Only if you therefor assume that the rest of the Bible is automatically also about homosexuality. It isn't.

But that's not even the point.

Where does the Bible say anything against civil unions between men?

exactly.  It's not the point. 

It doesn't.  And that's not the point either. 

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this?  Are you saying God is both male and female or just genderless?  If so, where are you getting this from?  I mean I'm getting the maleness from the scriptures as written and as believed all thru the centuries.  For whatever reason God wants us to think of him as a Father figure moreso than a mother figure although I do think God has a very soft tender side to him for those he loves. 

the contention that angels are female?  Or that Jesus or God could be female? 

what do you mean assuming?  Are you saying I'm making this man up?  Or anyone is?  He's an historical figure and there's no doubt he existed.  There were many eyewittness accounts on account of him and much written about him from the first century onward.  It's not doubted he existed.  The debate is what he who he claimed to be?  That's the million dollar question and the one I believe our individual eternity is at stake over. 

Not necessarily and not fitting the MO that God was known for.  He always used the lowly or unconventional things to confound the wise.  Paul wrote:

"For you see your calling how that not many wise men after the flesh not many mighty not many noble are called.  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world and things which are despised, has God chosen yes and things which are not to bring to nought things that are."  1 Cor 1:26-28

Besides all that....look how much he was accepted.  So much so they had him beaten, scourged and killed in a most brutal way.  Some respect.

Jesus came as a male because that's what best represented God in the flesh.  He also chose 12 men (not women) as Apostles and men were to be both the leaders of their homes and churches.  Not because men were better or wiser or more powerful than woman but because he had different roles for both men and women.  They were created equal but with diff roles.  The men he chose were men not necessarily those you or I would have picked.  They were not religious and most were barely literate.  Again, God doesn't choose the way the world would choose yet these 12 men were to change the world by their witness of Christ.

Yes I believe the scriptures are divinely inspired. They are just as relevant today as when first written. Even more so as we move towards the latter end of the age.   You and I will soon be dust of this earth and there will be someone else to replace us having this very same argument.  The word of God stands forever.  It never fades out of existence even when there's a movement to destroy it.  It comes back stronger than ever.   

Everytime I read the scriptures (daily), I am constantly amazed.  I'm an avid reader and nothing compares to the written scripture.  Nothing. 

I believe that the word as originally written was and is inspired.  Therefore nothing was "lost."  If so, God couldn't be God now could he?  I mean think about it....how can God created the big bold amazing universe but not be able to get his words printed the way he wanted them? 

Seeing as how God has no need to have sex if he exists then he would be genderless and may not even be humanoid.  As I have said the "maleness" from the scripture is mostly due to a lack of a gender neutral pronoun with which to refer to God and so there was a choice to be made: male or female, since the society is a patriach then male was chosen over female.  that seems logical to me.

The contention that angels, god were most likely gender neutral and that Jesus could have been female and it was the bias of man that wrote him as being a man since the new testament wasn't written down for a while after his death (assuming he lived at all).

I'm saying that the main record used to prove his existence is the bible and I don't believe in the accuracy of the bible therefore I am assuming he existed for the sake of argument.  You believe that he existed and that's fine, I however do not.

But he was respected by those that followed him, would they have been as willing to follow a woman?  Maybe but again I point the society as being a patriach.

And again I argue that the society place men above women so it made sense to pick men to preach the word of Jesus and to follow Jesus because people would be more likely to listen to a man than they would a woman.

If the language of man can't accurately describe the language of God then something would have to get lost.

A chapter after that quote it says to STONE TO DEATH any CHILD who disobeys his parents... have you ever disobeyed your parents as a child?

In modern Britain children get stoned first and then disobey their parents.

I've already gone into this at length before.  We don't give sacrifices either. Just know that this never happened.  First off in the Jewish culture the children had great respect for their parents.  Second of all this command was never repeated in the NT, (like  the prohibition of Homosexuality was) although it was reiterated that Children are to obey their parents because it's a command that comes with a promise. 

Beside all that the OT and especially what we read in the Law Book of Leviticus shows us the heart and mind of God.  God is revealing to us what is proper and not proper...like cursing the deaf or defrauding your neighbor or swearing or having sex outside of marriage.  He set up rules and boundaries...not to be a big mean dictator but as a loving parent who knew that by doing these things we either hurt ourselves or hurt another.  That's it.  It's not rocket Science.  God loves us and wants the best for us.  When we go outside his best for us, we get hurt.  That's where freewill comes in.  We are free to do what we do up to a point.  Sometimes God will take us out if he deems it necessary for the benefit of others or even as an example, like he did at Sodom. 

interesting.  But I guess that makes sense.  We're seeing everything go from what used to be a male dominated culture to a feminist one.  Look around....look at all the female leaders coming into power.  My husband and I started noticing that even the TV shows were showing men being under the authority of women in top positions.  This runs counter to God's plan and is exactly what I would expect to happen during end of age belief. 

from what I understand very little.  Of course when you translate from one language to another there is going to be some hard to fit the exact wording but be assured that in this case, while there are some little things like that the main thought and understanding is definitely conveyed quite well.  That's why I say the inspired word of God is found in the original language but it does translate very well and has been translated in just about every language known to man.  The people in Romania are reading the same bible that I'm reading here and the Chinese are reading in China. 

well here I could point to the woman at the well in Samaria.  It says in John 4 that she went into town and spoke about this man Jesus she met at the well.  All the men of the town followed her to meet this man that knew everything about her. 

Really?  Do you believe the holocaust happened?  I mean there's so much written about the Christ who walked this earth not only inside the scriptures but outside as well.  If he never lived where did all this come from?  Why did our whole world turn upside down in the first century?  Why did even our calendar change because of his birth?   What about the eyewitness accounts?  Were they all lying?  Josephus a first Century Historian (not a Christian) wrote about him.  Was he lying as well?

first of all he did live.  Second, he did come as a male.  Two facts.  So let's start there.  Third the four gospels were written about two-three decades after his death.  They were eyewitness accounts so they weren't written like hundreds of years later.  In fact, the whole NT was written before the last Apostle died (and he wrote five of the books himself) in around 90 A.D. Remember Christ died about 34-34 A.D. 

but it's not biblical and that's what I care about.  Our logic is not God's logic.  I mean would you have chosen the Savior of the world not only to come in as a baby but to die on a cross when he could have wiped everyone out with his breath alone? 

and I say, especially being well acquainted with scripture that we should take it literally.  Who is right?  How acquainted are you with the scriptures?  How long have you studied them?  How much time invested? 

The passage you brought up was to be taken literally in the time it was given.  That's the point I was making about the sacrifices.  That was part of the Old Covenant.  In Genesis 1:1 it says...."in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  That was the Old Covenant.

In John 1:1 it says "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." 

This is the beginning of the New Covenant.  The Old Covenant (Gen 1) brought in physical light.  The New Covenant (John 1) brought in spiritual light. 

Until you understand the two you will not understand what I am saying to you. 

As in the Old Covenant some things are repeated for our instruction and the abomination of homosexuality was one of these things.  This was not only repeated a few times in the New Testament it was one of the only prohibitions specifically transferred to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. 

The Christian Jews of the first century had lots of questions about the Gentiles coming into the faith. They were confused.  They wondered if the new Gentile Christians had to adopt the Jewish laws and customs such as circumcision etc.  They were told by the leaders (Apostles)  there were only two things the Gentiles had to follow  which was a big part of the Old Covenant.  One was to flee idolatry and the other to flee sexual immorality. 

Both were to be taken literally. 

Taltimer #256

What do you mean the Jews never depicted angels becasue it was an idol rule? Evidently you haven't read Exodus 25:18, where ALmighty God told the Jews to carve angels with wings spread?

What do you mean by saying "when the Christians abandoned that religion?"  When Christ died on the cross, the Temple veil was rent, and there was no more of "that religion" (meaning OT Hebraic Judaism) from that point on...by 70AD, the Temple was destroyed, and the Mosaic sacrifices, ceremonies and rites, the Aaronic priesthood, all were no more. Fini. So, consequently, how could the Christians abandon that tradition that was no longer there?

From what I can tell, in Scripture and Christianity, the angels only have male names, including the fallen one Lucifer.

For angels to be depicted as female is creative licence.

But they were following here to meet a man.  If she had said the same thing about a woman would they have been as interested?  Maybe, we can't know for sure.

Yes I believe that the holocaust happened.  Most of the stories about Christ are either in the bible or are based on the bible.  Our calendar changed because the calendars were made by Christians and they chose to change them.  Even if he existed I don't believe he was the son of god because I don't believe in god, I'm agnostic.

And you think that something that was written 30 years after his death was going to get everything 100% accurate?  You don't think they might embellish some things a bit to make his story seem more important than it was?

Again I don't believe in god.  I believe in logic and reason based on observable and testable facts.  Try as you might I am never going to buy the stories in the bible.  If you choose to that's fine I will never try to tell you that you don't have that right.

Ockam's razor would disagree with you.

Anyone who is arguing that evolution explains how everything got here obviously doesn't understand evolution.  Evolution describes a process where mutations at a genetic level make something more or less likely to survive long enough to pass on that trait to future generations.  It doesn't explain how the universe came into being, it doesn't explain how the earth came to be what it is, it only describes how life evolved from single celled organisms into what we know today.  Now for those that believe in god I would say that God could have set the whole evolutionary process in motion.  Those that believe in full on creationism in that god created every living thing on earth however is where evolution diverges significantly.

Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean that I don't believe in the possibility of some sort of "higher" power(s) out there.  As an agnostic I certainly believe it's possible I just don't believe that it was a single god necessarily.

As I have just said I'm not completely shut off to the possiblity, I just don't buy the bible as "proof" of god.

And how do you know this to be?  Because the bible says so.  But how do you know that the bible is correct?  Because the bible is the word of god.  But how do you know the bible is the word of god?  Because the bible says so.  But how do you know the bible is correct?.....  Circular logic.

If we were all writing them in the same room and were able to check with others to see if our recollection was correct I would.

Sure you would because they add to the story.  Part of the reason that you believe is because of the bible as a whole.  If those stories about depravity weren't in there then Jesus wouldn't have seemed as important a character.  You need to have evil to appreciate the good.  So if you didn't have some sort of frame of reference to use as a measuring stick then Jesus would have seemed like just a man, but because of the depravity of the others in the story he seems like more than a man.

You don't see how Thomas is supposed to represent people like myself who are skeptical of the religion?  He was a character that was used as a way to hopefully convince people of how truthful the story was because there was a doubting character who was convinced of its truth those who were a little skeptical might be convinced as well.

yep.  I've detailed some of it here.

The only people who think that evolution is meant to explain how everything got here are Creationists.

And yes, I agree with you.

The two are linked for the christian god but not for some other form of a higher power(s).

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim, in this case the bible is the word of god.  Seeing as how I have seen some inconsistencies in the bible I see that as evidence against the bible and since the bible is used to prove the bible is true, which is circular logic and thus unreliable at best, I can't buy the bible as fact.  That's not to say there aren't some good stories in the bible, and there are definitely some good life lessons ("do unto others as you would have done unto you" is one of my favorites) in the bible but I don't see it as something to base a belief system on.

It was also forced on many people so I really don't count that as having an affect on people.  Not to mention the idea that just because a lot of people have been affected by it is no reason for me to accept it just like I wouldn't jump off a bridge just because lots of people are doing it.  If people, such as yourself, wish to read it and believe what it says as absolute truth that's fine, it's just not for me.

Who said they didn't?  That's also an assumption.

So.  They still influence your opinion of Jesus and even God as you read the stories.  You need to see the depravity that "existed" to appreciate the "need" for God to intervene or for Jesus to come on the scene and do his thing.

I never admitted anything.  Re-read it again.  I said that you need to see the depravity so that he appears like more than a man, I never said that I saw him as more than a man but merely that was the intent of the authors of the various books of the bible.

Reread my last post and this one.

Nope nothing to do with circular logic.  First of all the bible is unique.  Unique means.....1.one and only; single; solo.  2.  different from all others; having no like or equal. 

It's unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching and its influence on surrounding literature. 

I read this once by a professor...he said:  "If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attentin than any other, if you are searching for the truth." 

you've seen some inconsistencies?  Yourself?  Or because somebody told you?  You already told me you haven't read the stuff for what 10-20 years?  The bible isn't used to prove the bible is true although there isn't anything in the bible that has been proven untrue even after all these years.  Interesting isn't it?  Either you believe that the bible, written by about 40 diff men over a period of 1500 years is God's revelation to mankind or you don't.  I understand completely that you don't.  But at least get your facts straight because what you're basing your disbelief on is deception. 

Actually the bible has nothing to do with proving itself to be true.  It already assumes the reader understands he is reading truth.  The bible isn't about proving God.  It speaks to the reader who already understands that there is a God who created all that we see around us. 

not an assumption if you've ever read the four gospels and compared them.  It's quite clear they were not in collusion with each other.  In fact those who try to disprove the bible, (probably the majority) say the opposite of what you're saying.  They try to show what they see as inconsistencies between the four when in fact there isn't any.

So it's interesting....you're saying they all checked with each other before they wrote their version and that's why they fit so perfectly.  And others point out the seeming contradictions between the four saying they should have gotten together beforehand.  Interesting.  For instance the two geneologies...one in Luke's version and one in Matthew's version are different and have been thought to be inconsistent......  So which is it?  Can't be both.  They couldn't be in collusion with each other and not in collusion with each other at the same time. 

Just goes to show that people have opinions (strong ones at that) before they even read them because they want to so desparately to disprove them they'll believe anything the opposition has to say.  Now who's in the assumption business?