Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[sojourner]

So what does sojourner say about Romans 1:27.....is this the sort of behavior of we expect of heterosexual men....or of homosexual men.....spell it out?

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. ....

It's not about what we expect -- it's about what the writer expected in his cultural context. You can't read an ancient text through the tinted lens of post-modern thinking. You have to get out of your own mind and into the mind of the writer. To the writer, this sort of behavior was what he expected out of depraved individuals, because, to him, there was no such thing as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" orientations. To us, who have a better grasp of the human psyche and human sexuality, this sort of behavior is what we expect out of normal, healthy, homosexual individuals. Therefore, we expect that the writer would write from his perspective, just as we understand that the writers of Genesis wrote about the creation from their perspective, and not from our perspective through modern scientific discovery.

 

[sojourner]

What it comes down to is this: The only argument I'm seeing here from the anti-gay crowd is this: "...Because the bible says so." They have yet to provide any compelling evidence outside of that statement; in fact, all the known scientific evidence is stacked against their position. The argument from the pro-gay crowd points this out. The argument from the Christian pro-gay crowd points out the fact that only a very superficial reading of the (pitifully few) texts dealing with same-sex behavior, only appear to speak against homosexuality. When a credible exegesis is actually applied, it shows clearly that any injunctions against homosexuality are unclear, vague, and, frankly, unwarranted -- and that the injunctions against homosexual acts likely do not stem from a thorough understanding of human sexuality. It's not even clear what kinds of homosexual acts are being referenced.

Nonetheless, the argument persists: "...Because the bible says so." When presented with clear evidence to the contrary, the tired argument only gets louder, with, perhaps, an added, "No, that's really what the bible says -- any idiot can read it right there!" Adding, perhaps, a weak, "God said it, after all."

Repeating "thebiblesaysthebiblesaysthebiblesaysthebiblesaysthebiblesays" doesn't make the argument any more compelling. First, there are many people -- gay or not -- for whom the bible holds no authority. So, even if the bible does say, its injunction only applies to those for whom the bible is an absolute authority. It cannot (and should not!) apply to civil law, or to social acts -- especially acts of systemic violence manifested in discrimination and judgment. Second, that's not the only thing the bible says. The overwhelming theme of biblical tenet is hospitality and equity. Why throw all that under the bus just to push a very minor point in the biblical milieu? Why continue to strain at gnats?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe you have to be cruel to be kind. I once told a Catholic that he need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior to get out of his troubles but I was berated by his family for interfering in what was only a priests right to say. That person died of a heroin overdose. Sure, I could have been kind and said that his troubles would all go away by themselves or a priest would be able to help but that kindness would not have offered him salvation.

I believe you have to be kind to be kind. There are ways of being kind that don't just amount to telling someone their troubles will all go away. (And oddly enough, that sounds kind of like what you were doing when you told him to accept Jesus in order to solve his problems.) There's much more to solving a drug addict's problems than just finding Jesus.

 

[shmogie]

I think that your uninformed opinion is moot.


I'm not going to be dragged into some twisted sola scriptura trap. The entirety of Christianity isn't contained in the bible.


Hyperbole doesn't help your argument any. Necrophilia is a disorder -- not love.


Same goes here. Pedophilia is a disorder -- not love. Both necrophilia and pedophilia are found in the DSM. Homosexuality is not. That should be your clue.


If you don't know, I can't help you out here. Love is pure, patient, kind, not arrogant, does not insist on its own way, rejoices in the truth. You figure it out.


I suggest you look at a historical and cultural critique of Torah. Homosexuality was unknown as an orientation.
The DSM listed homosexuality for years, so it was a disorder. Actually, the entirety of Christianity is contained in the Bible. You singularly failed to provide any Biblical quotes to support your assertion, as you and I both know you cannot. Obfuscation is not an argument. As to ad hominem attacks, I suggest you refresh yourself on the definition, I called you no names, I produced a scenario with the word IF, only you, and you alone would know if it is applicable. Christianity has done quite well for 2,000 years, attempts to degrade it in the last fifty years serve a valuable purpose, Christ talked about a wide road and a narrow one, Those who cling to immoral, sinful behavior, whatever it may be, are probably on the wide road to no where. He also said " by their fruits ( no pun intended) you shall know them" Their total life is to be considered. a cherished, unrepented of sin, openly displayed, is poisonous fruit. Love is the primary emphasis of the Bible, but Christ said "repent" more times than he said "love"

No, it's a blatant attempt to rescue Christianity from a corrupt moral narrative.


If ad hominem is your last and best argument, it doesn't say much for your position here.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe that is fine and dandy as long as God is doing the picking.

Do you really need somebody to tell you the difference between right and wrong?

 

[shmogie]

And you are not cherry picking yourself? To suit your needs and particular narrative, as it pertains to someone being gay. I never said there were things that were unacceptable to God. And who are you to tell me I don't live in harmony with God. I do but just not in the way you would prefer everyone on the planet do this. How dare you tell anyone how to live? Next point, I don't believe in sin. As a follower of eastern faiths, I don't believe in sin at all. There is a balance, and that is all. And lastly, I don't give a damn what you don't accept. You are trying to tell me that I don't know God based on a book written by men. The hubris of all that is astronomical.

I am not trying to tell you anything, the discussion was about Christianity, it is a discussion based Christian theological concepts, within the Christian community, so ex post facto it has nothing to do with you if you are not a Christian. So, I am not trying to tell you anything. Paul made it clear, to paraphrase, that what occurred outside of the body of believers was the problem, or not, of those outside. Those within the body are required to forsake sinful practices. So calm down, untwist your panties, and move on, this is not about you or your beliefs

 

[SkepticThinker]

The DSM listed homosexuality for years, so it was a disorder.

Yeah, so was hysteria. Now neither of them are considered disorders. And ... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe that is fine and dandy as long as God is doing the picking.

Humans are cherry pickers.

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, so was hysteria. Now neither of them are considered disorders. And ... ?

The Bible states that homosexuality IS a disorder, this hasn't changed in 2,000 years, to quote the DSM as something of authority re what the Bible says is a non argument

 

[shmogie]

It's not about what we expect -- it's about what the writer expected in his cultural context. You can't read an ancient text through the tinted lens of post-modern thinking. You have to get out of your own mind and into the mind of the writer. To the writer, this sort of behavior was what he expected out of depraved individuals, because, to him, there was no such thing as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" orientations. To us, who have a better grasp of the human psyche and human sexuality, this sort of behavior is what we expect out of normal, healthy, homosexual individuals. Therefore, we expect that the writer would write from his perspective, just as we understand that the writers of Genesis wrote about the creation from their perspective, and not from our perspective through modern scientific discovery.

So then the writer of the passage was not defining a principle, but was rather giving an opinion that has the consistency of spilled mercury, push it aside, divide it, weaken it, gather it up and put it back in the bottle, because, to quote a philosopher, "the supermen" have arrived. As a Christian who believes the Bible, especially the NT reflects Gods will for believers, your analysis has no worth, it is an opinion based upon ropes of sand. Paul enunciated a principle, a bedrock principle, that you, or anybody else is free to accept or deny. However, DO NOT attempt to tell me what I am to believe based upon the humanist ideas of today, akin to trying to find the pea under three little cups that are switched and moved about the table, the truth is there, no, over there, no, right here, it used to be there. No, sola scriptura means exactly what it says, believe as you choose......................... I will believe the moral precepts of the Bible

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible states that homosexuality IS a disorder, this hasn't changed in 2,000 years, to quote the DSM as something of authority re what the Bible says is a non argument

Then why bother pointing out that the DSM used to categorize it as a disorder?

Where does the Bible state that homosexuality is a disorder?

And who cares that words on paper haven't changed in 2000 years? What's wrong with adapting to new knowledge and information once it is discovered? Do you stone unruly children or people who eat shellfish?

 

[shmogie]

Ok...Prove it. With accepted statistics from credible sources or peer reviewed articles. As a PhD in theology, and having studied this for over a few decades, I know you are wrong. And btw, no Christian apologist is acceptable.

Hi AlphaAlex115,

I'm not a homophobe. I'm not sure; maybe homosexual desires are real, like murderous desires may be real but it is a choice to follow such desires I believe.

Peace to you and may God Bless you,
Noah ("NewChapter")

homophobe, unreasonable fear of homosexuals............... I know of no Christians that fear them, think they are less than human, or discriminates against them, unless it is required in exercising the right to practice ones religion. From the Christian perspective, homosexuality is a sin, an immoral act. But it is no worse than a whole host of other sins, some of which I commit, and seek forgiveness for. The issue is not whether we are all sinners, we are, the issue is not whether we need forgiveness of our sins, we do. The issue is whether a person who cherishes and habitually commits a sin, can be part of the Christian communion. The answer is no. No one can judge a person's soul, that is God's job and I am very happy to leave it to him. We are told that we can judge acts as part of the acceptance of a person into communion, we can and should. That is it ! No judging a persons acceptance by God, no judging a persons worth................... There are alleged Christian churches that accept homosexuals into membership, their theology is nonsense to me, nevertheless they have the right to do as they choose.............................................

 

[sojourner]

The DSM listed homosexuality for years, so it was a disorder.

Scientific journals said for centuries that the earth was flat, too...

Actually, the entirety of Christianity is contained in the Bible.

It is? What about Thomas? What about the Desert Fathers? What about your precious sola scriptura? What about purely Calvinistic ideas of grace and sola fide?
The Trinity?

You singularly failed to provide any Biblical quotes to support your assertion, as you and I both know you cannot.

The bible doesn't speak to what its writers are unaware of.

Christianity has done quite well for 2,000 years

...With its slavery, Inquisitions, forced conversions, colonialism, imperialism, scientific wrong-thinking, misogyny, and Crusades. Christianity has always had visionaries who have drug Xy kicking and screaming out of its own self-righteous mire into a more Christ-like stance.

Those who cling to immoral, sinful behavior, whatever it may be, are probably on the wide road to no where.

Oh, you mean immoral and sinful behavior such as misrepresenting the biblical texts to say what they do not say, being implicit in the systemic violence of discrimination brought about by such "interpretations, and holding the resultant self-righteous attitudes toward those who are being oppressed?

Love is the primary emphasis of the Bible, but Christ said "repent" more times than he said "love"

And what do you suppose "repent" means? It means to turn toward God, who is love.

 

[shmogie]

Then why bother pointing out that the DSM used to categorize it as a disorder?

Where does the Bible state that homosexuality is a disorder?

And who cares that words on paper haven't changed in 2000 years? What's wrong with adapting to new knowledge and information once it is discovered? Do you stone unruly children or people who eat shellfish?

Sin is a disorder, the worst kind. So bad in fact that it separated man from God. The NT is my guide, the OT is good for historical reference primarily, although some of it's laws have used in the NT. Someone used the DSM, maybe you, to show that homosexuality wasn't considered a disorder, I simply pointed out that it did for a long time. Within the Christian context morality and it's principles do not change, and cannot change. What was right then is right now, what was wrong then is wrong now. You are trying to tell me the ounces of a cup, in milleliters, you see the method of measurement as a supple, bendable, changeable thing, I do not. The ounces in the cup are measured as ounces, the standard doesn't vary, the method of measurement is nor flexible. It applies today, yesterday and tomorrow

 

[SkepticThinker]

homophobe, unreasonable fear of homosexuals............... I know of no Christians that fear them, think they are less than human, or discriminates against them, unless it is required in exercising the right to practice ones religion. From the Christian perspective, homosexuality is a sin, an immoral act. But it is no worse than a whole host of other sins, some of which I commit, and seek forgiveness for. The issue is not whether we are all sinners, we are, the issue is not whether we need forgiveness of our sins, we do. The issue is whether a person who cherishes and habitually commits a sin, can be part of the Christian communion. The answer is no. No one can judge a person's soul, that is God's job and I am very happy to leave it to him. We are told that we can judge acts as part of the acceptance of a person into communion, we can and should. That is it ! No judging a persons acceptance by God, no judging a persons worth................... There are alleged Christian churches that accept homosexuals into membership, their theology is nonsense to me, nevertheless they have the right to do as they choose.............................................

What do you think of this kind of behavior?
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/...ates-lesbian-couple-seeking-marriage-license/
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/2...le-gets-license-condemnation-in-gilmer-county

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sin is a disorder, the worst kind. So bad in fact that it separated man from God. The NT is my guide, the OT is good for historical reference primarily, although some of it's laws have used in the NT. Someone used the DSM, maybe you, to show that homosexuality wasn't considered a disorder, I simply pointed out that it did for a long time. Within the Christian context morality and it's principles do not change, and cannot change. What was right then is right now, what was wrong then is wrong now. You are trying to tell me the ounces of a cup, in milleliters, you see the method of measurement as a supple, bendable, changeable thing, I do not. The ounces in the cup are measured as ounces, the standard doesn't vary, the method of measurement is nor flexible. It applies today, yesterday and tomorrow

Sin is sin. And it's pretty much only something one believes in if they follow one of the Abrahamic religions. Do you think that stealing is a disorder? Coveting your neighbour's wife?

Not to mention that Christian morality does change over time, as morality in general tends to do. I don't see many Christians keeping slaves, or committing genocide against pagans, or stoning their unruly children these days.

And as I said, the DSM changes as we study and acquire new knowledge about the human condition. No offense, but I think that's the much more rational route to take, over sticking to an ancient book written by people who didn't have a fraction of the knowledge we have today.

 

[sojourner]

So then the writer of the passage was not defining a principle, but was rather giving an opinion

No, Paul was defining a principle based on an ignorance of the facts, which produced an unfounded opinion.

As a Christian who believes the Bible, especially the NT reflects Gods will for believers, your analysis has no worth, it is an opinion based upon ropes of sand.

The religious authorities didn't believe Jesus, either, when he slapped 'em in the face with the truth.

Paul enunciated a principle, a bedrock principle, that you, or anybody else is free to accept or deny.

Yes he did, and that principle is: Don't do immoral acts. But his opinion was that something he patently Did. Not. Understand. was included in that set of act when, in fact, the homosexual orientation is, itself, not immoral -- nor is its expression when handled carefully.

DO NOT attempt to tell me what I am to believe based upon the humanist ideas of today, akin to trying to find the pea under three little cups that are switched and moved about the table, the truth is there, no, over there, no, right here, it used to be there.

I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm asking that you actually exegete the texts before braying on in self-righteous judgment of others.

I will believe the moral precepts of the Bible

Your posts seem to indicate that you don't understand the moral precepts of the bible.

 

[shmogie]

Scientific journals said for centuries that the earth was flat, too...

It is? What about Thomas? What about the Desert Fathers? What about your precious sola scriptura? What about purely Calvinistic ideas of grace and sola fide?
The Trinity?

The bible doesn't speak to what its writers are unaware of.

...With its slavery, Inquisitions, forced conversions, colonialism, imperialism, scientific wrong-thinking, misogyny, and Crusades. Christianity has always had visionaries who have drug Xy kicking and screaming out of its own self-righteous mire into a more Christ-like stance.

Oh, you mean immoral and sinful behavior such as misrepresenting the biblical texts to say what they do not say, being implicit in the systemic violence of discrimination brought about by such "interpretations, and holding the resultant self-righteous attitudes toward those who are being oppressed?

And what do you suppose "repent" means? It means to turn toward God, who is love.

I will try to respond to your somewhat hysterical post. Those writings are not in the canon, are not part of sola scriptura. Christ said " by their fruit you shall know them " So evil done in the name of Christianity doesn't make it Christian, by Christ's standard the evil doers are outside the pale. As to the Crusades, they were in response to 400 years of muslim barbarism, and the slaughter of millions of Christians. The principle of the Crusades was noble. Much of what are muslim country's today were once Christian, the Christians were eliminated by forced conversion, or death. Repent means to recognize the evil of ones ways and seek and absolution and acceptance. If you believe I have mis represented Biblical texts, please point them out to me and we can discuss them, I have access to the two most accepted and scholarly Greek lexicons to use if required. As to divergent theological ideas, I don't get your point. Cavin and his followers believed in pre destination or double predestination, others believe in free will, Arians don't believe in the trinity, most Christians do. These are not moral issues these are theological concepts............... differences on theology, as long as the basic theological beliefs are maintained are fine

 

[sojourner]

Within the Christian context morality and it's principles do not change, and cannot change. What was right then is right now, what was wrong then is wrong now. You are trying to tell me the ounces of a cup, in milleliters, you see the method of measurement as a supple, bendable, changeable thing, I do not. The ounces in the cup are measured as ounces, the standard doesn't vary, the method of measurement is nor flexible. It applies today, yesterday and tomorrow

Slavery has changed, misogyny has changed, imperialism has changed. Apparently, morality and its principles within the Christian context do change, to meet the demands of a changing culture.

I have one question for you: Are we measuring in American ounces, or British ounces? An ounce is not an ounce. You have to define the ounce.

And as a further note, when Mozart was composing, the standard reference tuning pitch of "A" was 435 hz. It has subsequently changed to 440 hz. Einstein showed that even space and time are relative and not absolute. When you deal in absolutes, you effectively erase too many possibilities that are required to keep life in the universe flexible, as it needs to be in order to survive. I submit that a rigid faith is a dead faith. A flexible faith is a living faith. Jesus alluded to that when he challenged the religious authorities saying that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.

 

[sojourner]

I will try to respond to your somewhat hysterical post.

Oh, please don't bore us with more garbage. My post isn't "hysterical."

Those writings are not in the canon, are not part of sola scriptura.

My point exactly. They aren't in the bible, yet they are a vital part of Xy, only proving my point that all of Xy isn't contained in the bible.


You're welcome.

As to the Crusades, they were in response to 400 years of muslim barbarism, and the slaughter of millions of Christians.

They were an effort to raise money (an oversimplification, but that was at the core).

The principle of the Crusades was noble

The principle of the Crusades was self-serving.

Repent means to recognize the evil of ones ways and seek and absolution and acceptance.

A very spiritually-myopic view of the process of repentance.

As to divergent theological ideas, I don't get your point. Cavin and his followers believed in pre destination or double predestination, others believe in free will, Arians don't believe in the trinity, most Christians do. These are not moral issues these are theological concepts............... differences on theology, as long as the basic theological beliefs are maintained are fine

The point is that the Trinity, predestination and sola fide are not spelled out in the bible. You assert that these are "fine," yet they're not in the bible. Completely smashes your assertion that all of Xy is contained in the bible, yes?