Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Shadow Wolf]

We don't.....concepts of right and wrong don't mean anything unless there is an authoritative opinion about which everyone accepts....I presented the biblical scripture and it is rejected on this, that, or for any other number of reasons......thus there can be no resolution and thus we can only agree to disagree....it has been a pleasure....

But that is the heart of the debate. We have reached an impasse. How do we resolve this? We cannot both possibly be correct, but we both can be wrong. How do we determine this? How do we decide? If we have nothing more than faith, then how do we decide whose faith is better trusted? Whose is more logical? Whose makes more sense? If we cannot determine this, if it is something that cannot be discussed or debated, then it must not be logical, because every logical arrangement must be able to be discussed and explained. You have the Bible, I have physics. Either one of us is correct, or we are both incorrect. How can we decide? Do not think of this as an attack, but of rather a Socratic question. We have two different positions, so how do we go about determining which one, if either one, is correct?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

concepts of right and wrong don't mean anything unless there is an authoritative opinion about which everyone accepts....

Any good philosopher admits this. Even in John Rawls "Theory of Justice" he admits his idea is based on "strict compliance" with ideals of justice. Nozick, Rawl's intellectual and philosophical adversary, also proposed a model that depends on everyone agreeing on the same basic idea of "right and wrong." But they are two completely different ideas and philosophies (as another author pointed out, everyone wants "justice," "liberty," and "what's right."). Obviously, no one universally accepts any authoritative and ultimate source of what is right in wrong. And then there is Nietzsche, who turned notions of "right and wrong" completely upside down and challenged them on a level that very few ever dare to.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I notice that all you can do is quote some Bible passages. How about responding to these points:

Promoting prejudice and discrimination is contrary to the spirit of Christ's teachings, as conveyed in sayings like these:
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you", "Don't judge or you will be judged", "Love your neighbours as yourself", and so on.

Christ himself didn't say anything about homosexuality: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/22/what-jesus-says-about-homosexuality-_n_4489452.html

The 10 commandments don't mention homosexuality. If homosexuality was such a big deal if would have been included.

The Bible condemns all sorts of things, including shellfish, but people are very selective according to their own prejudices.

Quoting the bible does not constitute prejudice...you just quoted some of the NT sayings of Jesus... and I do not think that means you are prejudice for doing so...they are actually in the bible...

So...Jesus was a Jew and said he had not come to do away with the laws of Moses ....that includes Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination...

Homosexuality was already covered in Leviticus...

Talk of selectivity is nonsense...if one can't post the relevant biblical passages that deal with homosexuality on a thread that deals with homosexuality..without being accused of being selective is just plain silly Norman..

Now that's that Norm, there is nothing in the above that I have not already explained many times....I am not going to go over all this again and again and again....let us agree to disagree....it is all over.....finis....

 

[Ingledsva]

Ok....there is the NT....no birds and snakes and sacred prostitutes.....Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

But it matters not....you will never accept it....so we can agree to disagree...and that's that...there is nothing more to add....

We were just discussing Romans 1 - and that is where we get sex as worship of God as those birds and serpents. So, obviously this is Sacred Sex, as Homosexuals aren't worshiping God as a bird when having sex.

Neither Corinthians 6:9-10, or 1 Timothy 1:10 have "homosexual" in the verse - nor the words - abusars of them selves with the mankynde.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

There is no - for them that defile themselves with mankind - again it is the word arsenokoites.

1 Ti 1:10 For debauchers, arsenokoites (rapists,) enslavers, falsifiers, perjured persons, and any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

*

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But that is the heart of the debate. We have reached an impasse. How do we resolve this? We cannot both possibly be correct, but we both can be wrong. How do we determine this? How do we decide? If we have nothing more than faith, then how do we decide whose faith is better trusted? Whose is more logical? Whose makes more sense? If we cannot determine this, if it is something that cannot be discussed or debated, then it must not be logical, because every logical arrangement must be able to be discussed and explained. You have the Bible, I have physics. Either one of us is correct, or we are both incorrect. How can we decide? Do not think of this as an attack, but of rather a Socratic question. We have two different positions, so how do we go about determining which one, if either one, is correct?

It doesn't matter Shadow Wolf....let it go....I never think about it so it does not touch me as it may you.... So long as you think you are correct, then that is that....you have a settled opinion and so there is no need to convert anyone as if that would make it more settled... Be at peace.....

 

[Ingledsva]

Quoting the bible does not constitute prejudice...you just quoted some of the NT sayings of Jesus... and I do not think that means you are prejudice for doing so...they are actually in the bible...

So...Jesus was a Jew and said he had not come to do away with the laws of Moses ....that includes Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination...

Homosexuality was already covered in Leviticus...

Talk of selectivity is nonsense...if one can't post the relevant biblical passages that deal with homosexuality on a thread that deals with homosexuality..without being accused of being selective is just plain silly Norman..

Now that's that Norm, there is nothing in the above that I have not already explained many times....I am not going to go over all this again and again and again....let us agree to disagree....it is all over.....finis....

That actually is not correct!

Translations are calling homosexuality an abomination - NOT THE BIBLE.

*

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any good philosopher admits this. Even in John Rawls "Theory of Justice" he admits his idea is based on "strict compliance" with ideals of justice. Nozick, Rawl's intellectual and philosophical adversary, also proposed a model that depends on everyone agreeing on the same basic idea of "right and wrong." But they are two completely different ideas and philosophies (as another author pointed out, everyone wants "justice," "liberty," and "what's right."). Obviously, no one universally accepts any authoritative and ultimate source of what is right in wrong. And then there is Nietzsche, who turned notions of "right and wrong" completely upside down and challenged them on a level that very few ever dare to.

There you go....we each must ultimately live according to our own sense of correctness if we are to ever to be centered and realize peace within our own being....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So long as you think you are correct, then that is that....you have a settled opinion and so there is no need to convert anyone as if that would make it more settled... Be at peace.....

Here's is a strong difference: I admitted I may not be right. This you have not done. I don't think I'm correct. I have a belief that I can offer support of, but I can't actually prove it. It is of no issue to acknowledge and accept I may be wrong, and statistically I am much more likely to be wrong than correct. Is this something you can honestly do?

It doesn't matter Shadow Wolf....let it go....

I asked a simple question. Asking questions is not just how we gain knowledge, it is how we grow in wisdom. I cannot let a question asked go so simply. How can we reason who is correct, if either one of us is correct?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We were just discussing Romans 1 - and that is where we get sex as worship of God as those birds and serpents. So, obviously this is Sacred Sex, as Homosexuals aren't worshiping God as a bird when having sex.

Neither Corinthians 6:9-10, or 1 Timothy 1:10 have "homosexual" in the verse - nor the words - abusars of them selves with the mankynde.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

There is no - for them that defile themselves with mankind - again it is the word arsenokoites.

1 Ti 1:10 For debauchers, arsenokoites (rapists,) enslavers, falsifiers, perjured persons, and any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

*

Yes I know,Ingledsva....you have done a lot of work in making your case...but yours' is a contrarian translation of the scripture and I am using the actual official biblical translation....so majority rule.... That's it.....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There you go....we each must ultimately live according to our own sense of correctness if we are to ever to be centered and realize peace within our own being....

If we each live according to our own sense of correctness, well, we have ISIS as a very prime and easy example of why such a thing cannot be logically accurate. They feel they are correct and right, but most of the world strongly disagrees with them. Kind of like the Nazis who felt they were right, but in the end much of the world was against them. Social Darwinism is correct to many, while providing equal opportunity is right to others. Clearly not everyone can be correct. We must also consider other things such as harm, such as is a Sriracha plant in the 'right' to continue production even though local residents complain of the smell? To what degree should we consider the social utility of an institution to regard it right or wrong? What do we do when we have one vision of "right" that directly contradicts and prevents another vision of what is "right?" Is it right that someone destroys their own property, such as a wooden sign, even though the destruction of this sign removes resources from the community?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That actually is not correct!

Translations are calling homosexuality an abomination - NOT THE BIBLE.

*

I get it....but that's how the scholars translated it.....and that is what the people read....that's it.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here's is a strong difference: I admitted I may not be right. This you have not done. I don't think I'm correct. I have a belief that I can offer support of, but I can't actually prove it. It is of no issue to acknowledge and accept I may be wrong, and statistically I am much more likely to be wrong than correct. Is this something you can honestly do?

I asked a simple question. Asking questions is not just how we gain knowledge, it is how we grow in wisdom. I cannot let a question asked go so simply. How can we reason who is correct, if either one of us is correct?

I have responded to the question of the thread title consistently....that is all...I am not interested in any ifs, whats. and maybes....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have responded to the question of the thread title consistently....that is all...I am not interested in any ifs, whats. and maybes....

Yes, I know you answered the question of the OP with "yes." But I did not ask a question of if, what, or maybe, but a question of how. And your refusal to answer is only going to provoke further questioning, such as why are you uninterested?
Keep in mind that I am asking this from a Socratic perspective. I am ignorant, you appear to have the answers, so I am asking questions in regards to your answers, because it is by asking questions that we grow in wisdom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If we each live according to our own sense of correctness, well, we have ISIS as a very prime and easy example of why such a thing cannot be logically accurate. They feel they are correct and right, but most of the world strongly disagrees with them. Kind of like the Nazis who felt they were right, but in the end much of the world was against them. Social Darwinism is correct to many, while providing equal opportunity is right to others. Clearly not everyone can be correct. We must also consider other things such as harm, such as is a Sriracha plant in the 'right' to continue production even though local residents complain of the smell? To what degree should we consider the social utility of an institution to regard it right or wrong? What do we do when we have one vision of "right" that directly contradicts and prevents another vision of what is "right?" Is it right that someone destroys their own property, such as a wooden sign, even though the destruction of this sign removes resources from the community?

The world is a battle field...race, religion, color, gender, and social caste....survival at the personal level is a priority for each of us.....the settling of what is right and wrong is generally done in the courts or on the streets.... Be in the world, but not of it...is the way I see it....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I know you answered the question of the OP with "yes." But I did not ask a question of if, what, or maybe, but a question of how. And your refusal to answer is only going to provoke further questioning, such as why are you uninterested?
Keep in mind that I am asking this from a Socratic perspective. I am ignorant, you appear to have the answers, so I am asking questions in regards to your answers, because it is by asking questions that we grow in wisdom.

What do you mean how?

 

[JoStories]

I think what we're seeing here is a lame attempt to pretend that the Bible is the only valid religious text, which is of course a ridiculous claim, utter nonsense. In my view the Bible is crude and muddled, and as a wisdom teaching is near the bottom in the league table of ancient spiritual texts.

Maybe. The Bible does have its salient points and also, the Sermon of the Mount is an excellent guide to good living. The troubles come when that is combined with the ravings of Paul. That is the downfall, IMO, of the Bible.

 

[JoStories]

Indeed. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you", "Don't judge or you will be judged", "Love your neighbours as yourself", and so on.

It saddens me that people who claim to be Christian promote prejudice and discrimination, it's entirely contrary to Christ's teaching.

And by the way: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/22/what-jesus-says-about-homosexuality-_n_4489452.html

Or maybe there's a reference to homosexuality in the 10 commandments? Well no, there isn't.

I know but you must understand that people need something to point at to make themselves feel better about themselves. And the more abhorrent, the better, hence using sex as the starting point of their prejudice. For a long while, they could use race; blacks, etc., but since that is now frowned upon, they still need something so its this. Kind of pathetic, IMO, that they are so insecure in themselves and their faith they have to have a scapegoat.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...I am not interested in any ifs, whats. and maybes....

And therein lies the problem. But if you're not interested in examining your own attitudes and beliefs, how do you expect to make progress spiritually?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I know but you must understand that people need something to point at to make themselves feel better about themselves. And the more abhorrent, the better, hence using sex as the starting point of their prejudice. For a long while, they could use race; blacks, etc., but since that is now frowned upon, they still need something so its this. Kind of pathetic, IMO, that they are so insecure in themselves and their faith they have to have a scapegoat.

Yes, it does seem that way, and to me prejudice of this sort looks immature, divisive and regressive. I hope that eventually discrimination based on sexual orientation will be as unacceptable as discrimination based on race and skin colour.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And therein lies the problem. But if you're not interested in examining your own attitudes and beliefs, how do you expect to make progress spiritually?

As an atheist, you think that spiritual progress is like worldly plotting......no, it's not about words....it is about action.... walk the walk...not talk the talk.....