Homosexuality & Religion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well i'm a christian and i DONT vote so i dont add my voice to political issues ... and i know at least 7 million others who dont vote.

It still doesn't change the fact that there is a purpose for working toward general acceptance of homosexuality apart from just feeling good about it.

You might be on the receiving end of a message that isn't targetted at you... so what? I don't kick up a fuss when I see, for instance, ads for feminine hygeine products even though they have nothing to do with me.

We know Gods view on the matter by how he dealt with homosexual acts in the past. We know that he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the immoral sexual behavior of the inhabitants...we know that homosexuality was involved because the account reads that the men of the city were demanding to have sex with Lots 2 male visitors

Actually, the New Testament says in a few places that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, but regardless, I think that when someone hears a story of attempted same-sex gang rape and assumes that the problem with it is the "same-sex" part and not the "attempted gang rape" part, we're dealing with a rather twisted mentality.

we also see in the mosaic law that sex between males, known as the act of 'lying with a man as you would a woman' (the hebrews didnt have a specific word for it as we do today) was condemned by God.
So there is no doubt about how God feels about it....its certainly not ambiguous.

We see in the New Testament (Romans 7 and Colossians 2, to be specific) that believers have "died with Christ" to the Old Law. We also see (1 John 4:16) that what comes from love, comes from God.

Im not sure how you come to the conclusion that God 'ordained' it. Paul says that males and females "change the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature”

this does not say God changes the natural use of them...it says 'THEY' change the natural use of themselves.

No, it really does say that God did it. It's in verse 24 and verse 26: it says "God gave them over..." Does God do things he doesn't intend to do?

 

[Autodidact]

well i'm a christian and i DONT vote so i dont add my voice to political issues ... and i know at least 7 million others who dont vote.

Great! I encourage you to continue not to vote.

We know Gods view on the matter by how he dealt with homosexual acts in the past. We know that he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the immoral sexual behavior of the inhabitants...we know that homosexuality was involved because the account reads that the men of the city were demanding to have sex with Lots 2 male visitors

You know no such thing. What does Jesus have to say about the sin of Sodom?

we also see in the mosaic law that sex between males, known as the act of 'lying with a man as you would a woman' (the hebrews didnt have a specific word for it as we do today) was condemned by God.
So there is no doubt about how God feels about it....its certainly not ambiguous.

It's extremely ambiguous. btw, where are you on eating seafood and wearing clothing of mixed fibers?

Im not sure how you come to the conclusion that God 'ordained' it. Paul says that males and females "change the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature”

this does not say God changes the natural use of them...it says 'THEY' change the natural use of themselves. But i fear bringing this up again is going to stir the nest so im not going to say anymore about it.

Romans 1:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

What this says to me is that they sinned by failing to worship God, so He punished them by giving them over to unnatural sex. Unnatural sex is condemned, but is seen here as a punishment.

You have your own ideas about what is unnatural sex, and I have mine. But whatever it is, it's a punishment, not a prohibition.

This is the sole reference to lesbian sex anywhere in the Bible. It is not prohibited. Never. Unlike divorce and remarriage, which is clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly prohibited by Jesus Himself.

 

[Autodidact]

And what you read in there is between you and God.

Who doesn't exist.

Look, if you think the Bible says, "Woman shall not lie with woman," just cite the passage. I defy you to find it for the simple reason that IT'S NOT THERE.

 

[Autodidact]

so long as you realise that the mosaic law code was a 'covenant' between God and the Isrealites.

Jesus presented a 'new covenant' to the christians and it did not include the Mosaic law code. When he told the jews that he did not come to destroy the law he said that because the Messiah was prophesied to 'fulfill' the laws requirement. Because Jesus was the Messiah, he had to live by the Mosaic law and 'fulfill' it right up till his death....this is why he said he did not come to destroy it. If the law was destroyed before he could 'fulfill' it, then he could not have fulfilled it.
But you obviously have a different view of that.

Then why on earth do you quote Leviticus, which is all about that code that, according to you, has been destroyed?

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't read any of this thread beside the original post since I don't really have the patience for so many pages! However, I'll try to write out how I feel about it from a Monotheist, Christian / Buddhist perspective.

Don't you mean, from your perspective?

I do not think people who are gay are less than anyone who is straight just because of their sexuality. I do not think gay people should ever be judged by that by man and it shouldn't alter the way anyone thinks. However, I don't think it's right to try to claim that homosexuality is as morally right as heterosexuality. It's just simply not true.

Yes, it is, if not more so.

It's not natural in the sense that you are born with the instinct.

Yes, I was.

When I say not natural, I'm not trying to belittle homosexuals but doing things that are "unnatural" do usually lead to dangers or are dangers in themselves.

Really? Like what? Hearing aids? Language?

As for why God would care about homosexuality, I do not think He cares as much as we think we do. However, from the gays I have known in my life, there is a measure of lust within it.

You think gay men are more lustful than straight men? Wow, that would be hard. I mean, heterosexual prostitution and pornography, heterosexual child sex slavery...that's a heck of a lot of lust there.

I think that since homosexuality isn't really considered "normal" in the West, it is difficult for them to establish themselves as it, even when they could be. Sure, married people divorce, couples cheat on each other, etc. but I do think the level of lust in homosexuality is a bit higher than heterosexuality.

How many lesbians do you know?

I'd hate to use the "I have gay friends card so it's ok for me to criticize them" but I want to make sure I don't intentionally offend anyone because I don't judge people for anything.

 

[MW0082]

Considered by whom? Ignorant straight people? Here's an idea, let's ask the homosexuals in this thread whether they chose to be gay.

I am a homosexual and I knew from about the age of seven. no I did not choose to be gay, what I did choose was to pretend to be straight growing up. Due top ignorant people not allowing others to live their lives....

 

[Meow Mix]

... but I do think the level of lust in homosexuality is a bit higher than heterosexuality.

Sounds to me like your gay friends are just immature, much like a huge number of heterosexuals who cruise bars on a nightly basis looking to get laid.

It isn't fair to generalize that about all of us in the least.

 

[Storm]

However, I don't think it's right to try to claim that homosexuality is as morally right as heterosexuality. It's just simply not true.

Really? What makes heterosexuality morally right, and why does homosexuality automatically lack it?

It's not natural in the sense that you are born with the instinct.

Yeah, it is.

When I say not natural, I'm not trying to belittle homosexuals but doing things that are "unnatural" do usually lead to dangers or are dangers in themselves.

What's dangerous about being a sexual minority? Be specific.

 

[MW0082]

I didn't read any of this thread beside the original post since I don't really have the patience for so many pages! However, I'll try to write out how I feel about it from a Monotheist, Christian / Buddhist perspective.

Not anyones perspective but your own. you can not speak for more than yourself ....

I do not think people who are gay are less than anyone who is straight just because of their sexuality. I do not think gay people should ever be judged by that by man and it shouldn't alter the way anyone thinks.

Agreed, it's no one elses concern...

However, I don't think it's right to try to claim that homosexuality is as morally right as heterosexuality. It's just simply not true. It's not natural in the sense that you are born with the instinct.

How is not as moral? No one does or gets hurt, babies aren't being thrown off cliffs or grandmas being beaten. No one gets hurt, and I would like to point out that yes as a GAY MAN I was born with that particular instinct. I knew at 7 and had to pretend till I was 18. So save it, you cannot tell me what is born in me and what is not. Tell me whne did you become a heterosexual then? Sexual orientation works the same. So if you say we gays were mad gay, then your were also made striaght. Which means neither are better or worse than the others so your point is moot.....

When I say not natural, I'm not trying to belittle homosexuals but doing things that are "unnatural" do usually lead to dangers or are dangers in themselves.

How many unnatural things do you use everyday that doesn't cause you harm? How many natural things can cause harm? See, your logic is wrong.

As for why God would care about homosexuality, I do not think He cares as much as we think we do.

If god is real, they do not care for they made us....

However, from the gays I have known in my life, there is a measure of lust within it.

Thats not gays thats MEN.....

I think that since homosexuality isn't really considered "normal" in the West, it is difficult for them to establish themselves as it, even when they could be. Sure, married people divorce, couples cheat on each other, etc. but I do think the level of lust in homosexuality is a bit higher than heterosexuality.

Really? Well I am glad you only think this and not have proof or else you would know this is wrong.

I'd hate to use the "I have gay friends card so it's ok for me to criticize them" but I want to make sure I don't intentionally offend anyone because I don't judge people for anything.

Well thats good, but on some level you are judging. You're taking personal experience with a small group of gay men and their interactions and basing your beliefe on that. that is judging, it's like saying that black guy smokes crack, or that mexican steals, saying those guy men are lustful IS judging, because not all gay men can be lustful toads.......

 

[PVE1]

Don't you mean, from your perspective?

Yes, it is, if not more so. Yes, I was. Really? Like what? Hearing aids? Language? You think gay men are more lustful than straight men? Wow, that would be hard. I mean, heterosexual prostitution and pornography, heterosexual child sex slavery...that's a heck of a lot of lust there. How many lesbians do you know?

Well first of all, the Jewish faith condemns homosexuality (since Christ was a Jew, one can only assume he followed these guidelines, though with more of a compassionate view) and one of the five precepts of Buddhism is avoiding sexual misconduct. So I have based my personal views from the religions.

"Morally right" was probably the wrong way to describe how I feel about it. What I meant to say that was heterosexuality and homosexuality are completely different, thus shouldn't be thought of as the same. No one is below a heterosexual because they are gay, and no one is above a homosexual because they are straight.

However, this is about religion and homosexuality. And the fact of the matter is, you're not going to find many religious beliefs in which homosexuality is DEFENDED. The people who partake in it will be defended, but the act will not be.

I don't think many people would disagree that sexuality will always be lust if its not for procreation. Jesus himself said it was a sin just to look at a woman with lust. Therefore, homosexuality is completely lust if we look at it in this manner. Sexuality should be enjoyed of course, and there is no need to just have sex once in your life for a child.

This really shouldn't be some sort of census on how many gays or lesbians I know. I grew up in a very gay populated area, and even though I have nothing to prove, I've known many people who were gay. The fact is that it's going to be hard to talk to a gay person how I feel about homosexuality without them being offended. I don't really apologize to anyone who has been offended because nothing I've said has been malicious, but I think you understand that a straight Monotheist saying his views on homosexuality to gay Atheists on a religious message board is a disaster waiting to happen. But, I didn't start the thread. By the way, I'm for gay marriage, lol.

 

[Jeremiah]

It sure doesn't sound like it:

So therefore?........anyone with opposing opinions should ____________[fill in the blank].

Very telling indeed.

I wouldn't do that to a homosexuals either. I find your comparison ridiculous. What blacks went through with gay rights......you should be ashamed.

Precisely the regurgitating garbage I'm used to hearing.

Have to attack the person instead of staying on topic. Please don't bother responding to my post if you can't stay civil about it.

"It sure doesn't sound like it:"

That is absurd, nobody here is forcing you to keep quite. It is virtually impossible for us to do that. Or is it that you just think it is unfair that I also have freedom of expression? That I shouldn't be able to comment on your post?

"
So therefore?........anyone with opposing opinions should ____________[fill in the blank]."

Should what? Your prejudice and ingorance is your cross to bear, you deal with it. I am just stating the fact of the matter. If you want to express that backwards opinion of yours then go for it. But don't expect a positive reaction from the homosexuals, because it is not going to happen sweetie. Freedom of expression goes both ways, and that is just something you are going to have lean to deal with.

If you are going to sit there and tell me how I should be using my penis, then I am going to tell you exactly what I think of your opinion on the matter. Sorry, but I do have freedom of expression as well, and I sorry that that upsets you.

"I find your comparison ridiculous. What blacks went through with gay rights......you should be ashamed."

And what would you know about being a homosexual and history of the gay rights movement? Diddlysquat? That is what I thought.

"Precisely the regurgitating garbage I'm used to hearing.

Have to attack the person instead of staying on topic. Please don't bother responding to my post if you can't stay civil about it."

What in space hamsters are you talking about? You posted your inept opinion on homosexuality and what I responded with what I thought about it. That is how debates work, Victor. People get their own say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well first of all, the Jewish faith condemns homosexuality (since Christ was a Jew, one can only assume he followed these guidelines, though with more of a compassionate view) and one of the five precepts of Buddhism is avoiding sexual misconduct. So I have based my personal views from the religions.

IMO, condemnation of homosexuality is incompatible with a compassionate view.

However, this is about religion and homosexuality. And the fact of the matter is, you're not going to find many religious beliefs in which homosexuality is DEFENDED. The people who partake in it will be defended, but the act will not be.

Love is defended in virtually every religion I know of. The question then becomes whether homosexual love is a form of love. IMO, it most certainly is.

I don't think many people would disagree that sexuality will always be lust if its not for procreation.

*raises hand*

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the idea that sex should strictly be for procreation disturbing. Humanity isn't an insect colony.

 

[PVE1]

IMO, condemnation of homosexuality is incompatible with a compassionate view.


Love is defended in virtually every religion I know of. The question then becomes whether homosexual love is a form of love. IMO, it most certainly is.


*raises hand*

Again, Atheists on a religious message board are going to disagree with what I've said. The facts are facts though, and I have no come across one holy scripture of any religion that flat out says "homosexuality is ok". I'm not saying that to prove anything, if someone can show me a religion that says something like that or similiar, I'd be very interested to check it out.

Jesus condemned things all the time. Just like Siddhartha did. Would anyone argue that they weren't compassionate? Therefore, its possible to both condemn something but have compassion towards the person apart of it.

 

[MW0082]

Again, Atheists on a religious message board are going to disagree with what I've said. The facts are facts though, and I have no come across one holy scripture of any religion that flat out says "homosexuality is ok". I'm not saying that to prove anything, if someone can show me a religion that says something like that or similiar, I'd be very interested to check it out.

Jesus condemned things all the time. Just like Siddhartha did. Would anyone argue that they weren't compassionate? Therefore, its possible to both condemn something but have compassion towards the person apart of it.

How about instead of compassion, us gays can have leave us the hell alone...... What someone does sexually and loving is no one elses concer. Not even Jesus's so why don't we wake the f up and realize that homosexuality has been here with us the whole time and will be there till we die. ITS PART OF US!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

Well first of all, the Jewish faith condemns homosexuality (since Christ was a Jew, one can only assume he followed these guidelines, though with more of a compassionate view) and one of the five precepts of Buddhism is avoiding sexual misconduct. So I have based my personal views from the religions.

First of all, there is not a syllable in the entire Tanakh, books that prohibit everything from trimming your beard to building a house without parapets, about lesbianism. Not a word. Zilch.

Second, I thought Jesus ushered in a new covenant, no?

Third, it is not at all clear what is prohibited for men in Leviticus, because of the difficulty of accurately translating ancient Hebrew.

Fourth, did you notice how you assumed your conclusion? First you have to figure out what sexual misconduct is. I strongly oppose sexual misconduct, and I'm a lesbian.

"Morally right" was probably the wrong way to describe how I feel about it. What I meant to say that was heterosexuality and homosexuality are completely different, thus shouldn't be thought of as the same. No one is below a heterosexual because they are gay, and no one is above a homosexual because they are straight.

O.K., good. I don't think they're completely different, rather different in some ways and the same in others.

However, this is about religion and homosexuality. And the fact of the matter is, you're not going to find many religious beliefs in which homosexuality is DEFENDED. The people who partake in it will be defended, but the act will not be.

How about if you just worry about defending your own position, rather than that of all religious people? Did you know there's an entire mainstream Christian church with special mission to serve Lesbian and Gay people?

I don't think many people would disagree that sexuality will always be lust if its not for procreation.

That is so sad. So you've never experienced passionate love?

Jesus himself said it was a sin just to look at a woman with lust. Therefore, homosexuality is completely lust if we look at it in this manner.

Sorry, there is no logical connection between these two sentences. Jesus condemns lust, therefore homosexuality is lust? No.

Sexuality should be enjoyed of course, and there is no need to just have sex once in your life for a child.

Say what?

This really shouldn't be some sort of census on how many gays or lesbians I know.

Then why did you bring it up?

I grew up in a very gay populated area, and even though I have nothing to prove, I've known many people who were gay.

Wait, I thought it wasn't a census on how many gay people you know? Which is it? How many lesbians do you know?

The fact is that it's going to be hard to talk to a gay person how I feel about homosexuality without them being offended.

Then maybe you should reconsider your views.

I don't really apologize to anyone who has been offended because nothing I've said has been malicious, but I think you understand that a straight Monotheist saying his views on homosexuality to gay Atheists on a religious message board is a disaster waiting to happen. But, I didn't start the thread.

It's not about you, it's about your views. They're wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

I think anyone who thinks sex is only loving or proper when trying to knock up your partner is not a good choice as a mate. Not to mention the sexist and misanthropic connotations of such a world view.

wa:do

ps... I'm no atheist.

 

[Autodidact]

Again, Atheists on a religious message board are going to disagree with what I've said. The facts are facts though, and I have no come across one holy scripture of any religion that flat out says "homosexuality is ok". I'm not saying that to prove anything, if someone can show me a religion that says something like that or similiar, I'd be very interested to check it out.

Jesus condemned things all the time. Just like Siddhartha did. Would anyone argue that they weren't compassionate? Therefore, its possible to both condemn something but have compassion towards the person apart of it.

So basically, you're against love?

 

[PVE1]

So basically, you're against love?

Finally, someone who gets it.

 

[PVE1]

Anyway, to answer the original post one more time, I've always questioned why we feel pleasure when we have release. Evolutionists, atheists, etc. all feel that pleasure is based on a need to keep in mind the importance of procreation. However, I feel that its deeper than that. I believe in complete and total free will, in which God does not act in the lives of humans at all. So when we feel pleasure when we have sex, it is sort of a test. How will we use it? Will we use it for constant gratification, or will we use it sparingly as a reminder of God's greatness and procreation?

I lust, I'm only human. I lust all the time, but I understand it's wrong and strive to change it. I strive to change by reading the Books of the Prophets that God has sent, constant prayer, and self discipline. That doesn't justify the fact that I'm weak, but it's a start. It's nothing to be proud of. Lust is never anything to be proud of, whether that's heterosexuality or homosexuality. Homosexuals often are very proud of being gay. First of all, pride in itself is a major problem, pride in anything at all. But since homosexuality can never lead to procreation, thus is a means of sexual gratification, then that is worse. In God's eyes, the mix of pride and lust contradicts the words he has sent. Keep in mind, you can love someone completely, straight or gay, and still perform lust. If you give oral sex to someone, even though you love them immensely, it is lust and thus it is trouble. If you're not doing it for procreation, then it is lust.