[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

It's not your belief in God that bothers me. It's your belief that the stuff in the Bible comes from God that bothers me. There is no proof for either. Isn't it far more logical to believe some guys from the past just wrote down some stories and laws and through time people took it to be more and more serious?

If you look at the evidence, I would argue that it is far more logical to believe the opposite. The Gospel writers take great pains to assure their readers that they are writing about historical people and events. Unless there is proof that the subjects of these did not exist, it is logical to believe they were telling the truth.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

The story of Jesus is nothing new. It's a resurrection myth. Why do you believe in him over Osiris? Because that was how you were raised, not because it's true.

I agree that the biggest reason I'm a Christian is because I was raised that way. That's probably true for any person who was born into the faith. However, there is a strong historical basis for Jesus, unlike Osiris. Before I go more deeply into it however, what are your reasons for believing Jesus is a resurrection myth? Do you have solid evidence or is that just the way you were raised/learned from experience? It may help our debate if I address your specific reasons for doubt.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

In parts of Africa, albinos are killed for their magical properties. Believing albinos are magical is no different than believing gays are sinful. But no doubt only one of those seems silly to you. Why? I see no difference...well, except you don't go around killing gay people for witchcraft. Just beat them up in mobs. That's a good reason why it's stupid to treat it as a sin. You then get more people hating them. Hate is taught, just as religion is.

Vampyr made a great point. Why not hate people with a certain skin color or eye color or left handed?

Left handedness apparently occurs with the same frequency as homosexuality. Hell, sinister means left in Latin. Do you look down on left handed people as well?

OK. In order to have a productive debate, I think we need some clarification. I've got about three people saying that I believe being gay is a sin and is comparable to other immutable characteristics being considered sinful. I have made every effort to make sure that I did not say this because that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Because of this, I would like to restate two points. Please acknowledge these points so we can resume productive discussion:

1. Having same sex attraction is not a sin.

2. Engaging in homosexual acts is not the same as having same sex attraction. An act you freely choose is not an immutable characteristic and as such, it cannot be compared to calling left-handedness, race, gender, or any other immutable characteristic sinful.

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Found several bits just now about it being a sin in the Bible, and then plenty of Christians saying that the interpretation is off and it doesn't in fact mean that. I see no difference with the gay thing...or most things in the Bible. You're picking what to believe...even if you don't believe that.

Can you post the specific bits you are referencing?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

That is why belief over facts is dangerous. You can believe anything.

Are you saying you live your life solely on facts and not on belief? We all rely on belief. If you read a sign that says "DANGER: Gasoline, do not consume" do you believe it? Or do you need to test the contents to be sure it is gasoline before you will believe that you shouldn't consume it?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Anyway it goes you're considering something a sin someone has no control over. Or is it only the act?

As I restated above, only the act is sinful. Everyone who is of sound mind and body has control over their actions.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

The only reason I can fathom why anyone would be against homosexuality is that it doesn't produce offspring. And you went into your whole notion of the purpose of sex and why you don't wear a rubber. If a gay person doesn't have sex which is what you consider the sin, they're not going to go "well since that's off the table, I might as well go make babies with this other person I have no sexual attraction to" Shouldn't not having sex be the sin?

It used to be a numbers game. 2000 years ago the human population was 300,000 million. Of course procreation would be seen as a good thing. Especially when those new people would be indoctrinated into your faith. Far easiest to make whoopie than convert people. Today there are 7 billion people. The world would be far better off with more "sinful" people not procreating.

Not having sex is not the sin. You forget that I belong to a faith where the vast majority of the priests are celibate. Anyway, sex without the possibility of procreation is using another human being for sexual gratification. That is the sin. Our fellow human beings are not objects for our personal use, but the image and likeness of God.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Simple answer? Because it's stupid. I believe people who have a second toe longer than their big toe to be sinful. If you walk around on feet like that you're committing a sin. To be free from sin you must stay seated.

That makes just as much sense to me as your deal with homosexuality.

See my two bolded points above.