Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

No, it's not an "overwhelming majority view," except, perhaps, among the more fundamentalist crowd -- which, in the milieu of biblical scholarship, is hardly a majority, itself.

You simply are wrong. It has been the majority view for 2,000 years, and still is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"That thing is disgusting," it takes what is subjective and makes it objective.

No it doesn't. To me, green vegetables are very bitter and disgusting. That doesn't make them objectively bitter and disgusting, however, because some people enjoy eating them.

Gay sex isn't objectively disgusting.

He didn't say it is. I thinking toe sucking is disgusting, and yes, I see nasty, germy, crudy, smelly toes if I think about it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to treat someone whose into it poorly, badly, or pass judgement beyond me thinking it's disgusting.

 

[jeager106]

No it doesn't. To me, green vegetables are very bitter and disgusting. That doesn't make them objectively bitter and disgusting, however, because some people enjoy eating them.

He didn't say it is. I thinking toe sucking is disgusting, and yes, I see nasty, germy, crudy, smelly toes if I think about it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to treat someone whose into it poorly, badly, or pass judgement beyond me thinking it's disgusting.

Well said Shadow Wolf. (love the screen name!)
I find the act of homosexual sex between two MEN disgusting. I can't help but get a
mental image of two gay guys "getting it on" in whatever way they do it and it's revolting
to me.
I judge not the actors involved, it's the act that I object to.
Oddly and quite commonly many men don't see two women having sex together
as objectionable including me.........................and "NO" I don't watch porn flicks but have seen some out of being just curious when others were watching such.
I'd rather engage in sex with a partner I care about than watch others having fun!
And YES toe suck IS disgusting but if YOU like it then have a blast.

 

[MARCELLO]

Is being a liar and self hating fashionable in your religion? That's what religious people are asking from gays to do....

 

[sojourner]

Like many, you cherry pick verses, even concepts, to suit your particular narrative.

Everybody does. That's why the biblical texts are multivalent.

You simply are wrong. It has been the majority view for 2,000 years, and still is.

"The majority view" is the majority view currently -- not 2000 years ago. That's my whole point. We are in a different place than our ancestors were. Most contemporary biblical scholars are not in the camp you posit that they're in. Why? Because, over the last century, biblical studies have taken a HUGE leap forward in terms of exegetical approach, hermeneutics, and epistemology. Unless you're prepared to discount those things, too, because they're not "in the bible."

 

[NewChapter]

I don't have a religion and being gay is fine by me. What about you guys??

I'm not a member of any religion.

For me, homosexuality is just something that I would not do.

 

[sojourner]

Well said Shadow Wolf. (love the screen name!)
I find the act of homosexual sex between two MEN disgusting. I can't help but get a
mental image of two gay guys "getting it on" in whatever way they do it and it's revolting
to me.
I judge not the actors involved, it's the act that I object to.
Oddly and quite commonly many men don't see two women having sex together
as objectionable including me.........................and "NO" I don't watch porn flicks but have seen some out of being just curious when others were watching such.
I'd rather engage in sex with a partner I care about than watch others having fun!
And YES toe suck IS disgusting but if YOU like it then have a blast.

But that's not what you said. You said "it's disgusting." You left out the "I find" part. Reading and interpretation are part of my profession. When I read that, it read as if you were proclaiming "disgusting" as a universal spiritual illness, and not "disgusting" as a personal preference. If that was not your meaning, then I apologize.
Clarity is important.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oddly and quite commonly many men don't see two women having sex together
as objectionable including me

Typical straight guy. I don't understand that attitude.

 

[jeager106]

I'm not gay, never had a "gay encounter" and would not.
I have/had gay men friends.
Still have one good friend who is openly gay and that is NONE of my business.
I don't ask ANY of my friends what their sexual orientation is.
No one asks me either.
I've had female friends that were lesbian. So?????
One good friend of mine was openly gay and I found him dead with a bullet through
his brain.
What a sad waste of human life. He must have been emotionally tortured.
Wonder why many straight men absolutely MUST persecute a gay person?

 

[jeager106]

I'm not a member of any religion.

For me, homosexuality is just something that I would not do.

I understand that very well and feel the same way.

 

[NewChapter]

I understand that very well and feel the same way.

I see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not reading over 2000 posts. Perhaps a short retrospective on your part might be helpful.

....Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, there is much extra-biblical content that is "relevant" to humanity and to human spirituality. Should we discount relativity, simply because it's not "in the bible?" We know a whole lot more about the human psyche, human sociology, and human sexuality than was known in ancient time.

Plus, the bible never definitively addresses homosexuality. It addresses what the writers perceive in their socio-scientific ignorance as "perverted acts." None of which is definitively a statement about homosexuality as a preference, OR about loving, committed relationships between two people of the same sex. The statements are, without exception, vague and unclear, being mired in cultural understandings and taboos that are simply not relevant in 21st-century Western society.

Yes...read the thread title........Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Like many, you cherry pick verses, even concepts, to suit your particular narrative.

And so do you. The difference is that some of us are not discriminating against a minority and indulging in prejudice.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's God's job to pass judgement, not mine.

So there is no need for you to pass judgement. Problem solved!

 

[sojourner]

Yes...read the thread title........Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

None -- repeat -- NONE of these passages refers to homosexuality. None.

Genesis refers to the sin of Sodom, which isn't homosexuality. It's lack of hospitality.
Leviticus is a cultural reference. In that culture, shame and honor were embedded in sexual identity: Men embodied honor; women embodied shame. It may refer to the practice of battlefield rape just as easily as it does lustful sexual encounters.
Romans refers to a sex act -- but not to homosexuality as an orientation or a sexual preference. Such was unknown at that time.
The Greek word translated as "effeminate" is unclear. But it, likewise, does not mention homosexuality.
Timothy, same as Romans.

Conclusion: You're engaging in rampant eisegesis here -- that is, you're reading into the texts what is not explicitly there. That's a really bad way to engage in interpretation, especially when your "interpretation" condemns a whole population of men and women.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Also, how is gay male sex only based on purely sexual desires/lust? What about gay male couples who have been together for years and decades as a committed couple?

I went to a Civil Partnership ceremony here in England a few years back, a typical middle-aged couple who both happened to be men. They'd been together for 40 years but hadn't previously been able to establish a legally recognised union. Civil Partnerships were an intermediate step prior to the introduction of gay marriage here. Both were opposed and delayed by religious groups of course.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. You didn't have to say “ALL” Christians, but the fact that you did not quantify Christians with “some” or “a few” or “many” sort of lends itself to an individual becoming confused upon reading your first post which dealt with the topic of slavery. Slavery's discussed in the Bible, what does that mean? 2. Nothing, as far as the actual truth of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade is concerned. What you've shown me, thus far, is that you can quote particular Bible passages while pulling them out of context (specifically, Old Testament passages), and utilize them in what I perceive to be a critique of the Christian religion or any aspects thereof. If you don't believe I am understanding, I can simplify the basic premise your argument: 3. some Christians attempt to justify a heinous act based upon recordings in Scripture of a similar condition that existed among (broadly) various peoples of the world, specifically among a separate culture of individuals who have - since the verses were written - been scattered across the world, am I correct? A separate culture than the one to which the people such Christians took as slaves actually belonged, true?

Same issue as with the condemnation of LGBT individuals: 4. passages being deliberately decontextualized to make the implied target a different one than actually is.

I'm getting tired of you implying that I said, or implied, things which I did not!

Did you miss # 850?

"Some" preachers were involved with the movement - others defended slavery as being Biblical! Nor were they the earliest movers!

1. Obviously this proves that I discussed both Christians for, and against, slavery! (PS. When you go so far back in a several hundred page thread, - use the NUMBER of the post, - so we can go back and see what was actually said, - and WHY it was said. What it was a reply to.)

2. That is hilarious as those Christians used the Hebrew text as proof from God that they could hold slaves. THAT makes them pertinent to the conversation concerning slavery.

3. Bull! These were Christians - a religion descended from the Hebrew Tanakh, - utilizing their text and laws, - and specifically in this case using Leviticus Law as proof THEY could hold slaves.

4. Would you care to explain how my pointing out that a word which does not mean homosexuality - is being translated as homosexuality, - is decontextualizing a verse?

Qadesh - the actual word used in Deu 23:17, - means a Sacred Prostitute, - not a homosexual.

Romans 1 tells us this is a RITE in which the people having sex are doing so in worship of God turned into animals, - again - OBVIOUSLY Sacred Sex, - not about homosexuals!

You folks can continue the CRAP that I am altering the texts, - but the actual words used in the original languages in these texts, - prove I am correct, - and you folks are wrong.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Like many, you cherry pick verses, even concepts, to suit your particular narrative. Of course Christ said to love all people. By that criteria you seek to imply that there is no behavior that is unacceptable to God. That is patently false. The result of loving people is to share the Gospel, so that they will consider choosing a way of life that is in harmony with God's idea's of the best way to live life. That includes changing sinful behavior. You cannot have it both way's, Claim to be a Christian, and do whatever you want. Christ was perfectly clear, he told the woman who was living with a man outside of marriage, that he forgave her sins because of her faith, but he also said "go and sin no more" after a discussion about her living arrangements. Christ also told the Apostles that they were to share the Gospel, and if it was rejected, to move on. As to your universalist assertion that the same God is involved in all religions, I don't accept it, and neither did Christ, he said " no man comes to the Father except by me "

The point being made here - is that you folks can't prove from your Bible - that homosexuality is sin!

If we wish to go farther - you can't even prove your Bible is from a God.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You are incorrect in your assertions. You want us to believe that your source of these definitions is the only accurate and true source. That is nonsense. The overwhelming majority view of NT Greek scholars and OT Hebrew scholars is that homosexuality is being specifically addressed. You may wish it weren't so, but, as my mother told me many times "if wishes were horses then beggars would ride".

It doesn't matter what these sources say, - as we have the texts in their original languages, - and I have specifically shown where they have CHANGED words that do not mean homosexual, - into homosexual.

Opinion that it is about homosexuals - does not trump the actual texts - which prove such are NOT about homosexuals!

Instead of repeating - "ain't so," - and continually just putting up challenged texts, why don't you folks try to prove your assertions; - for instance, - that somehow Qadesh - means homosexual, - rather then its actual meaning of Sacred Prostitute???

Tell us how a text which TELLS US it is about a sex RITE in WORSHIP of God as Animals - is actually about homosexuals, - rather then what IT ACTUALLY TELLS US!

*