Homosexuals do not know what love is, agape, self-sacrificial love. They only know eros, selfish, where the word erotic comes from. They cannot love sacrificially because they do not have the ability. That type of love only comes from God and He only gives it to those who obey Him.”

        Excuse me? You, sir, have just assaulted my berserk button with a sledgehammer. Say what you will about me, but if there’s one thing I’m not, it’s selfish. I have spent my entire life putting on a brave face for the sakes of those around me, even when I’m dying inside. I do my best never to lie for personal gain. I go out of my way to help others, even people I can’t stand. And no matter how much I love someone, I’m always willing to let that person go, because his or her happiness is more important than my own. The worst thing anyone could ever call me is selfish, because selflessness is the one virtue I really think I’ve mastered.

        That’s one of the things that so infuriates me about religion: it seems to me that belief is born out of the selfish desire to go to heaven, even when the cost is other peoples’ eternal torment. I can find no other explanation, as the only evidence I have seen for religion can be debunked with laughable ease. I do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not because I think it’s going to land me in a utopian afterlife. I usually have little praise for myself, but I know that that right there is true selflessness.

        You want to think that not believing the magic sky pixie and liking other girls somehow make me an inherently bad person? Fine. Go ahead. I know I could sacrifice myself to save thirty children from a burning building and you’d still think I was Satan incarnate. But before you call me selfish, take a good, long look in the mirror.

      • God says that you are selfish (if you are a homosexual, if you have rejected the Truth about Him, if you live a lifestyle of sin). I just passed on the message. Take your berserk button to God and talk with Him about it.

        Why are you dying inside?

        You wrote “I do my best never to lie for personal gain.”

        In the eyes of God, your best is not good enough. According to Him, your best is like filthy rags in His eyes.

        Unselfishness is not a virtue to be mastered, it is a characteristic of God. If you do not have God in your life then you do not have His unselfishness either. I am glad that you help people, do not get me wrong, I am just comparing you to the real Standard, God, and I am sorry but when that happens, we all fall extremely short.

        You and God do have something in common, you both hate religion. God is interested in a personal relationship with people, not religion.
        Heaven is a perk. The real benefits are for the here and now: the character of God, ability to say no to sin and temptation, transformed lifestyle, purpose in life, etc. If your religion is solely based on going to heaven, then you just have a religion and not a relationship with God.

        Mock all that you want but remember, God is not mocked, what you sow you will reap. Read up on what is happening to a famous mocker

        I was born very selfish (as all humans are). I did not understand how selfish until I compared myself to God. Then, God changed me. He gave His character to me.

        He can do the same for you. Just repent of your sins (agree with God that you sin and turn away from sin), dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ, and you will be amazed at what happens.

      • First of all, “God says it’s true so it must be true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary” is a ridiculous argument. Blind faith, when applied to real life, is a spectacularly bad idea. If I just believed whatever the government, or any authority, or the cashier at the grocery store said without question, how well do you suppose I’d get on? Yeah. So explain to me why, even if your god says I’m selfish, it is inherently true–which presupposes that I even believe in your god, which I don’t. Thus no arguments based on what God thinks are about to change my mind.

        For the vast majority of my time, I’m not dying inside. But I am at times rather upset due to any number of circumstances. Contrary to common belief, atheists aren’t necessarily depressed and angry people.

        Is telling me that my best will never be good enough for him supposed to convince me that God loves me? If so, I think you might want to reconsider your tactics. Being told that I’m not good enough and never will be if I don’t believe in something that I have never seen proof of makes me feel less inclined than ever to return to Christianity. I find that your god, from what I have read of the Bible and heard from its followers, is incredibly unfair. If I did my best to be a good person without thinking I’d be rewarded for it, am I not arguably better than those Christians (and they do exist) who are simply in it for heaven?

        See, this is one of the things that really, really bothers me about Christianity (and most other religions). It seems to teach that you are worthless, vile scum and that you always will be. God is just being nice by forgiving you, not because you’re trying to be good, but because you bow down to him. But you’re still disgusting and lowly and should grovel before him.

        First off, I am completely baffled by your distinction between religion and belief in God. Please explain what you think the difference is.

        Secondly, I’d argue that belief in God does not necessarily lead to any of these things, nor does a lack of belief do the opposite. Most of the people I know are Christians… who commit sins such as lying and are give in to temptation by chocolate cake or an attractive person, live essentially like the non-Christians around them, and may or may not know what they want to make of themselves. I don’t mean to say that I am superior to these people (some of them certainly have me beaten in other categories), but, though I may not avoid sin or have a “transformed lifestyle,” whatever that means, I can resist the temptation of an attractive person (public opinion may be that anyone non-heteronormative is only in it for the sex and has no restrictions, this just isn’t true–the chocolte cake would pose more of a problem for me). My purpose in life involves writing books so that I can give to others what books have given me, doing what I can to help the abused or homeless pets near me, and reporting the truth as a journalist, no matter what that truth may be.

        Christopher Hitchens has cancer because he smokes. If he were a Christian who smoked, he would still have cancer. Everyone dies sometime–just because he’s a snarky atheist doesn’t make it an act of God.

        Forgive me if I have no desire to be like the God of the Old Testament, who, to me, seems pointlessly cruel and petty.

        You assume (wrongfully) that I have never been a Christian. But I was raised Christian. And, thinking back on it, I don’t like who I was back then. I was a coward and a borderline sociopath. I was more inclined to lie whenever it suited me. I would use every logical fallacy in the book to try and convince myself of silly things; only now do I realize that these arguments were riddled with holes. When I decided that something didn’t make sense, I’d just tell myself, “Don’t think about this too deeply.” I won’t say that my de-conversion to atheism was a direct influence on any of these things, but being a Christian didn’t help.

        It’s also worth pointing out that I was every bit as pansexual as a Christian as I am an atheist, though I didn’t quite realize it at the time, thinking that most girls thought other girls were attractive. I certainly didn’t choose my sexuality–I probably would have been straight had I been given a choice. Having to hide part of your identity for fear of being hated and losing your friends is not a pleasant thing. Despite the common belief that all homosexuals want to spread their homosexuality, I would wish the oppression on no one.

      • you wrote First of all, “God says it’s true so it must be true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary” is a ridiculous argument. Blind faith, when applied to real life, is a spectacularly bad idea.”

        I have never made this ridiculous claim and I do not know why you are attributing it to me. History (actual events) prove what is written in the Bible (things that were written about before they actually happened in history). Blind faith is a joke. True Christians have nothing to do with “blind” faith. I think you are confusing Christianity with macro-evolution.

        I am a person of extreme logic. I know that sounds weird to hear because you seem to think that genuine Christians are illogically living on blind faith. I cautiously study the Scriptures to understand them. When I first started studying, I wanted to prove that there were mistakes in the Bible. As you can see, I lost that battle, not because I did not try hard. I still use that pattern when studying the Bible. I will admit a “mistake” if I ever come across it. The pseudo mistakes pointed out by most atheists do not hold water under intense study of the subject. I have found it over and over again. But, as most atheists are very proud, instead of admitting that they were wrong, they immediately divert and say things like “well that’s just your way of interpreting it”. I do not use the Erik Brewer method of interpreting Scripture. I use the study tools for interpreting literature (ironically that I learned from a secular university and a nonbeliever). If the tools are properly applied, using logic and not preconceived ideas, then the text speaks for itself. It is amazing to see what happens.

        Faith has everything to do with Christianity, but you must understand what is meant by the word “faith”. It is the Greek word “pistis” which means totally convinced of what you see (i.e. the evidence). Biblical faith is not blind. When you see all that God has said (written) and done then the evidence is overwhelming, therefore, you are totally convinced of what you see.

        All humans are selfish and egotistical. That does not change until a person is born again through faith in Jesus Christ.

        My best is not good enough for God and neither is yours. When I realized that, I humbled myself and accepted God’s help. The fact that you cannot humble yourself and accept God’s help, shows that you are selfish (you trust in yourself instead of trusting in Him). I am not here to convince you to believe in God or follow Him. That is your own personal choice. I have been called to present the facts. You do with them what you will.

        Those who are “just in it for heaven” do not understand the meaning of Christianity. Please show me some proof of how God is “unfair”.

        God changes you from worthless scum (His enemy by choice) to His child. You become the child of the Creator of the Universe. He loves you more than you love yourself. He knows the number of hairs on your head (I am sure you do not). You have a very distorted view of God because you have never encountered Him through the Scriptures. You go by what you think He is like or what you have heard that He is like.

        There are thousands of religions which mankind has invented to get to “God”. The difference is, there is only One way to God, His way, through Jesus Christ. If you try your own way or any other way, you get somewhere but it is not to God. Man wants to get to God yet he wants to do it his way so he invents rules and regulations and rituals which he thinks will get him to God. He gets religious but no closer to God. There are tons of religious people who have nothing to do with God, even though they are devout in their “religion”.

        All people are tempted on a daily basis. Becoming a Christian does not stop temptation from happening. The difference between the born again Christian and the nonbeliever is the fact that the Christian has the power (the same power that resurrected Jesus from the grave) to say NO to temptation and sin every single time that they pop their ugly heads up. The nonbeliever is a slave to sin and gives in (willingly) to sin and temptation. He does not have the power to overcome the urge. I tried to stop cussing before becoming a Christian and could not. The same was true with masturbation. Now that I am a born again Christian, I am still tempted, yet I say no to those temptation every single time. A person who does not have this power cannot understand what it is like.

        Christopher Hitchens has made a career off of mocking God and anything holy. He is paying the price for it now. Unless he repents, it will be much worse when he stands fact to face with the One whom he has spent so much time and energy mocking.

        All of us will die because all of us have sinned. The price or penalty for sin is death. Jesus is the only person in human history who would not have died had He not willing gone as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for all of mankind’s sins.

        How is punishing evil, wicked and cruel? Do you think that criminals should not be punished?

        Being born into a Christian family and being a born again Christian are 2 totally different things. I live in a country full of people who were born in “Christian” homes yet have nothing to do with God or Biblical Christianity. The prisons of the country are full of people who were born and raised in “Christian” homes.

        A genuine Christian and lying are like oil and water, they do not mix. That is proof that you were not a Christian (genuine, born again Christian)

        You still have the choice to be straight and God can set you free from the homosexual passions and give you the ability to say NO to them (just like any other sinful passion).

      • You claim to be a Christian. I challenge you to find me anything Jesus said about Homosexuality?

        Let me save you some time. You won’t be able to because Jesus said nothing against it.

        You can’t pick and choose what parts of the old testament you follow. I see by your clothing you are wearing something made of more than one thread (cotton/poly blend) which by O.T. laws say you should be stoned to death.

        Homosexuality isn’t a ‘lifestyle’. Living on beachfront property, or in the city, or in the mountains is a lifestyle.

        If you ignorant fundie lip service Christian homophobics would stop spreading your distorted views of the world, it would be a much better place.

        And I found this drivel from you via FSTDT.

      • I would advise you to read this article and see just how WRONG you are. You have regurgitated a debunked argument (probably without even knowing it)

        As to the site that led you here, it is full of lies and hypocrisy. They use childish tactics to mock people and anything that has to do with God. When a person refutes them and they cannot answer, they just block the person, and then, attack mercilessly (common liberal/athesit/homosexual tqactic).

        Also, I like the way that you confuse moral laws with social, dietary, and cerimonial laws. That tells us a lot about you.

        As far as the name calling goes, you can save that for your first grade friends over at the other site.

      • Coincidentally, the word “Eros” is also one of the four Greek words which can be rendered into English as “intimate love.” So I mean, that’s a plus. Also, the “erotic drive” gets a bad reputation as a sexual one when really it is the blanket statement meant to cover all human desire to create anything.

        So yes, I’d take it as a huge compliment to be called “erotic.” Meaning I tend towards my drive to life and creation. Much better than if you called me “Thanatos.”

        It’s amazing what can be gleaned from simple language.

      • The word “eros” is not even used in the Greek New Testament so I would not brag about it. It is erotic love. It is very selfish and self-centered. It is directly contrasted with “agape”, the love of God. If you base your love of others o eros love then you say, “I love you as long as you satisfy me but the second that you cease to satisfy me, I will no longer love you”. Maybe that is why most homosexual relationships are so short lived.

      • There’s quite a lot that gets improperly translated from the Bible. Namely, the original pronoun intended to refer to God was that of a female. That’s one of the biggest translation slip-ups of all time.

      • O please do explain using evidence from the original languages. I am dying to see this demonstration of mental gymnastics.

      • Read: http://www.colorq.org/Bible/?d=Historical_Background&x=gender

        I can conclude that you can claim to know all the idiosyncrasies of the original Biblical text because you are a fluent speaker of traditional Hebrew. To the point where you can recognize the different dialects use to write it, many of which are incomparable to one another.

        If so, then bravo, I bow to you, oh enlightened speaker of tongues. Take heed in claiming to be something that you are not.

        In fact, Israel is one of the most homosexual friendly nations in the world. Perhaps they know something that you don’t? I mean, I figure if anyone can read their own book, it would be the people who wrote it.

      • As I expected, mental gymnastics. The pronoun for God in Hebrew is masculine because the first mention of God in Hebrew is a masculine noun elohiym, a masculine noun. I would recommend that you read this article.

        And yes, I am a speaker of tongues (languages).

      • Surely you were born a native speaker of Hebrew? No? Then you must have learned it within the first seven years of your life, often considered the critical period for fluency in language? Hmm… You know all the dialects of Hebrew, Greek, and Sanskrit? Really? That’s a lot of language to have absorbed by seven.

        No, I’m fairly serious. It’s impossible for anyone to have a complete unabridged fluency in all the dialects the Bible was written in. I know some Jews who were raised in Israel who can’t identify one of the multitude words for “God” if it’s written in a distant dialect. Why? Cause there are so many. And they are oh, so different.

        If you claim all these talents, then I will deign that I am wrong.

        Also: I see no such mental gymnastics. I’m not sure which article you read. “You probably weren’t reading it clearly.” Because the article states quite clearly that the original word for the Spirit of God was feminine and that the pronouns used for God are technically masculine, but it holds no relevance to the actual gender of the object. There. I summarized it in a paragraph. There are no gymnastics. No strings attached.

      • Just one reply, the Dead Sea scrolls. We know the original, specific words used, and the fact they have not changed or been altered throughout the ages. Up until their discovery, they were many critics like you who claimed, “it was mostly invented, some guy wrote what he wanted to write, etc”. We know the exact words used for God and His characteristics. I would recommend that you read these articles to learn about the Names of God.
        Elohim: God the Creator

        El Shaddai: The All-sufficient One
        Adonai: The Lord
        Jehovah Shalom: The Lord is our Peace
        Jehovah-Rapha: The Lord who heals

        Jehovah-jireh: The Lord will provide!
        Jehovah: The Self Existent One
        El Roi: God who sees all
        El Elyon: God Most High

    • So my intolerance will not be tolerated, right? How can you be tolerant of something that is evil and destroys lives, societies, and nations? I do not understand your logic, enlighten me with your great “wisdom”.

      • By “something that is evil,” you mean homosexuality? Can you show me exactly which lives, societies, and nations it has destroyed?

        Last time I checked, homosexual marriage has been perfectly legal in Canada for a while now, and they’re still doing just fine. The Canadian economy’s been doing a lot better than the USA’s even.

      • Where shall we begin? Sodom, Gomorrah, ancient Greece. The problem with homosexuality is that it is part of a bouquet of immorality. Immorality must first flourish before homosexuality can take a foothold. So to blame it solely on homosexuality is impossible, because homosexuality is part of the entire problem of sexual immorality.

        Oh, I forgot about the Canaanites (big partakers of immorality/homosexuality)

        And how long has immorality flourished in Canada? In Canaan, it had over 400 years to flourish before it brought destruction. What about ancient Greece?

  2. Where’s the proof that God is against Homosexuality?

    Oh right, there’s none at all.

    Believe whatever the heck you want, but you don’t have to spread lies and try to interfere with other people’s content lives.

      • Your first mistake was in thinking the bible was written by god. It wasn’t. What you consider to be proof isn’t.

      • Can you prove that the Bible was not written by God? I did not think so. There is ample evidence that the Bible was written by God, both historical and prophetical. Know some facts before you just assume something. I will not waste my time explaining the historical and prophetical evidence again. I have already done it in another comment. If you want to see it I will link to it, but I doubt that you really care about the facts.

      • The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. You say “the Bible was written by God.” Prove it without resorting to circular logic. Also explain why the story of Moses being found in a boat and the entire flood story are near copies of older stories found in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Why are there two different creation stories in Genesis?

        How is it that we’ve found different version of various old and new testament texts written at different times and places, some with wildly varying text from the accepted versions?

      • Here are 3 tangible proofs. Try to debate them with an actual answer instead of some silly straw man.

        1) God said in the Old T. that He would cease to exist when the Jews did. Since He said that, they have not ceased to exist. Hitler tried. The Romans tried. The Greeks tried. Stalin tried. Babylon tried. All of them utterly failed at wiping out the Jews. They are still here just as God promised. I know you guys cannot counter the argument so you shift and spin, as well as name call etc.

        2) The Old T. prophecies that were already written before Jesus was born (over 300 of them) and He fulfilled all of them. Also, the prophesies about the nations that would be powerful in human history (the Medo-Persian empire, Grecian Empire and Roman empire) all foretold in Daniel many years before they came into being (very detailed accounts like Greece would have one leader who would fall and 4 more would rise up in his place)

        3) A person’s changed character. The Bible says that a person who repents and accepts Christ as Lord (Master) will be transformed from the inside out. He will be changed from a person with a sinful character (enslaved by his sins) to a person who has the character of God and the power to say no to sin and temptation. That happened in my life. It is very tangible. I have seen it happen countless times. The Bible claims it and reality proves it.

        There is only 1 creation story in Genesis. Genesis 2 is a more detailed creation of mankind. It is the same creation story. Obviously you have not read the 2, only rehashing something you heard someone else say.

        The flood is found in almost every culture, which points back to a common origin (as the Bible has said).

        You wrote “How is it that we’ve found different version of various old and new testament texts written at different times and places, some with wildly varying text from the accepted versions?”

        Some examples please.

  3. … I just wonder why there is so much hate towards homosexuals… they are people like us, who want to feel loved and want to have a family as well… they just happen to to love members of their own gender.
    And even if they “sin” in your eyes with their lifestyle, why are you for imposing laws against what they have decided to do with their own lives? why is it so important to you to deny these people their fundamental rights, their right to “pursue happiness” as described by the founding fathers? Do you see yourself as more of a human being than them? Do you think you have the right to dictate for others what their life should be like in every aspect?
    Would you like to have someone say to you that you are not allowed to love the person you have chosen because of such a trivial thing as gender? Imagine for yourself, would you like to be told by complete strangers that the way you lead your life is wrong and would you like to have them try to “correct” you?

    I don’t understand why it matters so much to you what other people do with their lives. If they decide to be homosexual, it is their choice – what they do in their bedroom does not affect you in the slightest, so why bother about it?
    sure, you would say it is to save them from “Hell”, but this is not the real reason. The real reason would be because you like to have power over fellow men. You don’t “love thy neighbours as yourself” as it was commanded by Jesus.
    I have fear of when people like you would have the power they desire bend others to their own will by law. Fallible humans telling other humans that they are unworthy of love and to be hated. THIS is inhumane. Your heart is cold as stone and I wish for you to someday warm up and get more tolerance for others yourself.

    • God says that homosexuals do not even have natural love (the love that we are born with). They reject that when they reject God. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is also a danger for society.

      Disagreeing with a lifestyle that is dangerous is not hatred. I think that you are a bit confused on the 2 things.

      Homosexuality is a choice that each homosexual makes. They choose their own punishment. God is ready and willing to forgive them and change them, but they have to come to Him for help.

      I have not imposed any law against any homosexual. They are protected under the same law that I am protected under.
      Homosexuals can do what they want with their own lives. They have the right, but their rights end when they begin to infringe upon mine. They can do what they want in their own bedrooms. It is when they come out in public with their propaganda and lies, that is when I speak out.

      If a man likes to murder and it makes him happy. Is it okay to let him pursue that happiness? Why not? Because he is a danger to others. Homosexuality is dangerous to others (and to the homosexual). At least that is what the facts say.

  4. I just thought you should know that EVERY homosexual person I know (and several of them are family members) are not only loving and lovable people, BUT, they were all raised by heterosexual parents.

    • That’s nice. But the facts are the facts. Homosexuality is deviant behavior and will be manifested in a negative way. The gay friends and family members that you have can be set free from the sin of homosexuality by the power of Jesus Christ. If they want it, it is at their disposal.

      • Deviance is not always negative. In fact, deviance is the means by which social norms are changed. We must not be afraid to be deviant. You’ll find that you are becoming just as deviant, if not more so already, than homosexuals as society shifts. Do you consider that perhaps this is what you are truly concerned about? Someday maybe I’ll blog about how I feel fundamental Christianity is deviant. Just like murder. It infringes on the rights of man and is dangerous because it diminishes the self-esteem of mankind. Should I allow you to continue to preach it because it makes you happy?

      • There is absolute truth that has existed from the beginning (even before the beginning). Deviation from the absolute truth is never positive. Deviation from what is right is only acceptable if you believe in moral relativity, meaning “there are no absolutes”. My question is, are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

        The individual rights of one person end where another’s rights begin. You have the right to do what you wish until those actions infringe upon my rights.

      • Deviation is a neutral concept. It merely means to be different from the norm. Do not assign new meanings to old words. Also, focus on the topic at hand. My right to a marriage with whomever I wish infringes on your rights, how? By making it seem like it’s a normal thing to do? I’ve heard that argument and it’s crap. Because I could arguing that preaching Christianity over the web invades on my right to not expose my children to religion. Freedom of religion, after all.

        We are fortunate enough to live in an age of freedom. The truest we’ve ever been to legitimate free will. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. I support my right to freedom of religion to prevent theocratic notions from governing the current definition of the world, “marriage.”

        On the other hand, I enjoy debating with you. I feel like I’m consistently winning. It’s like an endless opportunity to practice. I can continue to supply a never-ending stream of intelligent counterpoints, which you ignore and return to your three favorite rebuttals: “1. Apples to oranges, 2. Clearly you just haven’t studied the Bible enough, 3. You just copy and pasted that, so it must be null.” And then you return an equally ineffective argument. Endless chance to practice my composition.

      • My right to a marriage with whomever I wish infringes on your rights, how

        I have answered this a million times yet I have to reinvent the wheel every time with every new homosexual I encounter. I have an argument here in these https://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/do-not-support-immorality-by-supporting-gay-marriage/

        An argument from several other articles “There is an agenda in our modern world, an old agenda, to undermine the Truth of God’s Word, and to convince people to do whatever they want to do. Modern phrases like, “if it feels good, do it” and “it‘s your life, do with it what you will” are very popular. Human rights is one of the catch phrases of the day. I have the right to . . . (you fill in the blank). The problem is, your rights to do whatever you want to do end, when they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Homosexuals feel that they have the “right” to impose their lifestyles on the majority. That is a fact. They share this “right” everywhere you can imagine, even in public schools with children who can’t yet write their own names.”

        Homosexuals are not treated badly in our society. They are protected by the same laws that protect you and me. They want to be categorized as a special group within society, to have special rights and privileges. They also want to have the power to persecute people who do not agree with their lifestyle. That is discrimination and cannot be allowed.

        They are going after my kids with their propaganda. Homosexuals do not reproduce biologically, they have to recruit in every generation. They are aggressively doing and have been doing it for a while now. I see the danger and I am standing against for the sake of my kid’s future.

        Also, do not forget, no one lives in a vacuum. What you do effects the people around you. You right to do what you want ends when it infringes upon my rights and the rights of my kids. I see how the homosexual agenda is trying to manipulate children and as a father, I cannot be apathetic.

        Each person has the right to make his/her own choices. What a person does in his/her bedroom is no concern of mine. It is when they bring it out in public and begin to manipulate people and play with the laws of the land, that is when I do have the right to say something because a person’s rights end when his rights begin to infringe upon mine.

        The homosexual issue has everything to do with heterosexuals because they are trying to change the laws of marriage that will directly effect marriage (heterosexuals). Plus, again, homosexuals are not born homo, it is a lifestyle choice, so in order to have more homosexuals, they must convince from the heterosexual population. Again, heterosexuals are directly influenced. I am sorry, but I do not want my kids manipulated by homosexuals and pro homosexual propaganda.

        When homosexuals attack society (marriage) then I have the right to speak against their actions. What homosexuals do in their own bedrooms is their own business (until their business creates a STD epidemic, see HIV/AIDS of the 1980′s). Some say that you cannot regulate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My response is, what if you murder someone in the privacy of your own home, is that action regulated? When what you do in the privacy of your own home becomes a danger to society then it must be stopped.

        If you are going to use the tired “freedom form of (from) religion” argument then you could at least use it correctly. Read up please.

  5. I think you confused Eros (Greek goddess of intimate love, most commonly known as Cupid) with Ego (Latin for “I” or “self”).

    Also, Jesus made a comment approving of a Roman legionaries’ fidelity to his male lover.

    Just saying.

    • Eros is the Greek word for what we call erotic love. There were 4 words in the Koine Greek for love. Eros, storge, Phileo, and agape. Agape is the only one that comes from God. We humans are not born with it. We receive it from God when we become born again Christians. Eros was the most used (not used in the Bible) because it is what we consider lust today. Storge was the love of mankind (the Bible says that homosexuals do not even have this natural love that we are all born with). Phileo is the brotherly form of love. I was not confused at all. Maybe you do not know Koine Greek.

      You wrote “Also, Jesus made a comment approving of a Roman legionaries’ fidelity to his male lover.

      Just saying”

      Could I see some proof?

      • Eric, and you know of course Johnathan and David had a homosexual relationship also. They will go to the ends of the earth to try and twist the scriptures. I ust came upo0n a blog in which a man rewrote the story of the blind man that Jesus healed. The one in which someone asked, who sinned that this man was born blind? The author removed the blind man and inserted a gay man instead. He then proceded to rewrite the whole story by inserting events, misleading context, and the whole works.

        I would not help but point out that God strongly disapproves of false prophecy. But they will go to endless arguments to prove what they want people to believe. In the end we will all come face to face with God to answer for ourselves and weather we lies (as the devil) about God’s word to justify our rebellions against him.

        The bible says that the word of God exposes sin and that is why many do not wish to believe. And there are those who will turn his word into a lie and speak evil of that which is good and good of that which is evil. He also says in more than one place that the words of those who lead others astray into sin are soother than oil. And that there is a ay that seems right to a man but the end is death.

      • Jonathan and David had no such relationship. They were both men of courage. I know what you are referring to when you accuse them of being gay. The event is found in I Samuel 18. I would advise that you actually read the event instead of taking someone’s word on the subject. Do you know anything about the practice of Covenant? Do you know how they made covenants back then and what the purpose was? Part of the covenant ceremony (mostly formed between two men, in the context of an official agreement, similar to an official business deal today) was that there would be an animal sacrifice and exchanging of reminders of the covenant. Jonathan swore to protect and defend David and to demonstrate that protection, he gave David (a shepherd boy) his garment (he is the son of the king) to symbolize his protection of David (if you mess with David, you are messing with me, the son of the king). He also gave his weapons which is a sign of protection. They made a covenant. There is nothing that indicates a homosexual relationship. That is imposed upon the text by the pro homo crowd to justify their “lifestyle”.

        We will all stand face to face with God one day. Praise the Lord that someone shared the Truth with me so that I can be ready for that meeting. That is why I share with others, so that they can get ready too, especially those who have been deceived by the homosexual propaganda.

  6. re: Sodom, Gomorrah, ancient Greece.

    Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God’s own hand, if you read the account. Having sex with men wasn’t even the direct cause of his ire. They were jerks who would rape random travelers in sick power games. They were rioters. It is not that they wanted to have sex with men which is even emphasized as the problem. God simply says the city is wicked, not “it’s wicked because they have sex with men.” Of course, the city itself didn’t seem in any danger of being destroyed by socio-political factors. The only thing that did it was the direct intervention of God.

    Or so the account goes. Really, there isn’t much archeological evidence to support their existence in the first place, or that God smote them specifically in the real world.

    Next is ancient Greece:

    Where, exactly, did having sex with men come into Greece’s gradual fall from power? I’m curious the exact role homosexuality played in the Pelopennesian War, in which the city states fought each other.

    Where, exactly, did having sex with men come into Phillip of Macedon’s conquest? Regardless, after that, the Greek influence grew dramatically in the Hellenistic period.

    Where, exactly, did having sex with men factor into the failure to defeat Roman armies, and the cultural absorption into the Roman Empire? (Of course, Greek influence grew again, and people of the Byzantine Empire were referred to as the Greeks for a very good reason.)

    Where exactly did having sex with men factor in the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire -whose people spoke Greek, and whose lands mostly were the actual Greece- due to military victories by the Turks? Where in the centuries previously? Did Justinian, famous for his heterosexual marriage and faithfulness to his wife, have sex with men on the side or something? Did some imaginary gay lover suggest to him he start his military quest to retake the fallen Western Roman Empire, which expended his resources so that other empires could erode his territory?

    Please, elaborate exactly when, and through what mechanism, homosexuality brought down the Greeks, in any of their phases through good times and bad. I talk with greater depth because there’s alot more known about Greece than Sodom and Gomorrah, since they’re in many historical records other than the Bible, which is only a single source after all.

    • Please read this article to find out what was going on in Sodom. I think you will be surprised when you see the facts. Also, I encourage you to open the Bible and read the passages for yourself instead of repeating the same tired lie that has been promoted over and over again by the pro homo crowd. The sin of homosexuality had infected the entire city and the surrounding ones. Notice in Genesis 19 it says that the men came from every part of the city, both young men and old (the old had taught the young men about this immoral practice, like with the Ancient Greeks, much later).

      “Really, there isn’t much archeological evidence to support their existence in the first place, or that God smote them specifically in the real world”

      What part of completely destroyed are you not getting?

      Homosexuality was a known practice in Greece. Not only homosexuality but all of the abominations that go along with sexual immorality. Have you heard of Corinth? Do you know all of the immorality that was in Corinth? To be a Corinthian meant to be sexually immoral. If you wanted to call someone the extreme of sexual perverts in antiquity, you just called them a Corinthian. Man-boy love was also a favorite among the Greeks. The Spartan warriors could not keep their hands off of each other. There is ample evidence that homosexuality had spread through the Grecian society. The Greeks were conquered by the Romans (which was foretold by God even before Alexander the Great was a twinkle in his parents’ eyes). God says that nations who practice sexual immorality will pay the price. He told the Canaanites that and then did it with the Israelites. He told the Israelites that and then did it with the Assyrians/Babylonians, ect. ect. All throughout human history. The connection is easy to make if you live in the real world and see reality as it is.

      There is a lot known of ancient Israel, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, and Rome (all spoken of in the Bible, and foretold what would happen to them). We do not even have to go back to Sodom as a reference, but it would not be a bad idea.

      • About ancient Greece specifically: That’s a nice story there. But you didn’t actually answer my question. Through what mechanism, how, did this homosexuality cause their conquest by the Romans?

        Even better, realize that as part of the Roman Empire, Greece flourished. There was no Sodom-like ruin there, but continued peace and prosperity. Ultimately, it was the Greek-speaking peoples who controlled the Byzantine part of the empire, when Rome split up. In a very real sense, Greece outlasted Rome, and was better for it.

        Other than the defeat of the political leadership at the time, this was a disaster for them how?

        If you really want to talk about the fall of Greece, you have to talk about the fall of the Byzantine Empire, which was wholly Christian, to the Muslims.

        Regardless, the Christian (at the time) empire of Rome fell apart first. Charlemagne’s empire collapsed to infighting after it was split up after his death. Nations and empires fall to each other all the time in history. What, exactly, makes Greece’s fall after its massive accomplishments, many of which occurred during the time or even after the time of widespread homosexuality which you claim existed, due to that homosexuality?

        How is it different than the conquest of the Visigoth kingdom by the Muslims? The only point you’ve made is “they had homosexuals, homosexuality brings forth various other sins, and they were conquered (which ultimately led to a resurgence).”

        Post hoc ergo propter hoc. “After this, therefor because of this.” That’s the logical fallacy you’re using. You’ve given no actual connection, except saying that the two things happened, which I in no way disagreed with btw. What, I’m asking, is the actual cause?

        You can see how Justinian’s misuse of his forces, frittering them away on a war to reconquer Rome, left him without the manpower to defend his lands from invaders. You have not shown me the way by which homosexuality caused Greece’s conquest by Rome. Do you see the difference? That’s all I’m asking. How.

        Here’s an example! “The homosexuality of the people of Greece left them without the manpower to fight off the enemy, as they were shown to refuse to join the army in larger numbers than in the past, due to their obsession with worldly pursuits.” Or possibly “the immorality ultimately destabilized the cities, creating riots and whatnot, which the governments, weak from their own obsession with their dalliences, were unable to effectively stop. The Romans came in against a force that could not muster the strength to defeat them.” Neither of these are true, of course, but you see how useful actual specifics are, right?

        As for Sodom and Gomorrah, I did read the verses, actually, which is what I’m basing my statement on. And it did not state that it was homosexuality that was the cause in any place. Or if it did, please cite the verse where God states the immorality is homosexuality, instead of, say, the lawlessness inherent in raping visitors in a world in which guests are to be treated with much greater deference than the modern world. You’re just putting your own interpretation on it, which is at best no more supported by that specific text than mine.

        Furthermore, disasters like that do have effects in the world. You’d expect a few more of their prominent neighboring civilizations to write about the destruction of their favorite enemy or something, beyond the one account. This in no way says it didn’t happen, but I’d rather work with civilizations, like Greece, for which a lot more stuff still exists, and so we know a lot more about them.

      • I gave you what the Bible says will happen to nations that openly embrace immorality (including homosexuality). These practices were prevalent in Sodom, Canaan, Israel, Babylon, Greece, Rome. All of these nations were conquered from without after they were weakened from within by immorality. I am sure you will deny this even thought the Bible predicted it long before Greece, Rome, etc. came into power. Things played out exactly as the Bible said. When I say Greece and Rome, I mean the empires. I know that modern Greece is descended from both the ancient Grecians and Romans. The empires did fall, as God predicted that they would. He also explained why they would fall. These things were already written before Greece came to power and well before Rome came into power.

        The fall of Greece was predicted by God, in detail, just like its rise was also predicted in detail. God does not show partiality. He will allow nations to prosper but when they openly embrace immorality (including homosexuality) then their fall from power comes.

      • 0Megabyte, do I sense another Medieval History major?

        I spent more time on Eastern Europe and the linguistic & cultural influences of the Finno-Urgik tribes on early Slavic states, but the Byzantines were a big part of my research. Mainly because the Byzantine Church provided most of the influences on what became Russian Orthodoxy.

        Wonder if Erik has ever heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople?

      • re: Trucker

        No, nothing nearly that special. I just study things. As it is the history I’ve stated so far has been grossly simplified anyway.

      • Hey, you’re doing a lot better than some of the papers I had to grade back in the day. You would not believe some of the mangled versions of history come out of a European History survey course.

      • You are aware that virtually every society that existed two thousand years ago has ceased to exist, right? What made the fall of these societies different from the fall of every other society that exists? How do you distinguish that it was homosexuality that caused Greece to be conquered by Rome, and homosexuality that caused the Christian Rome to fall, from the nations that you haven’t mentioned, such as the Gauls that Julius Caesar conquered?

        What, precisely, is the difference? You aren’t saying that every society fell due to homosexuality, are you?

        Furthermore, while immorality is a problem for successful societies, how are you sure you aren’t confusing cause for effect? Could it be that great success and wealth causes excesses, and those who have that power and money become less inclined to follow the laws, instead of your hypothesis that homosexuality somehow makes one more likely to commit other acts?

        Furthermore, how does homosexuality make, say, rape, murder, theft, etc, more likely? What about having sex with another man makes one go “hey, I should go do this other bad thing, too!”

        What is the mechanism by which this works?

        So, I guess my questions, to summarize again, are as followed:

        1.) How do you distinguish the societies that fell due to homosexuality from the societies, all of their neighbors, which fell for other reasons?

        2.) Through what mechanism does homosexuality cause one to be more likely to do other immoral acts such as theft, murder, and excess?

        3.) How can homosexuality be distinguished from other causes of the same? In other words, how does one tell that the cause is not, instead, the effects of having a large amount of wealth, or turmoil coming from wide-spread poverty, or whatever other factors exist at the time and place?

        These are the sorts of questions one needs to ask as basic rigor, when trying to figure out whether one’s hypothesis is accurate or not.

        Otherwise, I could just as well say the fall was caused by the influence of space aliens sending mind control beams.

      • You wrote “You are aware that virtually every society that existed two thousand years ago has ceased to exist, right?”

        And how many of them did not practice sexual immorality??? (including homosexuality, homosexuals like to brag that they have been in every culture all throughout human history)

        “Christian” Rome, now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!

        Look, I understand how to connect the dots. God said what would happen (He did it in Sodom, Israel, Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, ect). He said the same goes for any nation (Greece/Rome). He mentions the fall of both and why. It is not hard to see the same pattern repeat. God also says “there is nothing new under the sun, what has happened before, will happen again). It has been happening all throughout the ages because mankind is addicted to sexual immorality (in all its forms)

        Homosexuality flourishes where sexual immorality has blazed the path (look in the USA, after the sexual revolution of the 60’s, homosexuality exploded, when I say exploded, I mean became more open and the homosexuals became more embolden, that pattern repeats all throughout history, first sexual immorality prospers then homosexuality becomes more bold).

        Are you saying that homosexuals do not rape and murder?

      • You’re laughing at the Christianity of Rome? You are aware that by the end of the Roman Empire, pretty much the entire population was Christian, right? That it was the official religion? That after Constantine, the emperors with basically one exception were Christian? That the empire pinned its hopes on continued existence on the religion of Christianity, and publicly turned away from the old Roman religion? That the Byzantine Empire, which was a part of the Roman Empire that survived, was also deeply Christian, and it’s from there that the Orthodox faiths come from?

        Have you ever heard of the Council of Nicaea, where it was decided what books were in the Christian Bible in the first place? Happened under the Roman Emperor’s watch.

        Seriously, that one sentence suggests you know none of this. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the Christianization of Rome. It’s kind of one of the central themes of the last few centuries of the empire.

        After all, there’s this whole thing called the Roman Catholic Church, which you may have heard of, which came from those efforts and survived Rome as the major remaining organization in the Western empire.

        I’m honestly stunned. You dismiss their Christianity, both professed and acted upon, with laughter?

        As for conquests: You’re seriously suggesting that all fallen kingdoms and empires are due to homosexuality? That’s what it seems like to me. What you’re saying is that it’s not because of superior forces from an outside country, or the loss of trade, or any other reason, it’s just homosexuality. You’re also seriously saying that every nation ended up falling to this scourge.

        Please back this up. Show how popular homosexuality and immorality was in the Visigothic kingdoms. Show how popular it was in the Incan Empire. Show how popular it was in Tsarist Russia. Show how popular it was in Poland in 1939. Etc, etc. Show me the statistics, and let’s see if they actually follow your claim.

        As for your last sentence: Of course some homosexuals commit crimes. But last I checked, the vast majority of criminals were straight. Are you saying that the crimes of some homosexuals should tar all of them?

        Should all heterosexuals be thought of as bad, because the vast majority of rapes and murders are caused by heterosexuals? The vast majority of pedophilia, as well?

        I’m grasping at straws here, because you just threw this in randomly and I’m trying to understand.

        Regardless, you failed to address the pertinent questions. Instead of delineating how to distinguish those societies that were brought down due to homosexuality from those that aren’t, you just stated that all are brought down by homosexuality -and without any evidence!

        Second, in response to asking how homosexuality causes other crimes, you just stated that homosexuals commit crimes too, which doesn’t actually answer that question. Actually, you stated that other immorality flourishes, but you haven’t shown any link between homosexuality becoming more common, and greater crimes of other sorts. No statistics, no connection at all. You just state they do.

        I could state you’re a space alien, and repeat that every time somebody asks for evidence. You see why that wouldn’t work, right? If you state something like this, you need to actually back it up.

        Statistics would help. Even a viable hypothesis we could go and look at. “Homosexuality causes crimes, look at these statistics showing an increase in murder rates in areas homosexuality becomes more prevalent in!” Or somesuch. Even that would have problems, but it would be better than just a statement.

        Work with me here. I’m asking for evidence in the real world to support your statements. Show me how prevalent homosexuality was in the countries I mentioned, (and “it must have been, they were conquered” isn’t good enough, btw), show me how homosexuality could make other crimes more likely (and saying, as you did, “don’t homosexuals commit crimes” doesn’t do it either, you must surely know this).

        Seriously, you implied that all nations that are conquered had it coming. You do understand how evil an implication like that is, right?

        Furthermore, unlike Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, all these nations were destroyed by the actions of other nations. So, the nation in the Bible was destroyed by God’s own hand, while all those outside the Bible were destroyed by other humans… hmm. What an interesting fact!

        Seriously, though, the fact that you take my point that all nations of the time have fallen, and then state that they were all rife with homosexuals is just… I dunno. You realize how bad that logic is, right? You do realize there are other possibilities than saying the victims deserve it, right?

      • “You’re laughing at the Christianity of Rome? You are aware that by the end of the Roman Empire, pretty much the entire population was Christian, right?”

        I am not impressed with people who are “Christian” in name and not deed. In fact, neither is God (nor is Jesus). They both have plenty to say to religious people who were “faithful” in name but not deeds.

        Read up a bit on Constantine

        If you look at Christianity from the 1st Cent until Constantine, the spiritual aspect of Christianity prospered while they suffered greatly. After Constantine, the persecution was greatly reduced; the “church” prospered yet the spiritual side suffered. There was a great difference between the first 4 centuries and the next 12. That is why I laugh @ “Christian” Rome. BYW, I am educated with 2 college degrees (currently working on another). The first 2 are from secular universities. I have studied history more than once. Please stop assuming that I am an uneducated blogger in my parents’ basement (that would be the majority of liberals, I am not a liberal, thank God).

        I live in an Orthodox country so I know very well that claiming to be a Christian and actually being one, are 2 totally different things.

        The Books of the Christian Bible were already pretty much established long before then (Paul speaks of them during the 1st Cent.)

        Who was actually superior to the forces of the Roman Empire? Plus, before being conquered God revealed who would conquer whom (Egypt, Babylon, Persians and Medes, Greece, Rome). He revealed who would conquer whom. I am sure you do not know this because it is clear that your Old T. knowledge is lacking.

        The vast majority of pedophilia is male/male, or in other words, homosexuality.

        When did homosexuality begin to flourish in the USA, before or after the sexual revolution of the 1960’s?

  7. Yeah I read a good chunk of the bible. Fun when I’m bored.

    I also read argruements trying to prove that the bible is the word of God. All crap.

    However, since you think so, I would like to say that Peter and Jude were just men, and Paul was pretty much a serial killer.

    Anyways, I suggest you read your bible. Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed because they people were rapists. It doesn’t mention homosexuality as the reason at all.

    “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman”

    There’s a difference between homosexuals and men who have sex with men. Learn it before bashing. Plus that law comes from the same book that says you can’t eat shrimp.

    “They cannot love sacrificially because they do not have the ability. That type of love only comes from God and He only gives it to those who obey Him.”

    So are you saying tha Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans are also incapable of sacrificial love? They don’t obey your god.

    • You wrote “I also read arguments trying to prove that the bible is the word of God. All crap.”

      Do you not have a better argument? Do not have at least a valid point to your accusation?

      All the men of the Bible were “just men” with the exception of Jesus Christ of course. So your point is?

      Saul was a murderer. Then he met Jesus Christ and was transformed (that is what I keep saying can happen to homosexuals). He became a man of God. I still do not see your point.

      I will give you a link to an article that explains that the men of Sodom were homosexuals. Men having sex with men (rape or not) is homosexuality.

      I have done no “bashing” here. I have been bashed by the homosexuals.

      I like how you compare food and ceremonial laws to moral laws. That is really smart of you. Did you actually think this through or just grab an idea off of another site?

      So are you saying tha Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans are also incapable of sacrificial love? They don’t obey your god.

      You are correct. They cannot love with agape love because it is not in them. Plus, He is not my God. He is God. I follow Him because He is God. He is not God because I follow Him. I hope you know the difference.

      • Erik is engaging in an old bigot’s trick.. claim that the object of bigotry isn’t fully human to further justify the discrimination. Jews didn’t have souls, blacks weren’t as smart as whites, Chinese were inferior in brains and sight, and now, according to Erik, homosexuals lack a basic human ability to feel true love.

        Never mind the gay couples that have been together for decades, never mind the gay families that raised strong, healthy kids, Erik refuses to see that because to admit that there are elderly gay couples way past the age where Eros is anything but a memory is to admit that homosexuals are as human as he is. And that destroys his sense of superiority.

        “I have done no “bashing” here. I have been bashed by the homosexuals.”

        Oh, which of us are the homosexuals, and how do you know this for a fact? As for bashing, you have called homosexuals evil, violent, depraved, and lacking basic facets of humanity. That’s what Adolf Hitler said about my family back before he killed 95% of them. Happy to be in that company, sir?

      • First of all , I am not a bigot. I have the right to disagree with a dangerous lifestyle, do I not? (maybe you are confusing the USA with the USSR).

        I have never said that homosexuals are not fully human. If you feel like they are not, then that is your problem. Just don’t attribute it to me.

        How have I discriminated against homosexuals? Can you show some proof, other than disagreeing with their dangerous lifestyle.
        Race and sexuality are two different things (which you have confused here). Race is not a choice while homosexuality is a choice. Quit trying to shift, that shows that you do not have an argument.

        Homosexuals do not have agape love because that type of love comes from God and He gives it to His followers. Atheists do not have it either. Neither do “religious” people (if they are not following the One True God).

        The stats show that homosexuals do not have lasting sexual relationships (even when allowed to marry). A few gay couples have stayed together, but the majority do not (check the stats and the links that I have provided in my articles on gay marriage).
        Homosexuality causes those who practice it to practice evil, to be violent and depraved.

        I have nothing to do with Hitler. I love Jewish people, you gave us the Messiah. I have been adopted in to the family of Abraham. I am very glad of that. You picked the wrong angle to criticize me. Plus, Adolf hung out with the homosexual crowd (and he more than likely was one himself).

      • Erik, you have declared that homosexuals are depraved, violent, an incapable of experiencing a basic human emotion. You have demanded that they be denied what the United States considers a fundamental civil right. Like it or not, you do engage in the exact same tactic of dehumanizing the object of your hatred as every other bigot has throughout history.

        Prove, using scientific methods, that any emotion comes from a deity. Otherwise you’re just making more circular logic claims to justify your dismissal of homosexuals.

        You can cherry-pick bad actions by gays, pull life-expectancy figures from the height of the AIDS epidemic, and insist that gays are subhuman (which is what you are doing, whether you admit it or not) by demanding that we accept your corny Greek love distinctions and insisting that one of them comes from a deity.

        Fact is, you are as big a bigot as the people who merrily smashed the windows of Jewish shops. You use the exact same rhetoric, the exact same marginalizing language, and the exact same demonization of a few to tar the many. You may not be out there bashing gays physically, but your writing does the same thing.

        You also have a bad habit of making claims about gays without backing them up with independently conformed sources.

        Your god is your god. He’s a mythical construction developed to explain things in a pre-scientific world and to enforce codified social rules with the threat of punishment. Humans have come up with millions of gods over the centuries, modified them, adapted them, and tossed them out when they went out of fashion. The Gospels, for example, take several stories bodily from the writings of the Mystery Cult of Dionysus, which stole them from the Egyptian cult of Osiris.

        You think turning water into wine was original to Jesus? Dionysus was doing it centuries earlier, according to his followers. Same thing with creating food, healing the sick, raising the dead.. all things you learned about as an initiate of the cult. The best part? Dionysus was a mortal man and a god, son of Zeus and a mortal woman. He offended a crowd in a town who had him killed. Three days later he rose from the dead and ascended to godhood.

        This was all written down 200 years before Jesus allegedly lived. Go to Athens, you can see some of the Dionysian scrolls on display. (Learn to read archaic Greek first)

        By the way, if you knew anything about my former religion, you’d know that the coming of the messiah heralds the immediate end of the world. Which is why Jesus told his followers that he would return in their lifetimes. Which, of course, didn’t happen.

      • Every person in the USA can marry. There is no law that says a person can or cannot marry. There is a law for “whom you marry”. Homosexuals have the right to marry. They just do not want to obey the “whom you marry” part.

        Again, the sin of homosexuality causes one to be depraved (so does atheism) violent (I gave you proof) and lack AGAPE love (no human is born with that type of love).

        Homosexuals are human and I have never said that they are anything less. Please pay attention to what I actually type.

        Prove, using scientific methods, that any emotion comes from a deity. Otherwise you’re just making more circular logic claims to justify your dismissal of homosexuals

        Before you ask for that, do you believe in macro-evolution? Can it be proven using the same scientific method?

        Thanks to gays, we reached the height of the AIDS epidemic.

        Please show me the quote where I write “gays are not human or subhuman”, until then, it would be better for you to stop lying.

        You wrote “Greek love distinctions”.

        So now you are the judge of the Koine Greek language? Do you have a degree in Koine Greek?

        You wrote “You also have a bad habit of making claims about gays without backing them up with independently conformed sources.”

        What is the APA?

        You wrote “He’s a mythical construction developed to explain things in a pre-scientific world and to enforce codified social rules with the threat of punishment”

        Do you have degree in Ancient Hebrew culture too? You make some pretty bold claims but I do not see anything to back those claims up.

        You wrote “The Gospels, for example, take several stories bodily from the writings of the Mystery Cult of Dionysus, which stole them from the Egyptian cult of Osiris.”

        That is ONE view, that is highly debatable because of the bias of those claiming it. Plus, there are many, many holes in that theory, way too many to be treated as a FACT. You should qualify the statement with, “this is what I believe

        Jesus never claimed that He would return during the lifetime of His 12 disciples. Please read the text more carefully. That is a mistake people make, those who do not study the passage in context (which does not surprise me about you, since I see how closely you read what I write).

  8. First off, sorry for late reply, as I had an extremely busy weekend.

    The dead scrolls were written between the second century BC and the first/second century AD, if my memory serves me well, so they can hardly be considered as proof for being the original text.It’s logical that there are more ancient copies of the bible than of Herodotos historics, as many “pagan” manuscripts were willfully destroyed during the dark ages. This would include scripts like Herodotos, or Caesar’s “de bello Gallico”.

    As for the errors in the bible, there’s a great site called the skeptic’s annotated bible, which does a good job of debunking some stuff in the bible.

    I just want to make some final details clear:
    Yes, I’m an atheist.
    No, I’m not trying to persecute christians, or I don’t want to ridiculise christians. For all I know, I might be wrong not to believe in God. But I will only believe it when I see it (or till I have at least 100% irrefutable proof that he exists).
    I’m also not homosexual. I’m a perfectly heterosexual man, who’s married with one child and a second child on the way.
    My wife is an Orthodox Assyrian Christian, and so are her entire family. My mother in law is actually a biblical literalist. She does believe in Adam and Eve, the flood, noah, etc… but this has never been an obstacle, and she and I like each other very much.
    She knows I’m an atheist and respects this. She doesn’t mind that schools teach evolution, etc… because she says that “everyone has to choose for himself, and teaching only one side of the spectrum is not good. People should learn both sides of view, and decide for themselves”.

    We also know a few homosexuals, and we’ve known them for a long time. Trust me, if some of those people had a choice in their sexual orientation, they would have chosen to be heterosexual (because of religious peer pressure), but they are not. Because they have no control over it. They love their partner just as much as you love your wife, or as I love my wife. Take the time to get to know some homosexuals, and you’ll quickly notice that they are not any different from you and me.

    Anyway, I hope my point was somewhat understandable, as English is not my native language 🙂

    PS: Also keep in mind, I’m not trying to offend ANYONE here. Since my family is a pot-pourri of Atheists, Christians and one Wicca, I know it’s possible for all those beliefs to coexist peacefully 🙂

    • Check this out

      I have been to SAB. It is a joke. I have pointed out the logical flaws in several of their “mistakes” in the Bible. The same logic applies for each mistake. They show a very high level of a lack of intellectual integrity and people who do not know how to study for themselves, easily believe the lies on that site. If you want to be deceived and misled, be my guest. I would hope that you would be smarter than that, but oh well.

      everyone has to choose for himself, and teaching only one side of the spectrum is not good. People should learn both sides of view, and decide for themselves

      If that were the case, then why do atheists only want one side of the spectrum taught in the public schools?

      But I will only believe it when I see it (or till I have at least 100% irrefutable proof that he exists).

      That should end the debate about macro-evolution then, since you need “100% irrefutable proof ”

      Congrats on the children. I am glad that you are doing your part to carry on the next generation.

      Coexistence is okay in some cases but lies and truth cannot coexist, one will always destroy the other.

      • Well, the same thing could be said about many other “pagan” writings. I mean, the writings we have of the Illiad or the Homeric Oddyssey are still exactly the same as the original ones (yes, I know they are purely works of fiction).

        As for the SAB, I’ve read the bible when I was younger, and some of my thoughts when reading it, were exactly the same as those mentioned in the SAB (keep in mind that this was somewhere in 1994-1995, and the site didn’t even exist then).

        As far as I know, Atheists are not averse to religion being taught in Public schools, as long as the concepts of science (let’s not just limit ourselves to evolution here). I also can’t speak for the US, but here where I live, both are taught in public schools (though, admittedly, religion is an optional class).

        Concerning macro-evolution. You are probably confusing it with Speciation, which is something totally different. Macro-evolution indicates how a species adapt itself over long periods of time (f.ex. horses used to be no larger than a dog, but evolved into the size they are now, because of their need for survival.).
        Speciation is a branch of science that researches how one biological species eventually changes over time and thus creates new species. (if you want to find out how dinosaurs became birds, and why humans and apes share a common ancestor, this is the field of science you need).
        The difference between these things and religion is (in my opinion): there is enough supporting evidence to accept the theory of evolution. Maybe some new finds will invalidate the theory as we know it, but that’s the beauty of science: it’s willing to admit it’s errors in order to better understand nature around us. Religion on the other hand, is dogmatic. you base yourself on these writings, and refuse to accept invalidating evidence (such as fossils, the scientific impossibility of a world wide flood,…). Sure, there are some good things in the bible which we should all live by (love thy neighbour, thou shalt not kill, etc…, whom are some fundamental needs of organised societies), but there are other things who originate in what was a primitive and dangerous time (for example, the bible is quite positive about slavery and how to treat your slaves. I’m sure you’re against slavery, though, as we all know slavery is a primitive and cruel practice from a bygone age).

        I think that my family proves that it is possible for all these beliefs to live together. All we need to do, is respect each others points of view. Yes, I’m not happy about some of the beliefs of people in my family, and I’d (honestly speaking) be disappointed if my children followed a religion (any religion). But, as long it is their own choice: who would I be to judge them?

      • I would encourage you to read this article on the evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament.

        As far as the SAB goes, every single thing there is a lie and I can demonstrate on a case by case basis. I do not have the time to combat each lie but, I can assure you, every single piece of “evidence” that you can bring from there is easily disprovable. Choose a random example and I can show you how it works. (I have already done so with “Cain’s wife”)

        As a Christian, I am not against science (hard science). I am against teaching macro-evolution as a hard science, because it is not. It cannot be tested according to the scientific method.

        I am not confused on the concept of evolution, the change in species over time. Species do change, but as I have pointed out, big and small horses are still horses. Big and small dogs are still dogs. The Bible says that animals will produce after their kind. Dogs are still producing dogs. There is variation among the species, I do not deny that. Macro-evolutionists throw in the time factor, assuming that the earth is “billions” of years old. Assuming is not hard science. New species are not being “created”, that is the problem. If you are truly interested in the subject of evolution, and open to reading a challenging book, then I would recommend, Darwin on Trial

        I will respond to the other, in a moment.

  9. The article you mention is one on a christian apologetics website. PLease link an article to a neutral and objective website.
    As I said, Christians have done a good job during the middle ages of destroying as much “pagan” material as they could. They don’t call the medieval times the “Dark Ages” for nothing 🙂

    • What? Facts are facts and it really does not matter who presents them. That is a lame tactic that you are applying here. I could say the same about anything produced by the APA (American Psychological Association) because of its blatant bias toward the liberal homosexual agenda.

      Again, facts are facts, if you want to find liberal “spin” on the facts then you can research on what you call a “neutral” site. BTW, anything produced by people will have some bias because we all have one form of bias or another. Even hard science that is presented by scientists (who are people with a bias) has some form of bias. If you want something with no bias, then it must be produced by something other than people.

      BTW, study history and you will see that the Church preserved reading and writing during the Middle Ages. One could argue, that if it had not been for the Church, all ancient info would have been lost with the losing of the ability to read Latin and Greek.

  10. Actually, I do study history more than you think. My bookcase holds over 200 history books, on various periods of time. While my “specialties” are mostly World War 2 and the Roman Empire, I know my fair share about the Medieval times.

    While it’s true that the Church was partly responsible for keeping some ancient texts alive, it is also an irrefutable fact that they did not go to much trouble to keep non-christian texts alive, and at several time periods of Christianity, they purged many non-Christian art/Literature/…

    One of the main causes that there are nearly no documents of Herodotus/Plato,etc… available was the Emperor Theodosius I. He not only outlawed all religions except Christianity, he ordered the destruction of many pagan temples/libraries, etc…
    The reason the Church was the only one who kept some ancient writings complete is that they were the only ones who were literate in the medieval times. Very ironic, considering “pagan” Rome and Greece had an enormous literacy rate…Practically every Roman citizen could read and write by the year 380, when Christianity became the official religion. Less than a century later, nearly every school in the Empire was destroyed. By the end of the 6th century, and until the end of the 18th century, from between 90 and 95% of the people of Europe were illiterate. Also, in 529, justinian made sure the schools of philosophy were closed, as they were pagan institutions (guess what happened to the many manuscripts of Plato/Herodotoes/Socrates/etc… that were stored there? Yes, they were burned down together with the schools themselves. Actually, most of the ancient manuscripts that were saved back in the medieval times, were actually saved by accident. The monks needed papyrus for their literary efforts, so they gathered in the manuscripts wherever found and thus they “preserved” them: due to cost of vellum, old books were scraped and used again. That’s the cause why ancient works were saved (but, we should not be entirely negative, there were probably some monks who were intelligent enough to see the worth of these manuscripts, who actually conserved them on purpose).
    I can’t immediately give you sources for this, since I’m at work and I obviously don’t have my entire bookcase with me, but I’ll look them up asap and try to give you the sources as soon as possible.

    By the way, do not think that I’m trying to antagonize you. I’m open for discussion on all levels, and I genuinely think that you look to be a decent man, who only wants what he thinks is best for everyone.

    • I do not deny that the Catholic Church did not have its own problems through the Dark Ages. I know that they did. Instead of preaching and teaching the Bible to the people, the church leaders kept the people in ignorance and used that ignorance to control. I am not Catholic (in the sense of being a member of the Holy Catholic Church, the institution). I do not have a problem with “Catholics” because I know among the ranks of the millions of Catholics in this world, there are those who are born again, genuine Christians (I am friends with some). I also know that there are many who hold to the “religion” yet it really has no impact in their lives. (the same can also be said about Protestants). I am a Protestant by choice. I am a born again Christian and live according to the Bible. I wish that all people would be as I am, born again and a follower of Jesus Christ.

      I am glad that you are open to discussion. I have the radars up at all times and the tactic of blaming God or Christianity for what happened during the Middle Ages is usually a cheap shot so I am sorry if I was a little hostile. I am always open to dialogue. I also know that there are many with preconceived ideas who just want to argue and could care less about the facts. I see that you are not like this and I am so glad.

      • As a matter of fact, the problem lies generally not with the belief system in itself, but by the organisations preaching it (and then again, mostly the higher-ups). Any belief-system can be abused by people to further their own interests. (Stalin and Pol Pot hid behind atheism to get rid of politic enemies, while Hitler used Christianity and germanic paganism, to rally the people of Germany behind him. What shocks me, is that he was able to use both and no-one noticed the contradictions…). The process is two-way however, people with bad intentions can abuse science to further their ideas (again, the nazi’s can be used as an example, since they twisted the theories of Evolution and the then rudimentary knowledge of Genetics to justify their “Herrenvolk”-theory.

  11. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Homosexuality

    Genesis 19, while commonly held to describe the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for the “sin” of homosexuality, more likely describes their destruction because of wickedness in general rather than just for homosexuality. They wanted to rape the angels, it makes sense that the sin was in fact rape, not consenting homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49 (KJV) reads as such:

    “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”

    This supports the view that the sins of Sodom were not homosexuality.

    Leviticus 18:22 can have more than one interpretation. Some people have suggested what is condemned in this verse is pagan rituals, which involved homosexual acts. This fits in with the context of the verse, as Leviticus 18:27-28 specifically says that the pagans defiled the land with such acts.

    Although the book of 1 Kings does say that there will be no sodomites in Israel, that’s only in the King James Version. Other, more accurate modern translations render the word “male temple prostitute”.

    The translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “homosexuals” is contentious. The words translated as “homosexual”(RSV) are “malakoi” meaning soft or effeminate, and “arsenokoitai” whose meaning as debatable but literally translates as “male-bedder”. It is possible that Paul in this verse is condeming prostitution. There were temple prostitutes in Corinth at the time who were involved in worshipping other gods.

    There is also no indication that homosexuality is somehow a more severe sin than fornication. So at worst homosexuals should be treated the same as anyone else who has sex outside of marriage. Have you ever seen an angry mob opposing unmarried couples?

    Romans 1:26-27 describes clearly how God himself made people homosexual. This passage could also be a reference to idol worship and prostitution, due to the context of the preceding passages.

    Pwn’d.

    “Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea scrolls? Read up on it a bit.”

    The dead sea scrolls were not written before ~150 B.C.E. Moses wrote the first 5 books ~1250 B.C.E.

    • Let’s have a little look at the Bible. Plus, I am not impressed that you can cut and paste invalid interpretations from a website.

      6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
      7and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
      8(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
      9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the (day of judgment,
      10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires

      Lot (along with his family) were oppressed by the sensual conduct of the sexually immoral homosexuals of Sodom. Their souls were tormented day after day by what they saw and heard in the streets of Sodom.

      This is from Ezekiel

      49″Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
      50″Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

      Just a little help for you in your interpretation. They were committing abominations. Here is what God calls abominations in the Old T. Leviticus 20

      13If 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.

      You see, the men of Sodom were practicing homosexuals and were punished because of it. Homosexuality is dangerous for society.

      Do you see unmarried heterosexuals trying to redefine the foundation of a healthy society, marriage between one man and one woman?

      Let’s take a look at I Corinthians

      9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit * the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed , but ye are sanctified , but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

      Effeminate – mal-ak-os in Greek, meaning soft. These were young male’s who prostituted themselves to homosexual men.
      Homosexual or abusers of themselves with mankind – Arsenokoites in Greek, root words “Arrhen” male and “Koite” to lie down. The literal definition is a male who lies down with another male. It is an idiom for sexual intercourse (we say “to sleep with” today, which is an idiom as well).

      So, both homosexual prostitution and homosexuality were prohibited.

      • “Here is what God calls abominations in the Old T. Leviticus 20”

        Guess you decided to ignore the other things God calls an abomination in the OT? You know, the several dozen things specifically identified as abominations before the Lord? Here’s the list:

        Dietary Abominations

        Leviticus 7:18 If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to him; it shall be an abomination, and he who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.

        Leviticus 11:10-19 – (6) “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.”

        “And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.”

        Leviticus 11:20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.”

        Leviticus 11:23 “But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.”

        Leviticus 11:41 “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.”

        Leviticus 11:42 “Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.”

        Leviticus 19:7 “If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination.”

        Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD.”

        Improper Worship/Sacrifice

        Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD your God.

        Deuteronomy 17:1 “You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

        Deuteronomy 18:10-12 “When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you.”

        Deuteronomy 27:15 “‘Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the LORD, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.'”

        Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

        Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.

        Isaiah 1:13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies–I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

        Isaiah 44:19 No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire, I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted flesh and have eaten; and shall I make the residue of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?”

        Jeremiah 32:35 They built the high places of Ba’al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

        Daniel 11:31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.

        Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

        Divorce/Adultery

        Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.”

        Ezekiel 22:11 One commits abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another lewdly defiles his daughter-in-law; another in you defiles his sister, his father’s daughter.

        Leviticus 7:21 And if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of man or an unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the LORD’s peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

        Love of Money

        Jeremiah 6:15 “Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown,” says the LORD. (Greed for unjust gain.)

        Jeremiah 8:12 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. (Greed for unjust gain.)

        Luke 16:15: But he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

        Dishonest Trade

        Deuteronomy 25:13-16 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and just weight you shall have, a full and just measure you shall have; that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.”

        Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.

        Proverbs 20:10 Diverse weights and diverse measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

        Proverbs 20:23 Diverse weights are an abomination to the LORD, and false scales are not good.

        Other Improper Behaviors

        Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

        Deuteronomy 23:18 “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”

        Judges 20:6 “And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel.” (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)

        Proverbs 3:32 for the perverse man is an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence.

        Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

        Proverbs 11:20 Men of perverse mind are an abomination to the LORD, but those of blameless ways are his delight.

        Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

        Proverbs 16:5 Every one who is arrogant is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.

        Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

        Proverbs 28:9 If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

        Isaiah 41:24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is naught; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Worshipers of people who set themselves up as gods.)

        Malachi 2:11 Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.

        Unspecified Wickedness

        Proverbs 8:7 for my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

        Proverbs 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but he loves him who pursues righteousness.

        Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD, the words of the pure are pleasing to him.

        Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.

        Proverbs 24:9 The devising of folly is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to men.

        Jeremiah 2:7 And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.

        Ezekiel 18:10-13 “If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.”

        Revelation 21:27: But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

        Lying with a Man as with a Woman

        Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

        Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

        So again, you selectively quote the Bible to support your bigotry. Under the vague heading of “abomination” the peoples of Sodom could have been guilty of any of these crimes.

      • Thanks for all of those quotes. Did you bother checking out 2 Peter 2:6-10? Look at the entire context of Scripture to interpret Scripture. I know that you do not care about the facts, only your opinion.

        Why am I a bigot because I do not agree with the sin of homosexuality? Or, why am I called names just because I do not agree with the dangers and consequences of the homosexual lifestyle?

        – I am not intolerant of the opinions of others. I listen to them and accept the facts and reject the lies.
        – I have no prejudice toward homosexuals, I just do not agree with their dangerous lifestyle.
        – I am not blindly and obstinately attached to some creed. Faith is not blind (true Biblical faith)
        – I do not form opinions without just cause (I have a very good reason to reject the sin of homosexuality because it is dangerous)

      • “I know that you do not care about the facts, only your opinion.”

        Pot, Kettle, Black.

        You used a Bible quote that said that S&G were destroyed for their abominations before the Lord. You then quoted only one of the dozens of OT verses that declare things to be abominations.

        That’s called quote mining, and it is dishonest. (again, you ignored the quote from the Apostle Peter, why is that?)

        I call you a bigot because you are one. You lie about homosexuals, selective quote mine the Bible to back up your bigotry, and seem to be shocked when people call you on it. (where did I lie about homosexuality? it has negative consequences, which I have demonstrated with plenty of articles and outside sources)

        Nothing in the 2 Peter verses support your claim that the only sin of S&G, or even the primary sin, was homosexuality. It could have been serial swinger parties and making idols to other gods, both of which are listed as abominations. (what does sensual conduct of unprincipled men, mean? what about those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires?)

        Your bigotry is based on lies, and you know it. Like citing estimated life spans taken from the height of the AIDS epidemic and claiming it applies today. Your entire method of arguing is to lie, distort, and then claim some sort of injured innocence when called on it. (so you call true stats lies now, wow, I am impressed)

        In other words, a typical bigot.

      • Dude, you linked to this thread.

        But I’d prefer if you answered in your own words.. why exactly did you not admit that the Bible lists dozens of offenses as abominations against God? Did you even know all those reference existed, or do you focus solely on the parts of the Bible that support your obsession with homosexuals?

      • Of course I knew those references existed. As I said, the interpretation comes from the context (immediate and entire Scripture) Peter explains just what those abominations were. I know you do not deal in facts so it is pointless to try and explain, but, that is the way it is. I am not obsessed with homosexuals. I just happen to disagree with their dangerous lifestyle.

      • OK, you are officially hopeless. When confronted with the list of things that are abominations, you igfnore them, then accuse me of not dealing in facts? Sir I hold a Master’s Degree in history. I love facts. I confess to a certain obsession with them. You are the one who cherry picks, can’t defend his own arguments (and also can’t make a simple link), and lies about homosexuals to defend your cliched and debunked scare tactics that being gay is somehow dangerous.

        Your not a Christian at all, just someone who wraps himself in piety to assume divine support for his own prejudices. History is filled with people like you, preaching against the Moors, or the Jews, or the Papists, or the savage Indians, finding Biblical passages to give them divine passage on belittling, marginalizing, or exterminating the objects of their scorn.

        Frankly, to see the same tricks being pulled today is one of the many reasons I’m an atheist.

      • I am glad that you have a Master’s Degree. Does historical context matter? What about “cross references”?

        Once again, here are the facts:
        Genesis 19

        4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter ; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight ? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

        Ezekiel

        49″Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
        50″Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

        Leviticus 20

        13If 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.

        2 Peter 2:6-10

        6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
        7and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
        8(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
        9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the (day of judgment,
        10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires

        When all put together, it is easy to see what kind of “sin” or abomination was being practiced in Sodom. I am sorry that you are an atheist but that is your choice. You can choose to deny the existence of God even though there is overwhelming evidence for His existence (in nature and History). Since you love History, how do you explain the fact that Daniel lays out the outline of human history (in advance) exactly as it has happened and is happening?

        Funny how an atheist is the one calling me a non Christian, how ironic. I am not preaching against people, but sin and a sinful lifestyle (which is for your own benefit). I have not belittled anyone and I definitely have said nothing of extermination. These are straw man tactics of yours (you set up your own argument to argue against, that way you win every time, I hope).

        Homosexuality is very dangerous. The APA has 4 classes of people who are the most at risk for HIV/AIDS: 1) iv drug users 2) inmates in prison 3) sex workers 4) homosexual men

        Society says that it shameful to be an iv drug user, a prisoner, and a sex worker yet at the same time, a hand full of people, want to promote the benefits of homosexuality day and night, a practice that is mixed together with drug users (danger to society) prisoners (definite danger to society), and sex workers (you may disagree on that one, I hope not). These are all facts that you seem to have overlooked.

  12. Well, I wouldn’t be sure about Daniel’s veracity.

    There are several errors in the daniel account concerning the Babylonian kings. For Example, Nebuchadnezzar was not the father of Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar’s son was not Belshazzar, but Amel-Marduk. Belshazzar was the son of the last king of Babylon, being the son of Nabonius. He never became king of Babylon (though he was co-regent). Also, Daniel indicates that Belshazzar became king after Nebuchadnezzar, which is wrong.
    Nebuchadnezzar II was succeeded by Amel-Marduk (who was assassinated after a reign of two years). His assassin became the next king of Babylon (Neriglissar. After his death (a mere 4 years later), his son Labashi-Marduk. Since he was still a child,n he was not fit to rule and was murdered. A new king was elected. This was Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. According to the historical accounts, Belshazzar was not even related to Nebuchadnezzar (since Nabonidus overthrew the young king Labashi-Marduk and absorbed the throne. It is actually very probable that they were of different peoples: Nebuchadnezzar was Chaldean, whereas Nabonidus (and, by extension, his son Belshazzar) were Assyrians.

    There’s also sufficient proof that the book of Daniel was written in the second century BC (based on usage of Greek words that weren’t known the Babylonians back then, the Hellenization of Nebuchadrezzar (the correct ancient Assyrian pronunciation) to Nebuchadnezzar,…

    The most blatant error in Daniel however is 2:2 to 2:4:

    2:2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
    2:3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.
    2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.

    First of all, Chaldeans are not some kind of astronomers, they are the native people of Chaldea. And Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean himself.
    It is very unlikely that they would speak to him in Syriack, since Syriack was (and still is), the language of the Assyrians (the very empire against which Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, revolted. )
    Also, the Chaldeans did not call themselves this way (they called themselves the Kaldo). Chaldean comes from the greek word Χαλδαία, which is pronounced Chaldaia.

    • Here are some things that you obviously do not underastand about the Bible (Hebrew culture, of course). Do you know the word for grandfather or great-grandfather in Hebrew? It is the same word as “father” so when the Hebrews talk about their “father” Abraham, they do not literally mean their actual father, they mean their ancestor, Abraham. So, when Daniel refers to Belshazzar’s “father” Nebuchadnezzar, he could mean, grandfather, or great-grandfather, or great great great great grandfather. So, there is no mistake on Daniel’s part. You are the one who lack the knowledge and have demonstrated your lack of resaearch skills. Please, stop taking the word of these demented website that do not know what they are propagating. Study this stuff for yourself, for once in your life.

      Chaldeans – Kasdiy (transliteration of Hebrew word)

      Chaldea or Chaldeans = “clod-breakers” n pr loc
      a territory in lower Mesopotamia bordering on the Persian Gulf n pr m
      the inhabitants of Chaldea, living on the lower Euphrates and Tigris
      those persons considered the wisest in the land (by extension)

      Wise people of the land of Chaldea. Again, you are trying to split hairs over nothing. The original language explains exactly who these people are. Do you have any idea about the Hebrew language?

      • OK, now you’re just making up stuff…
        Simple translations from english to hebrew:
        Father:אבא
        Grandfather:סבא
        great-grandfather:הסבא רבא
        Definitely not the same thing.
        Also, Belshazzar was not even related by family ties to nebuchadnezzar (Belshazzar’s father Nabonidus seized the throne. Nabonidus was Assyrian, Nebuchadnezzar was chaldean). So if daniel referred to him either as son, grandson or whatever, he’s wrong. They were NOT FAMILY!

        This does not come from the SAB, but from comparing the bible to the history of Babylon.

        I know more about Hebrew language than you think, since I speak Syriac, which is very closely related to Hebrew.

        Which bring me to the point of the languages again: why would Nebuchadnezzar, who fervently disliked Assyrians, speak the Assyrian language with fellow Chaldeans?

        Moreover, the book of Daniel was written in greek (this is easy to find since there are several greek terms in it. Even in the Hebrew version): examples of this are the words Nebuchadnezzar (instead of Nebuchadrezzar).
        Also, do you know where the mentions of Chaldeans as Oracles come from? From Greece. More specifically, from Greece under Roman Rule…

      • “Simple translations from english to hebrew:
        Father:אבא
        Grandfather:סבא
        great-grandfather:הסבא רבא”

        Quick question for you, are you using modern Hebrew for the translation or ancient Hebrew? Google translate and ancient Hebrew are 2 different things.

  13. Hebrew is a language that has barely changed since ancient times (due to the fact that it had not been used outside the Talmud for more than 1500 years). Remember that the Hebrew language is only a living language agin since about 70-100 years. It is also worth noting that the only mentions I find about “father” and “grandfather” being the same word in Hebrew are from christian apologetics websites, where they cling to straws in order to defend their bible

    • You still did not answer my question, did you find the translation from ancient Hebrew or modern (I am friends with a man who was raised in a Talmudic school in Israel as an ultra orthodox Jew, well versed in the Old Testament, as well as in Modern and Ancient Hebrew)?

      “from christian apologetics websites”

      Could I have a link to the site, please?

      • If you will notice, all of my posts have links to other sources and resources. It is not a “one sided argument”. It really helps to pay attention.

  14. Amen bro! Since God revealed the disrespectful ways of sexual rebellion in the days of Sodom…so it is today. The homosexual movement is one of Satan’s last day vehicles to breed intolerance to God’s design.

    Genesis 13:13
    But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.

    Why were they wicked?
    Genesis 19:4-5
    Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally. ”(sex)

    Homosexuality is a wicked path that refuses Jesus path. Christians are persecuted, killed all around the world. The lie is homosexuals are suffering. The truth is Homosexuals are rewarded for their rebellion, patted on the back by evil leadership. As Jesus said what it profit a man to gain the whole world to loose your own soul?

    Luke 17:1-2
    Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

  15. Erik….well I started at the top and read probably half way through….just wanted to add a couple of thoughts. First…let me say that I too am a born again Christian, saved by the precious blood of Jesus. I am not as intellectual as you or some of the others on this blog but that is okay because when He revealed Himself to me…that was all I needed. I do not understand everything in the bible…God’s ways are certainly higher than our ways….but I choose to believe and I know that I can trust in His absolute grace, mercy and justice. I also do believe that the bible is His love letter to us and that every word proves true.
    Erick…the first thing that I wanted to say…well I really am not sure exactly how to say it but I will try….While I can appreciate your willingness to be open and brutally honest without apology for the truth of scriptures and God’s immutable laws…I believe that scripture proves that man is led to salvation by the wooing of the Holy Spirit…God alone reveals to a man his need of Savior. In my life, I ask God daily to show me who He is wooing, that I may join Him in His beautiful redemptive work through the love of Christ. I have been blessed through the years to experience the joy of helping lead someone to salvation….but it was not my work…God was already doing it and He just allowed me to be a part of it. I can also say that I have never ever successfully led someone to repentence by arguing (and I have tried). So for me personally….if I feel like a discussion is sincere and seeking and Holy Spirit is prompting it…then I absolutely dive in. But on the other hand…if I feel like someone is merely looking for a good fight, I feel like God has shown me that He is sadly not drawing that individual at that time and so for me to engage in argument can only damage my witness (because my fleshly desire to prove myself right can begin to direct my words rather than the love of the Father for that person)….Jesus himself offered no argument at His trial….the truth of the cross stands on it’s own….it doesn’t need me to defend it. I say all of this not to condemn you for taking such a strong stance but just in hope of encouraging you to give this some thought. We want to always speak the truth in love….and I do believe you speak truth….just pray about timing…where is God working and how can I join Him in it?
    The second thing I wanted to comment on is the discussion on Homosexuality. I believe the scriptures are indeed clear on this subject. But I also believe that the church has gotten this issue wrong on so many different levels. We seem to be in one of two camps…either entirely tolerant, even blessing the behavior or we are entirely intolerant…shunning and driving the hurting souls away – who would even begin to want to come to us for help when we are hateful and judgmental? we seem so often to forget the grace that the Lord shows us for our own failings.
    Many christians say that homosexuality is a sin and it is a choice. This statement in itself is wrong. While I do not believe that a person is born homosexual, I also do not believe that they choose it ( I have several thoughts on how, why and when it comes in but won’t go into all of that.) They do choose to act on it. It is the behavior or act of homosexuality that is sin. The attraction to one of the same sex is not in itself sin – temptation is not sin. And I do not believe that we as christians are careful enough with our words. It is not shocking that an unbeliever would choose to act on their fleshly desire – it would seem quite natural to them…for they are not under conviction from the Spirit of God – their eyes have not been opened.
    I do have some experience with this. I am the mother of a 23 year old son who is a believer in the Lord Jesus, who struggles with same-sex attraction. He believes that the Lord clearly tells him that it would be wrong to act on these feelings and by God’s grace, he has not acted on them. But…the feelings are still there….he did not choose them. He has struggled with these feelings since puberty but because he had a strong foundation of faith, he has continued to struggle well and resist temptation. As a mom, my heart hurts knowing that he has had a such a difficult struggle but I believe that his story is one that will give many struggling christians hope – God’s grace is sufficient.
    My son has had a hard time finding support and understanding within the church – and I remind you – he has not sinned…..but for some reason, christians are very uncomfortable with this subject. And it is going to continue to be a huge issue in our society. We as the church must repent of judgment and lack of love and find ways to bridge the gap. Truth in love or keep my mouth shut Lord….thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s