You say this, then you turn right around and say:
While I appreciate your attempt to objectify sin, where I think your argument fails is where you compare homosexuals to "people who like purple," but then fail to carry the "liking of purple" through to the next necessary step of identifying that quality as sinful. If you're going to compare homosexuals to "people who like purple," then if you're not going to identify "liking purple" as "sin," you can't identify homosexuals as "sin," either.
So, which is it? Is homosexuality the same as "liking purple," and is "liking purple" the same as "murder?" Or is there some fundamental difference between a preference and a heinous, sinful act?
It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what science can show. For decades, the mental health sciences has identified homosexuality as normal. And the mental health sciences have concluded that attempts to alter one's sexual preferences causes harm and Does. Not. Work.
You... missed the point. The plainness of the color example was simply equating the emotion of hating someone based on their preference of what is appealing to them. That paragraph wasn't about sin. The followup was, so let's move on.
Mkay... What's "sin?" And (just for funzies), I'd really like for you to point out exactly where in the bible homosexuality is targeted as "sin." You can't, because it ain't in there. Homosexuality is not addressed anywhere in scripture. And to interpret the few passages that anti-homosexuality folks usually trot out as such is simply poor and irresponsible interpretation of the texts.
What you're doing here is subtly telling those who identify as homosexual, that they are sin (since that's how they identify). That's dehumanizing and dehumanization is violence.
Sin is transgression against God's law and/or rebellion against God. You could also say, as some do, that it is also "missing the mark," or coming up short on the plans God has for our lives, but that's more a new covenant idea I think. Both are valid, in my opinion. If God is holy and righteous, and we do not live up to His holy righteousness, then sin is among us. If there were no sin among us, we wouldn't need a savior, and we could dwell with God right now. Atonement wouldn't be necessary, etc.
As for homosexuality in the Bible, the actual list of citations would be extensive. Anywhere sexual immorality is referenced in the New Testament, for example, would be speaking against homosexuality. It is specifically addressed in a few locations. Beginning in the OT, the common reference of Leviticus 20:13 stands, but even the New Testament directly frames it in Romans 1:18-32, for example. Verse 26-27 being key. There's many more, if you really want the whole list, google would probably be better for brevity. I will compile it for you, if you insist.
There wasn't necessarily a "gay" lifestyle in those times as we have now, so the language or verbiage may seem different, but contextually, they are describing what we call know as that lifestyle/act now.
As for me saying people who identify as homosexuals are the embodiment of sin, I'm not sure why you think that. I was pretty clear all of us sin and fall short of the glory of God, hence why we need a savior. Me, you, the gay gentlemen who was kind enough to share his story. I wasn't isolating him in mockery or anything. Sin is serious. His is not necessarily any worse than any other. We all suffer from it. But we don't need to. That's what I was saying.
Other religions might consider your belief in Jesus to be a sin. Have you turned from that? If so, great. If not, how come?
Maybe so. No, I haven't. Because, He is my Lord, my Savior, my God, and told me to keep His commandments. So that's what I do.
