Firstly... h.omosexuality is not a choice. You are persecuting people for something they have no control over. Secondly, if you are taking the bible literally, are you going to stone your children to death for wrongdoing, as it says in Leviticus? Sell your daughter into slavery? I suppose you're going to say "it made sense in a historical context, but not now." But going along with your literal argument, I think you should adhere to every commandment of the Bible.

I respect your religious beliefs, but I will not respect outright bigotry - the persecution of h.omosexuals.

To clarify: the fact that I believe differently about something causes harm? I don't treat people differently because of their opinions, but I'm allowed to disagree with their life choices/lifestyles. Harm?

To be perfectly honest, all humans fail at being loving and caring. I include Christians in that statement. (It's not our goal to act that way, by the way). It really bothers me that this turned into an argument about homosexuality, though, because that wasn't the point of my article at all. The Gospel isn't about arguing effectively, proving a point, or saying "I told you so;" it's a love story. I didn't write this article with an intention to disrespect or hurt anyone.

I also wanted to say that you don't have to believe in the miracles that Jesus did or anything, but unlike a lot of mythology, hundreds of people were willing to die for saying that they'd seen Jesus (in person) after he rose from the dead. People don't do that for myths or fairytales. As well, whether or not you want to believe the supernatural occurences in the Bible, the locations and historical names are verified by archaeology.

Sythan,

If you disagree with the Bible, then that's fine, but it's not "mythology." It records historical data that archaeology supports. It is a faith system, it's true, but it has historical data behind it, down to names, places, and proper timing and language. A myth is "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." Whether or not you believe it, there is archaelogical evidence for Biblical history.

Second, the Bible really does condemn homosexuality. In the New Testament, Paul speaks to gentile (non-Jew) churches about homosexuality. Romans chapter one is a good example.

Thirdly, I'd like to say that my aim is not to cause the "harm and anguish" you say I do. What I say is that I disagree with homosexuality, not that I want the gays rounded up and put in some prison camp. I have no ill-wishes against the gay community because they are living, breathing people, just like me. I do disagree with this one lifestyle choice they make, though, and I think I should be allowed to say it.

"Tolerance" is defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. " If that's the case, I can be tolerant of other lifestyles but not consider them correct. Likewise, people can tolerate my views without having to agree.

That makes, I'll honestly say, a lot of sense. You write very clearly, and I strongly admire that.

Alright, let's see...

If you look at Leviticus or Deuteronomy (which I'm currently reading through), you notice some REALLY odd-sounding commands. Since we don't have neighboring nations constantly raiding our areas, the laws about sieges and captured slaves don't really apply anymore (at least, not in a literal sense).

Those laws, though, made a ton of sense back in those days. Some of the laws dealt with things like preventing diseases from spreading (there's a whole section about when a leper is considered safe to be around healthy people), hygiene, and things like how to punish those who made a point of sleeping with family members. There's even a section of how to deal with those who did child sacrifice. (There were other polytheistic religions around them that were well known for practicing child sacrifice).

These laws seem very odd, considering modern society. All I can say about them is that, given historical context, they made sense morally and medically.

I believe Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament laws, so I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm eating an unclean animal or not. I'd completely fail at keeping all of the 200+ commandments in the O.T. That's why Jesus came to fulfill the law: because humans fail at keeping it (and we always have) and he wanted to bridge the gap.

I apologize if I wrote unclearly about all of this... I tend to do that.

I would very much appreciate an article explaining your opinion of homosexuality; it's an issue with which my beliefs are very firm.

Your case about the Bible is, I must admit, more reasonable than I expected. But I hold fast in my belief that the Bible (especially if taken literally) has its flaws. What would you say about all of the frighteningly specific laws of Leviticus?

Well, I don't have enough space here to explain my reasoning behind the "choice" issue, but I could write an article about that if you're interested.

But let me say this about the Bible: We believe that God, first off, is without error, so there would be no reason for him to let his book be filled with errors. Second, we believe that the Holy Spirit helped those who wrote the Bible. (If they hadn't had any help, the Bible would be a really, really weird book, full of moral contradictions, historical innacuracies, and all that stuff.)

So, we believe that since the Bible wasn't written by some random dudes and was actually written with the Holy Spirit guiding the authors, the Bible really is the word of God and that it is without error.

Please look at your own statement for a moment. You JUST said that other people have different opinions that must be respected. Why not respect mine?

I am not asking you to share my views. Please respect that I disagree with you.

Please note that I said that I take the Bible seriouslly. What you quoted is a Psalm, which is poetry. Generally, you don't take poetry literally, though you may find a deep meaning behind it.

As to the verse you referenced, if you look at the context, it makes a bit more sense. In the chapter, the poet talks about how his people were taken from Zion (I think it means Jerusalem...?) and made to go to Babylon. Meanwhile, Zion was razed. The poet then was saying that Babylon would one day see someone do the same to it, and the poet said the verse you mentioned out of bitterness. It was kind of a "I hope someone makes YOU sorry" type of statement.

Please look at context. It makes more sense that way.