Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?

[GISMYS]

BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!

So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?

Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?

In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.

PRAY for wisdom and understanding!! WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM??? 2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Persecution started long before Nero got around to it, read my response to the other idiot that doesn't know history.

That said, feel free to point out where I claimed that persecution is restricted to Christians. My point was, and still is, that people chose to affiliate with regions that will cause them to be persecuted. You tried to claim that they were raised that way, and I pointed out that that was a ridiculous claim. The proof of how ridiculous it is is your attempt to deflect by attacking straw men.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Sorry but the second testament is not history. Also if the Stephen account were true he didn't enter into a situation where he knew he was going to be persecuted. Apple meet Orange. You didn't claim persecution was restricted to christians but you made them out to be the kings of persecution which they are not. Especially when they have done way more persecuting themselves. So your argument rests on undocumented passages from the second testament that the christians endured more persecution than homosexual persecution which was around long before Christianity was even heard of. The actual documented persecution of early christians in history was ample time for many generations. Thus people were born into it.

Also enough of the rhetoric and ad-hominems. Did I ever claim I was smarter than anyone here? Retract the BS.

Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.

https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt

That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.

If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?

 

[Inevitable]

BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!

So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?

Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?

In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.

PRAY for wisdom and understanding!! WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM??? 2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!

So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?

Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.

All you are doing is making yourself a fool.

 

[GISMYS]

So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?

Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?

In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.

PRAY for wisdom and understanding!! WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM??? 2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!

So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?

Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.

All you are doing is making yourself a fool.

YES!! ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME!!! HE SPOKE THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS. GOD'S WORD SAYS=Not even a little bird falls to earth without Him knowing and that God even knows the number of hairs on every believer's heas!! WOW!!! PTL.

 

[Inevitable]

PRAY for wisdom and understanding!! WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM??? 2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!

So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?

Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.

All you are doing is making yourself a fool.

YES!! ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME!!! HE SPOKE THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS. GOD'S WORD SAYS=Not even a little bird falls to earth without Him knowing and that God even knows the number of hairs on every believer's heas!! WOW!!! PTL.

 

[Tuatara]

Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.

https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt

That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.

If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?

Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.

https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt

That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.

If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?

Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.

Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians consider Luke to have written history. There are hundreds of unique sources that are considered historical, among them are Caesar's Commentaries. Does the fact that he is the only one to describe the campaign in Gaul somehow make it not history to you, or does standard only apply to things you don't want to believe?

Like I said, the burden is on you to prove it is fiction. Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.

 

[Tuatara]

Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.

https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt

That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.

If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?

Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.

Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians

Although you used a christian link.

consider Luke to have written history.

Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity.

There are hundreds of unique sources that are considered historical, among them are Caesar's Commentaries. Does the fact that he is the only one to describe the campaign in Gaul somehow make it not history to you, or does standard only apply to things you don't want to believe?

Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.

Like I said, the burden is on you to prove it is fiction.

There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources.

Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.

Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.

I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.

Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians

Although you used a christian link.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Wait, if you could you would have already done it. All you have is your close minded belief that nothing in the Bible is true.

Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.

Just because you don't believe him does not mean it is false.

AS for Caesar's Commentaries, I chose it because it dates from the same period as the New Testament. I could have used the works of Josephus to make the same point. There exist far more evidence that for the historical accuracy of the New Testament than there does the Commentaries of Caesar or any historical document form the same period. The fact that you ignore this is simply proof of your personal intellectual blind spots.

There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources.

Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.

Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.

And the more evidence there is the easier it is to authenticate. Unfortunately for the idiots that hate the Bible, the New Testament has multiple sources to check its accuracy, is widely quoted in contemporary writings, and it has multiple copies in various languages that lead an honest investigator to admit that it is better sourced than anything else from the time period.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.

I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.

Are you claiming that there is no evidence that Herod existed? Do you actually want me to believe that Pontius Pilate is a fictional character? Would you like me to cite the evidence that makes your absurd claim look as silly as you do for making it?

Feel whatever you want. I refuse to treat idiots like you with any respect because stupidity like yours deserves nothing but contempt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.

Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians

Although you used a christian link.


Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.

There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources.

Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.

Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.

I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.

Correct.

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions – the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians

Although you used a christian link.


Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.

There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources. Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.

I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.

Correct.

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions – the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

You know this because, unlike the rest of us who have to rely on evidence, you were actually there, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

Correct.

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions – the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

Hi [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.

The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
(ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.

What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
the stages of human history in moving from
the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
law for all people universally inclusive.

So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
problems from the past.

Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
is what the NT refers to.

So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.

Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.

So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.

The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.

We may all have different language for this process,
especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct.

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions – the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

Hi [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.

The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
(ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.

What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
the stages of human history in moving from
the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
law for all people universally inclusive.

So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
problems from the past.

Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
is what the NT refers to.

So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.

Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.

So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.

The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.

We may all have different language for this process,
especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.

My comments are based on the fact that the bible is not 'history,' and it's pointless to present it as such.

Consequently it's devoid of any objective evidentiary value, authority, or merit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct.

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions – the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

Hi @C_Clayton_Jones
I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.

The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
(ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.

What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
the stages of human history in moving from
the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
law for all people universally inclusive.

So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
problems from the past.

Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
is what the NT refers to.

So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.

Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.

So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.

The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.

We may all have different language for this process,
especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.

My comments are based on the fact that the bible is not 'history,' and it's pointless to present it as such.

Consequently it's devoid of any objective evidentiary value, authority, or merit.

Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.

Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.

 

[Tuatara]

Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.

Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.

Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.

 

[Bush92]

Yes it is. If your a guy you can choose to suck another guy off...or eat pussy. There is your choice. Hate to be crude, but it's the truth.

 

[DriftingSand]

We're all born with a sin nature. Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Everything we do if not in bed asleep is a conscious choice. Who we have sexual experiences with is always the result of a conscious choice and decision-making process. But whether who our sexual partners are is the result of choices we make or not is moot. What's it matter?

Sexual behaviours exist on a spectrum. Not in how whether 100% one thing or the other but in the actual activities are shared by more than just one group. Homosexual men have sex in two primary ways. But heterosexuals can do both those things as well thus neither's inherent homo or heterosexual in nature. Like kissing. Everyone kisses (even some non-human animals,) but kissing doesn't then mean you're gay, straight, or other.

Even vaginal intercourse isn't unique to heterosexuals. Ask a lesbian. So if none of the sexual acts define homo or heterosexuality, do homo and heterosexuality even exist? Isn't it instead all just sex?

 

[Inevitable]

​

Yes it is. If your a guy you can choose to suck another guy off...or eat pussy. There is your choice. Hate to be crude, but it's the truth.

you can also choose to slice somebody open but that doesn't make you a surgeon.

So choosing to "suck another guy off" doesn't really cut the mustard. It'spreferring that over as you say "eat[ing] pussy."

 

[Inevitable]

We're all born with a sin nature. Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.

Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.