[quote]ZEB wrote:
What would you call something that was neither genetic or something that you actually wanted to do? (This means you are doing it and not but not wanting to).
If larryb is correct (and I’m not claiming he is) then I would say that that person has a problem not much different than an alcoholics.
[/quote]
Zeb, you have so badly misconstrued larryb’s statements that it borders on ridiculousness. That’s unfortunate, because your discussion with 100m was excellent and really made me reconsider my interpretation of certain parts of the scripture. I beg you, please drop this larryb tangent and continue with your previous discussion (if there is more ground to cover). I, like you I’m sure, am looking forward to the next round of back and forth (if there is to be one).
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, whatever. You are still thinking I’m going in a direction that I’m not.
Regardless, my contention is that if there are surviving earliest documents, then those are the ones that should be examined if we want to get as close to their meaning as we can.
The current situation is similar to getting a writeup of the constitution instead of looking at the original itself.
What you are suggesting, not me, is that there is no point in going to the originals. That we couldn’t get anyone, such as linguists, to give us their interpretation of the material, and let us decide.
Instead, you’d rather trust that whatever we happen to have around, today, must be objective, just because it is somewhat old?
I don’t follow your logic.
Is this really the point you are trying to argue with me?
What is the point of picking nits on such a minor and silly point of contention as this?
We’ve been going around in circles because you want to argue against using the source material to ascertain what the fuck it actually says?
Please tell me we can move beyond such a ludicrous statement and get on with this…[/quote]
Vroom, this discussion you’re having with “Sasquatch” has gone beyond the point of being ridiculous. I’ve re-read the 2 pages and it’s clear that “Sasquatch” has some sort of vendetta against you; he/she is arguing with you over a point you weren’t even making. I think you were an asshole on some thread in the past, and now Sasquatch has taken it upon him/herself to argue with you at every turn even if it means making up your points for you (kinda like RJ has taken to doing with ProfX).
That sucks to because it derailed a possible discussion on one of the points you made that really intrigued me. You pointed out that an omniscient God would have knowledge that his words would be translated to the point of losing significant meaning over the ages. That does make one wonder how “God” intends us to use or interpret his word.
As far as I know it is only you and vroom who have assumed that the Bible has been “translated to the point of losing significant meaning.”
I’m sorry you don’t see that as a point worth further discussion. I did not realize that, again except for you and vrom, that this was a given.
I felt it worth my time in trying to make someone back up such a statement. My bad. My guess would have been that the worlds best linguistics have already looked at and interpreted such an historic document and that at this point in time, it would have been fairly well analized and interpreted. Again my bad.
And how can I really take a question about God, or the Bible, seriously by someone who puts God in quotations. If you don’t believe in God, try not to throw to much weight into the word of said “God.”
Sasquatch, your point is moot and a total waste of time.
If you are correct, and lets assume you are, then going to the source will simply yield what we already have.
If you are incorrect, then going to the source would show this to us.
That’s it. Nothing further really needs to be argued about it. If you choose to blindly trust that everything is always on the up-and-up, that is your choice.
Do you think it would be possible to move on to interesting things, or would you like to beat this dead horse a bit more – maybe it will get up and take a few more steps?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bahahahaha… I think you inadvertently fell into “my camp” there Moriarty. Sorry, you’ll never have a reasonable conversation again.[/quote]
That’s not true vroom. I just think it was a point that needed clarification. I’m sorry that only points you deem valid have any value on these threads.
I have respected Moriarty in previous threads and will continue to do so. He has shown to be open to various points of view. I will also continue to show you the same respect you have shown me. It’s a two way street ya know. We can put the crap behind us or we can continue to sully all discussions where our opinions differ.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sasquatch, your point is moot and a total waste of time.
If you are correct, and lets assume you are, then going to the source will simply yield what we already have.
If you are incorrect, then going to the source would show this to us.
That’s it. Nothing further really needs to be argued about it. If you choose to blindly trust that everything is always on the up-and-up, that is your choice.
Do you think it would be possible to move on to interesting things, or would you like to beat this dead horse a bit more – maybe it will get up and take a few more steps?[/quote]
For the last time:
It is ok for you to question the validity of the translation of the Bible
But I can’t counter with it’s been interpreted by the best and stood the test of time as an argument.
You tear apart others’ posts about the most innocuous points, yet if someone asks a question wrt something you post, it becomes a pissing match.
[quote]It is ok for you to question the validity of the translation of the Bible
But I can’t counter with it’s been interpreted by the best and stood the test of time as an argument.[/quote]
Okay, lets argue this assinine point.
So, how do you know the quality of the translation? How did you ascertain that those that published the Bible choose appropriate interpretations out of those available?
On the same note, why would you think I should not double check this? What is wrong with going to the source and doing this again?
If this is really what you fucking well want to argue, lets hear it. Discuss the points.
Actually, the scriptures are very “cut and dry” when it comes to the act of homosexuality being a sin.
There was no debate about the scriptures as their meaning was clear (and significant) until the recent rise from various Gay organizations, some with in various church denominations, others simply looking for credibility.
The problem does not lie in the scripture, it lies in those who really, really, really want it to say something that it simply does not!
Like any group of written words they can be turned on a dime for those who have such a desire. I don’t think the Bible is different in that respect.
For example (only one there are many)Romans 1: 26 & 27 :
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Let me explain a few words from the ancient Hebrew from which they came:
“Vile” or “Atimia” in ancient Hebrew means, “evil, discrace, dishonor, shame.”
“Lust” or “orexis” in ancient Hebrew means, “Excitement of the mind, or longing after.”
“Unseemly” or “aschemosune” in A/H: “indecent, shameful”
There are many, many more scriptures as strong or even stronger than the above which points to the act of homosexuality as a sin, in both the Old and the New Testament.
No, there is no question that homosexuality is a sin. Those inclined toward this action want to cast enough doubt upon the scripture to rationalize their behavior. They will tell you that everyone who translated the scripture is “homophobic,” no one likes Gay people etc. One question (among perhaps 200)that I have is that why have there never been homosexual weddings in the past? If it was an accepted pracitce (which it never was)? Have all of the translations of the Bible in the past, NIV, NASB, KJ etc. been biased since then as well? Um…no that’s not it.
Now, don’t get me wrong, they can do whatever they want, it’s America! However, they cannot rationalize it with the Bible, it won’t work. Homosexuality is indeed a sin! Sorry, if I could change the Bible I would take out the guy cheating on his wife thing…
Seriously, the King James version is incredibly accurate relative to ancient Hebrew text. Thousands, probably tens of thousands of scholars who have been trained in interpreting Hebrew (and Greek) have done an excellent job translating the scripture (this is what Sasquatch is probably referring to).
There is no confusion, other than that which is purposely being cast upon the scriptures by those who have an agenda!
[quote]vroom wrote:
It is ok for you to question the validity of the translation of the Bible
But I can’t counter with it’s been interpreted by the best and stood the test of time as an argument.
Okay, lets argue this assinine point.
So, how do you know the quality of the translation? How did you ascertain that those that published the Bible choose appropriate interpretations out of those available?
On the same note, why would you think I should not double check this? What is wrong with going to the source and doing this again?
If this is really what you fucking well want to argue, lets hear it. Discuss the points.[/quote]
Case closed vroom
You have proven my point–quite nicely actually. Your lack of reasonable and mature language is telling.
Do you think, as you are want to, that you would be the first person to question the translation? I’m quite sure it has been translated several times with many going back to as original documents as possible. I’m sure though, that you will go back and have it retranslated until you find one that coincides with your ascertation.
By the way it was your original point that was so assinine. I just felt it needed more than your glossing over. Apparently that didn’t sit to well with you. I never said it was the most vital piece of information, but seeing as the Bible was being used by others in their argument, and then YOU questioned the validity of the translation, I thought it might be worth finding out more about this.
Prof
I agree to some extent, but then both must also accept the blame.
I’m not really trying to step into the arguement that you and 100m are having. I suspect the two of you are doing a far better job of discussing the issues than I ever could.
Maybe if I can illustrate from what you have said, I see in your discussion the concept of translations, which is exactly what I’m talking about. You are indeed going to the source and discussing the meaning of the words.
It’s simply appropriate when trying to ascertain meaning, or so I had thought…
I’m not really trying to step into the arguement that you and 100m are having. I suspect the two of you are doing a far better job of discussing the issues than I ever could.
Maybe if I can illustrate from what you have said, I see in your discussion the concept of translations, which is exactly what I’m talking about. You are indeed going to the source and discussing the meaning of the words.
It’s simply appropriate when trying to ascertain meaning, or so I had thought…[/quote]
No, I understand that you are not trying to “step in.”
What I wanted to convey with my post was the fact that every single version of the original scriptures that I have looked at regarding the act of homosexuality states pretty much the same thing. There is some variance on occasion which is usually pretty insignifacnt.
While I have been going to the source and checking the ancient Hebrew text it really is almost a waste of time as the King James version stands up very well (as do other versions).
I think the meaning that we are trying to “ascertain” is already quite apparent.
I’m not very interested in arguing the interpretation of the Bible, regardless of whether or not that may have been my perceived intent.
Whether or not if was a “waste of time”, the fact is, it’s good to double check, whether it is the Bible or a scientific study. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t “know” for certain.
This is just a simple principle. Perhaps if you and I can agree on this, Sasquatch can relent on this issue and see if he can find the more interesting parts of my post?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
And how can I really take a question about God, or the Bible, seriously by someone who puts God in quotations. If you don’t believe in God, try not to throw to much weight into the word of said “God.”[/quote]
You’re right, I don’t believe in the Christian God. I don’t have any relationship with said God, and “he” doesn’t speak to me, so I can only base my interpretations on readings of the text. If that make my opinion less valid in your eyes then so be it.
As far as me putting “God” in quotes, I did that simply because I was using “God” as a name and I find the notion of assigning a name to an omnipotent entity kind of strange (and inadequate, really). Same reason I put “he” in quotes above (assigning gender). If I offended you, I apologize. The quotes were NOT a symbolic “rolling my eyes” at your God.
I don’t think that we are currently that far apart in terms of what each of us has taken away from the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Certainly Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with many sins. And I thank you for broadening my horizons relative to this information.
However, I also hope that you have taken another look at the account given in Genesis 19: 5, 6, 7 and 8, and are walking away with perhaps a bit different perspective. I only state this because of your following epiphhany:
“raping strangers, possible.”
What we do know from the specific account of Gen 19:5, 6, 7 & 8 is that the men of Sodom certainly wanted to have sex with the male “strangers”. “Bring them to us so that we may KNOW them.” Is it gang rape? Sure, I agree with you on this point. However, it was same gender gang rape. If they wanted to simply beat them up there are host of other words more applicable as my previous post mentions.
[/quote]
This is still an assumption. We are given one word. We only have the context of the scripture to go by. There is a 99% chance that it means, simply to know–in context—“check the credentials of”, There is a 1 percent chance it means “to know (in a sexual way)” Zeb has chosen the 1 percent. It matters not to the moral of Sodom. As clearly established in the scripture, homosexuality is not a sin of sodom. Of this there is no doubt. Of all the sins mentioned, none reference any mention to homosexuality.
While I have already mentioned this before, it’s important to remind the readers, The biblical writers did not have a conceptual understanding of homosexuality. Nothing in the bible casts a negative view of a gay couple living togeather in an apartment in Chelsea(Manhattan). So step one in debunking this argument is the easiest. What does the bible say the sins of Sodom are? Not homosexuality.
The next step is to determine when Sodom was slated for destruction. If Sodom was only condemned after the event with the angels…then my argument would look slightly weaker. Fortunately the scripture is clear hear too. God planned on destroying Sodom before the incident with the angels. Sodom is only saved instant destruction by Abraham bargaining with the lord to find 10 righteous people in Sodom, then the 2 angels go to Sodom. If the incident with the angels involved homosexuality it is now a moot point. Sodom was doomed before it even happened.
Thirdly I’ll deal with the intent (reminder to readers, nothing actually happened) of the Sodomites. From everything we know the Sodomites were wicked people. They were full of riches, yet unwilling to share them with outsiders. They were lazy and full of pride. Interestingly in searching for sins that God HATES, pride is number one (homosexuality isn’ mentioned). They had also just been involved in a war (Gen.14) and had all of their belongings taken in the process. I think this helps establish what the “mood” of the Sodomites might have been when one evening 2 angels rolled into town. You have Lot working the gate of the town, asking them to stay at his house (They had wanted to sleep in the streets) Then you have at the least every man in town surrounding the house. These are not gay men. If this were a western—It would be a classic scene–an untrusted sojourner harboring a couple of outsiders in a bad town, “bring them out so that we may know them”—just picture 2 cowboys coming out of the saloon with their hands up. Lot offers his daughters (obviously he knows what type of things might lure the Sodomites away from their intentions.) But the townsmen are galled at the nerve of Lot, and threaten him with a worse punishment that the travellers’. The angels pull Lot into the house and BOOM blind all the Sodomites. The next day Lot leaves, the town is destroyed as planned (the angels were there to destroy the town). My take doesn’t matter in establishing the moral of the story of Sodom. God didn’t destroy the town because he hated homosexuality.
Even if homosexual rape was the intention (NOTHING HAPPENED), this would not be logically beared out in the scripture. In other biblical stories a man rapes a woman who is a stranger to a town and destroys the town. Using Zeb’s logic would establish that God hates heterosexual sex.(In these cases the event actually happens!) Obviously the orientation of the rape has NOTHING to do with it. Given all the above, I think we can clearly state: Sodom’s sexual orientation had NOTHING to do with their destruction.
His offering of the daughters would not have been rape in this context. They were his property, and they were obligated to do his bidding–so yes this would have been less wicked than almost anything else the Sodomites might have done to the angels. Examples of sins that God HATES , pride,lying,murder, wickedness(planned evil), mischievous feet, bearing false witness,and devisive spirit. (these as established in Prov.6). It’s just clear that God is not concerned with sexual orientation as far as the scripture is concerned.
More importantly, if your view is correct, why wouldn’t have been mentioned ever in the many mentions of Sodom. Remember that according to Ezekial, the sins of Israelites were worse than the sins of Sodom. When he lists the sins—nothing involving homosexuality is mentioned. (If God was concerned with homosexuality–he would have had his prophet mention this in his stern warning!) Clearly the sins of Israel had nothing to do with sexual orientation anymore than the sins of Sodom did.
100meters, this has honestly been one of the better debates on this forum and I like how deeply you even know this scripture. There are some preachers who couldn’t explain this like that. Keep it up.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
And how can I really take a question about God, or the Bible, seriously by someone who puts God in quotations. If you don’t believe in God, try not to throw to much weight into the word of said “God.”
You’re right, I don’t believe in the Christian God. I don’t have any relationship with said God, and “he” doesn’t speak to me, so I can only base my interpretations on readings of the text. If that make my opinion less valid in your eyes then so be it.
As far as me putting “God” in quotes, I did that simply because I was using “God” as a name and I find the notion of assigning a name to an omnipotent entity kind of strange (and inadequate, really). Same reason I put “he” in quotes above (assigning gender). If I offended you, I apologize. The quotes were NOT a symbolic “rolling my eyes” at your God.[/quote]
Moriarty
Your interpretation would be as valid as mine, or others for that matter. Although I would have to temper that with the fact that you would/could be reading it with a different mindset because of your preconceived beliefs. But I suppose that would apply to almost all readers, believers and non alike.
Fair enough?
–
100 and ZEB
Once again I find the debate quite interesting. Each time I read a post I tend to lean that way, then the others reply pushes me back. Quality stuff
You remind me of a lawyer who nit picks and hopes to raise a doubt in a juries mind by splitting fine lines while ignoring the big picture and what has actually occurred as he knows that his client is guilty!
You cling to a hope that the word “know” does not mean “to have sex with.” While you were ready to concede that it might be an attempt at “gang rape” in your earlier response, you now want to run from your admission.
Let me remind you of a few facts:
Why would the men of Sodom come to Lots house and holler out: bring the strangers out so that we may KNOW them. Again did they simply want to talk to them? That was not the intent of the men of Sodom. In fact, according to you they were “unkind”. Therefore, we can be pretty sure that they did not want to “know” them as in greet, understand and be friendly with.
We have further proof that they did not want to “know” them as in understand and be friendly because Lot came to the door and pleaded with the men of Sodom: “I pray you brethren do not so WICKEDLY do this thing.” Why would it be wicked for the men of Sodom simply to talk, greet or get to understand the two strangers?
Further proof, when Lot then offers his daughter! And herein lies the very crux of my point and why (I think) the NIV and other translations are written as they are by people much smarter than myself:
You stated: "Why would Lot offer his daughters to a group of homosexual men? The question that you should be asking is why would Lot even think of offering his daughters to a group of men if they (the men in town) only wanted to greet, meet and get to better understand the two strangers!
There is only one reason for Lot to first call the act (it was something they wanted to do to the men otherwise he would not use the words “do so wicked a thing” “WICKED,” and then plead with the men while bragging about his virgin daughters. How did sex enter into this if it is about simply greeting the men? Or for that matter if any other usage of the word “know” is used.
As a final bit of PROOF I offer up yet one more piece of Biblical evidence where towns folk in another place also wanted to commit homosexual rape on one particular stranger as well. However, unlike the strangers of Sodom this man was not an Angel and was unable to render the homosexual rapists blind, JUDGES 19: 22-24
22: “[Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may KNOW him.”
Sounds like a familiar account huh?
23: “And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, [nay], I pray you, do not [so] wickedly do; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.”
Again the man pleads with the militant crowd not to have homosexual sex with his male guest.
24: “Behold, [here is] my daughter a maiden, and a concubine; I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so ‘VILE’ a thing.”
We now have the word “VILE” introduced in addition to “WICKED.” As stated earlier unlike in Sodom there were no Angels to protect them from the homosexual rapists.
25: “But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they “KNEW” her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.”
The men “KNEW” her? Now what do you think that means? It means the same thing as what they were asking to do to the man whom they originally wanted to “KNOW.” This also happens to be the same thing that the men of Sodom wanted to do to the strangers whom they wanted to “KNOW.”
In this particular case after the men raped her all night long (in who knows how many different ways) she staggered back to her house and died.
The men first wanted the male stranger, but at the pleading of the man of the house, they settled for (Who knows what kind) of sex with the daughter, which lead to her death.
There is no question what the men of Sodom wanted. There are no amount of word games that you can use to skirt truth! The reluctantly took the woman in place of the man to keep some sort of peace with the master of the house. However, sex was the mission. Just as it was with the men of Sodom! They wanted to know in a sexual way the men who came to Sodom.
This is patently false! The Biblical writers were well aware of homosexuality and everytime that the subject came up it was soundly denounced as being a sin!
Furthermore, your story of a couple living together “in love” does not enter into it for good reason. The act of same gender sex with or without “love” was (and still is) a sin. You should in fact ask yourself why there are no stories in the Bible of two “loving” homosexuals sharing an apartment.
Are you assuming that the only time that two homosexuals alleged “love” for each other is in the 20th and 21st century? Are you then stating that “love” between two homosexuals was not possible then? Is this a recent phenomenon? If so why is it happening now?
Or, are you stating that at some point two homosexuals from antiquity proclaimed their “love” for one another. The only reason that you don’t hear about is that it was sin and that the two would have either been silent about it, or admitted it and been stoned!
Which is it?
I find it very interesting that the one and only sin that is highlighted in all of Sodom and Gomorrah is an attempted homosexual act! Naturally it’s unkind. All sin is “unkind” to some degree (certainly to God). Why not show someone stealing from the strangers? Why not depict mules or horses being abused? Why not depict a murder?
The Bible has one (and only one) account to represent all of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and it shows an attempted homosexual act!
The intent was homosexual rape as proven by Lots reaction, his offer of sex with daughters as a far better substitute and the similar story found in Judges.
Only because the strangers happened to be Angeles who rendered the attackers bent on homosexual rape, blind. You read what happened when there were no Angels present in the Judges account.
Oh they were wicked people alright, no argument there. However, why not depict other forms of sin? Why was homosexuality highlighted in the Biblical account of Sodom? Why was that the last attempted act prior to destruction? They were a sinful bunch no doubt, but attempted homosexuality was the ONLY story depicted regarding sodom and Gomorrha!
I want the readers to keep in mind that it matters not whether they are “gay men” or not. The fact is they were attempting to commit a homosexual act. Why highlight that one particular account? There must have been thousands of various sins going on as 100meters has stated, and I agree it was a sinful town. Why highlight this one act?
Um…not quite! If the Angels were not present you would have had to put an X rating on this particular “western” as seen in a similar account in Judges.
By the way how many westerns do you see where the crowd turns out for a homosexual rape? Can you see John Wayne riding up with his posse? (best John Wayne voice):
“Bring those men out here or I’m coming in… and when I do I’m going to hump you over the back of the sofa…pardner!”
Um…no sorry 100meters you are missing the mark now by light years!
Lot offered his daughters because homosexual rape was looked at as far worse than mere rape of someone of the opposite sex. The townsman are “galled” because they wanted the men! This has been proven over and over and over again.
Why then depict a story (of all potential sin) of a homosexual offer? Certainly God hates all sin. That is important to note as any story of sin could have been depicted as Sodom and Gomorrah was a sinful place. Why then the story of Lot and the attempted homosexual rape?
Usually in the Bible we are treated to one particular story as a representation of all of the other occurrences that went on. In other words, it represents, or is typical of what has been going on. Since there is no other account given relative to Sodom and Gomorrha then we are lead to believe from the story of Lot that homosexuality was indeed present and was one of their chief sins. Later on in the Bible the word “Sodomite” is used to actually define men having sex with men! How clear can it get?
Why didn’t the men of Sodom burn the house down? Why didn’t they cry out: "Bring us the strangers so that we may “torment” them, or “harm” them, or “whip” them, or anything else? No, they wanted to “know” them, a term which means “have sex with.”
Again, how many times do you (as a heterosexual) get mad at someone and then immediately decide to stick your penis in their butt as punishment? Seems that this act does not quite measure up to what any heterosexual would do in such a situation as we find in Sodom.
It’s perfectly clear over and over again that God despises the homosexual act. I agree with your scripture above (God hates sin). However there are also many scriptures in the Bible which cannot be denied (although you will try). Below is only one of many:
1Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECIEVED: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,…shall inherit the Kingdom of God."
(Note the NIV version and others state the word “homosexual” instead of “abusers of themselves with mankind.” as that is what thousands of Biblical scholars determined through many years of research.)
Instead of "abusers of themselves with man kind, the ancient Hebrew (original) version states: “Arsenokoites” in ancient Hebrew means “man lying with another man” or same gender sex!
The word effeminate means “homosexual” and in fact was the common word to describe those who participated in homosexual acts.
Effeminacy (malakos) comes from the Latin, ex which is “out” and femina which means woman; it basically means for a man to be like a woman and be penetrated as such.
The pro homosexual theologians (of which they are a tiny minority, most flood the internet) want to cast doubt on various words in the Bible. They know that ancient Hebrew had only 30,000 characters one word can have a few different meanings. And certainly the word “malakos” or effeminate also meant “soft.” However, do you think that being “soft” would keep one out of the Kingdom of Heaven? Not hardly. They mean sex with someone of the same gender. Whether it’s a “loving relationship” or not it is a sin!
Can you imagine someone 1000 years from now claiming that the word “fag” meant “tired” within the context of someones crude description of a homosexual? That is very much what the word game players are attempting to do today.
As the scripture above states: “DO NOT BE DECIEVED!” Interesting how those four words are added. Almost like at some point the writer was aware that there would be attempted deception!
Once again you confuse scripture. The Israelites turned their back on God numerous times! That is certainly far worse than the sin of homosexuality, murder and every other sin you can think of. According to the Bible turning you back on God (Jesus Christ in the New Testament) was the single worst sin that you can commit.
