• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
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.
No Christian morality hasn't changed you are conflating OT actions with Christian actions, there is a sharp divide. Yep, sin is a disorder, maybe not by your definition, bur certainly by mine. It is not the intended human state to commit sin. No offense taken, however I believe a divinely inspired book is much better for moral guidance than one group of sinners telling others what should be right or wrong. When Alice went down the rabbit hole, up was down, red was blue, and left was right and vice versa. Floating morality is just a trip down the rabbit hole
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No Christian morality hasn't changed you are conflating OT actions with Christian actions, there is a sharp divide. Yep, sin is a disorder, maybe not by your definition, bur certainly by mine. It is not the intended human state to commit sin. No offense taken, however I believe a divinely inspired book is much better for moral guidance than one group of sinners telling others what should be right or wrong. When Alice went down the rabbit hole, up was down, red was blue, and left was right and vice versa. Floating morality is just a trip down the rabbit hole
Except that it has. I already gave several examples. If you don't think it's moral to say, stone unruly children to death, then you agree that morality has changed over time. A supposedly divinely inspired book admonishes us to do all kinds of terrible things, including committing genocide against our neighbours. I don't see Christians doing this anymore (for the most part) so something must have changed. And if you want to say well that's because Christian actions have changed, then are you saying you think it's moral to commit genocide against your neighbours if it is commanded in this ancient book, and that it is something Christians should still be doing, if they think god told them to do it?

Sin is not a disorder by any psychological definition. It is a sin. And it is something that is confined to specific religions.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
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.
No, Christian morality does not change. I challenge you to find in the NT support for slavery, misogyny or imperialism. As to your comment re ounces, cute, but dumb. You are confusing moral standards with other types of standards, Einstein in either of his theories of relativity wasn't addressing standards of morality, nor was your example of Mozart. There are many absolutes in the universe, absolute cold, the effects of gravity based upon the size of objects, etc. etc. I am nor speaking of "rigid faith", whatever that may mean. The pharisees held the principle that murder, theft, rape, and many other things were wrong. Did he correct them on those MORAL beliefs ? Did he promulgate different moral beliefs on some issues, and if he did, who has the authority today to change his teachings ? The Apostles were given the task of focusing his teachings by him, again who has the authority today to modify those teachings. No one
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Except that it has. I already gave several examples. If you don't think it's moral to say, stone unruly children to death, then you agree that morality has changed over time. A supposedly divinely inspired book admonishes us to do all kinds of terrible things, including committing genocide against our neighbours. I don't see Christians doing this anymore (for the most part) so something must have changed. And if you want to say well that's because Christian actions have changed, then are you saying you think it's moral to commit genocide against your neighbours if it is commanded in this ancient book, and that it is something Christians should still be doing, if they think god told them to do it?

Sin is not a disorder by any psychological definition. It is a sin. And it is something that is confined to specific religions.
Christians never stoned children you are confusing Christianity with Judaism as it was 500 years before Christ. Please learn the difference, then we can have this conversation
 

shmogie

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


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.


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


The principle of the Crusades was self-serving.


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


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?
Christians don't accept that non canonical writings are a vital part of anything. I suggest you go back and study the Crusades, , they have been a long term study of mine, and you are in error. It depends on how you look at the verses re the trinity, What did Christ mean when he said "I and the father are one" ? the Holy Spirit is referred to as He, what is the Godhead ? With respect, your knowledge of the Bible appears to be limited, you are speaking of things you don't know. Predestination can be interpreted from a variety of verses, ditto for sola fide. I suggest you read Luther, Calvin, and above all the New Testament, before you propose to state what is in the Bible. Again, with respect, I don't have the time to discuss the Bible with someone who is ignorant of its content. Constantly correcting your errors is not discussion, it is more like being a teacher, Not here, not now
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Christians never stoned children you are confusing Christianity with Judaism as it was 500 years before Christ. Please learn the difference, then we can have this conversation
You're talking about the morality of the Bible, correct? How it never changes, correct? Did you not say it's a divinely inspired book? How many witches have you killed today?

For someone who claims that morality never changes, what's with the cherry picking of morals from this supposedly divinely inspired book? And why are there so many different Christian denominations if these morals are so clear and eternal unchanging?
 
Last edited:

shmogie

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


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


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.


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.


Your posts seem to indicate that you don't understand the moral precepts of the bible.
You sir are ignorant of which you speak, Paul understood the the nature of homosexuality, he wasn't expressing an opinion, he was expressing a moral principle, homosexual acts by this standard are immoral. They were in Israel before Christ, they are now. Christ condemned adultery in a number of places, as well as divorce, as well as sex outside of marriage. In discussing marriage he unambiguously declares it to be between one man and one woman. Two people of the same sex based upon Christ's words cannot be married. Any sex outside of marriage is the sin of fornication, immoral. Game, set, and match. The Word says what it says, and all the shuck.n and jive'n you or anyone else does cannot and will not change that
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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
Yes it is. It absolutely is! Since Xy is the majority religion on the planet, what Christians think, how they judge, and how they treat others sets the bar for social attitudes. Christians are in the majority, which puts anyone else in a minority. How those minorities are included (or excluded) says a lot about who Christians are. When Christians make statements to the effect that who one is (remember: according to psychology, sexual identity is an identity), is sin, it is "about them."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You sir are ignorant of which you speak, Paul understood the the nature of homosexuality, he wasn't expressing an opinion, he was expressing a moral principle, homosexual acts by this standard are immoral.
Paul only understood what the science and culture of the time told him. Paul also understood the earth to be flat. There is Someone here who is ignorant. Don't think it's me, however.

Christ condemned adultery in a number of places, as well as divorce, as well as sex outside of marriage. In discussing marriage he unambiguously declares it to be between one man and one woman.
Neither adultery, nor divorce, nor extra-marital sex pertain to homosexuality. Jesus claims marriage to be between one man and one woman, because that's what the gospel writer understood. remember, they were just as human, fallible, and products of their culture as anyone else.

Two people of the same sex based upon Christ's words cannot be married.
Two people of the same sex, based upon the opinions of ancient writers who didn't know Jesus, cannot be married.

The Word says what it says, and all the shuck.n and jive'n you or anyone else does cannot and will not change that
It does? Since the texts are obviously multivalent, the "Word" can say (and does say) several things. And all the shuckn and jive'n you or anyone else does cannot and will noot change that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No Christian morality hasn't changed
Slavery... misogyny... imperialism...

It is not the intended human state to commit sin.
Talk to Calvin about that...

I believe a divinely inspired book is much better for moral guidance than one group of sinners telling others what should be right or wrong.
Since the bible was written by human beings, and since all human beings are sinful, the bible is one group of sinners telling others what should be right or wrong.

Floating morality is just a trip down the rabbit hole
Dead faith... living faith... remember? The implacable religious authorities of Jesus' day thought the same thing.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
You sir are ignorant of which you speak, Paul understood the the nature of homosexuality, he wasn't expressing an opinion, he was expressing a moral principle, homosexual acts by this standard are immoral. They were in Israel before Christ, they are now. Christ condemned adultery in a number of places, as well as divorce, as well as sex outside of marriage. In discussing marriage he unambiguously declares it to be between one man and one woman. Two people of the same sex based upon Christ's words cannot be married. Any sex outside of marriage is the sin of fornication, immoral. Game, set, and match. The Word says what it says, and all the shuck.n and jive'n you or anyone else does cannot and will not change that

Don't forget the very important imperative to not yoke with the unbeliever.

Let me ask you this: would you forbid marriage between a Christian and a not Christian? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, Christian morality does not change. I challenge you to find in the NT support for slavery, misogyny or imperialism
Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical writer ever said anything against slavery. Silence gives assent.
Paul would not allow women to speak up in church, or to teach.
Both Jesus and Paul refer to the coming kingdom.

As to your comment re ounces, cute, but dumb. You are confusing moral standards with other types of standards, Einstein in either of his theories of relativity wasn't addressing standards of morality, nor was your example of Mozart.
Standards are standards. Doesn't matter what kind of standards they are. The firmness of the earth used to be an "absolute." The speed of sound used to be an "absolute." Heck, 30 MPH used to be an "absolute." It used to be OK to enslave and stone people, too, and those MORAL standards changed.

Did he promulgate different moral beliefs on some issues, and if he did, who has the authority today to change his teachings ?
Jesus has given all authority to his body -- the church.

The Apostles were given the task of focusing his teachings by him, again who has the authority today to modify those teachings. No one
So, I guess you strictly adhere to what all RCC, EO, and Anglican bishops have to teach? Because they are the ones specifically to succeed the apostles.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Christians don't accept that non canonical writings are a vital part of anything.
What constitutes "non-canonical?" I can guarantee that plenty of Christians hold that the Desert Fathers are a vital part of the Faith, and that the majority of Christians hold that doctrines, letters, etc. written by bishops are a vital part of the Faith, as is the Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity.

I suggest you go back and study the Crusades, , they have been a long term study of mine, and you are in error.
Lots of people studied the stars for the long term, too, and they mistakenly came up with astrology.

With respect, your knowledge of the Bible appears to be limited, you are speaking of things you don't know.
A graduate degree (with high honors) in biblical studies, and an invitation to write a paper on the synoptics for a peer-reviewed journal say otherwise.

Predestination can be interpreted from a variety of verses, ditto for sola fide. I suggest you read Luther, Calvin, and above all the New Testament, before you propose to state what is in the Bible.
Been there, done that. Might I suggest the same to you?

with respect, I don't have the time to discuss the Bible with someone who is ignorant of its content.
You may want to cut out all that pesky self-talk then...
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Don't forget the very important imperative to not yoke with the unbeliever.

Let me ask you this: would you forbid marriage between a Christian and a not Christian? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole
1) That's probably not a "MORAL" injunction,

--or--

2) Not being a Believer, that's really "none of your concern."
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
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.
1rof1ROFL_zps05e59ced.gif
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Yes it is. It absolutely is! Since Xy is the majority religion on the planet, what Christians think, how they judge, and how they treat others sets the bar for social attitudes. Christians are in the majority, which puts anyone else in a minority. How those minorities are included (or excluded) says a lot about who Christians are. When Christians make statements to the effect that who one is (remember: according to psychology, sexual identity is an identity), is sin, it is "about them."
People may choose not to be Christians. If they choose otherwise, they must accept the moral standards associated with their choice. People outside the faith should not be held accountable for standards applied within the faith. You are right, who is included or excluded does say much about who Christians are. Sorry, but I couldn't care less what psychology says on the subject. Habitual , cherished homosexual behavior is a sin. You may not like it, but then you do not determine what I believe. No matter what you think, the Bible says what it says, and you nor anyone else can change that. I and my fellow believers have the absolute right to worship as we choose, and the absolute right of freedom of association to include, or exclude, whomever we choose from fellowship with us. You may not like that, but there are many things in life that we do not like. I am not asking you to believe as I do, nor am I attempting to sway your opinion on any subject in any direction. It is what it is and all the argument there is possible will not change Christian morality. The only caveat is if a human gene is identified that without question causes homosexuality in every case where it is present, I will reconsider the issue
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
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?
It's not about being anti-gay....it is about truth....the bible tradition is unambiguous in its condemnation,,, That said...that is between the homosexual and their maker... I accept that homosexuals are human beings like everyone else...so it is still a case of treating them kindly just as we ordinary folk like to be treated kindly.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Except that it has. I already gave several examples. If you don't think it's moral to say, stone unruly children to death, then you agree that morality has changed over time. A supposedly divinely inspired book admonishes us to do all kinds of terrible things, including committing genocide against our neighbours. I don't see Christians doing this anymore (for the most part) so something must have changed. And if you want to say well that's because Christian actions have changed, then are you saying you think it's moral to commit genocide against your neighbours if it is commanded in this ancient book, and that it is something Christians should still be doing, if they think god told them to do it?

Sin is not a disorder by any psychological definition. It is a sin. And it is something that is confined to specific religions.
Gads ! , listen (read) very carefully. Christians NEVER were admonished to stone children, Christians were NEVER admonished to commit genocide. Christianity and Judaism are two different belief systems. What can I do to make you understand that The NT superceded the old, That Christians recognize the NT as the standard. What the ancient Jews did, and their legal code does not apply to Christians. Can you see it now ? Christians follow the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, separate from Judaism.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What constitutes "non-canonical?" I can guarantee that plenty of Christians hold that the Desert Fathers are a vital part of the Faith, and that the majority of Christians hold that doctrines, letters, etc. written by bishops are a vital part of the Faith, as is the Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity.


Lots of people studied the stars for the long term, too, and they mistakenly came up with astrology.


A graduate degree (with high honors) in biblical studies, and an invitation to write a paper on the synoptics for a peer-reviewed journal say otherwise.


Been there, done that. Might I suggest the same to you?


You may want to cut out all that pesky self-talk then...
If you have a graduate theology degree, I suspect you bought it online, no matter. Yes, the post Apostolic writers had important things to say as did the reformers, but they do not establish doctrine, only the Bible does that. You example of things not found in the Bible is simply wrong. Calvin had scripture to support his interpretation for pre destination or hyper pre destination, he may have interpreted it wrongly, but it was there. The trinity is supported by quite a bit of Biblical material, but a counter view for Arianism also can be interpreted. Doctrinalism is majoring in minors within Protestant denominations. The foundation beliefs are the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top