Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Use Red Herrings much?

Necrophilia and pedophilia have nothing to do with homosexuality, or homosexuality laws actually being in the Bible or not. Sex with animals that can't give informed consent has nothing to do with homosexuality!

As we have said over and over - if you don't think we are correct - THEN PROVE IT!!!!! Stop throwing up TRANSLATIONS - without actual rebuttal - and proof for your side of the argument!

Stop crap that has nothing to do with the debate.

Sacred Sex- Idolatry - is what was punishable by death.

Beyond this, necrophilia is recognized world wide as a crime. Pedophilia is recognized as a crime by most of the world. As long as backward areas allow children to be "raped" (for that is what it is) children will die.

You should know that the people of your Bible allowed marriage by SEX with a child three years and one day old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many do you think died????

It is most likely that none of the NT writers knew Jesus.

Sound exegesis? How about years of homophobia - showing up in the translations?

*

 

[shmogie]

Use Red Herrings much?

Necrophilia and pedophilia have nothing to do with homosexuality, or homosexuality laws actually being in the Bible or not. Sex with animals that can't give informed consent has nothing to do with homosexuality!

As we have said over and over - if you don't think we are correct - THEN PROVE IT!!!!! Stop throwing up TRANSLATIONS - without actual rebuttal - and proof for your side of the argument!

Stop crap that has nothing to do with the debate.

Sacred Sex- Idolatry - is what was punishable by death.

Beyond this, necrophilia is recognized world wide as a crime. Pedophilia is recognized as a crime by most of the world. As long as backward areas allow children to be "raped" (for that is what it is) children will die.

You should know that the people of your Bible allowed marriage by SEX with a child three years and one day old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many do you think died????

It is most likely that none of the NT writers knew Jesus.

Sound exegesis? How about years of homophobia - showing up in the translations?
I have no desire to respond to you. your stated positions are so bizarre and erroneous, I have no interest in discussing them with you. I have no idea where you get this garbage from, but I will leave it with you
*

 

[Ingledsva]

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")

Get real!

Homosexuality and murder don't belong together in any sentence.

I'm getting tired of CRAP, and CRIMES, that have nothing to do homosexuality, being alluded to as the same.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe the commandment is basically forbidding any sex that is not between a married man and woman. THink of how the word adulterate is used. It means to change beyond the intended condition. So false religion is called adultery by God because it isn't the religion He intended.

The religion as intended, - has women as owned slaves, - with no choice, - passed from one male to another.

*

 

[NewChapter]

Get real!

Homosexuality and murder don't belong together in any sentence.

I'm getting tired of CRAP, and CRIMES, that have nothing to do homosexuality, being alluded to as the same.


*

Well I respect that. So, let's just say any feeling that we have does not have to be followed or acted on...

 

[Ingledsva]

I have no desire to respond to you. your stated positions are so bizarre and erroneous, I have no interest in discussing them with you. I have no idea where you get this garbage from, but I will leave it with you

My positions are neither bizarre, nor erroneous (in my opinion.)

People whom can't prove their position with sound rebuttal and research, - often decide to no longer debate with me.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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

Not in my opinion.

Some later translations say that homosexuality is sin.


*

 

[shmogie]

It's you posts that say things such as "you don't like people who don't agree with you" or "I don't care what psychologists say" and saying "I shouldn't associate with them (which is about as unChrist-like as it gets)." You don't want to deal with them "however is required" and they are not to be your "best friend." That screams prejudice, and it's literally no different than when a Klansman says they won't associate with blacks or Jews because of what the Bible says.

Actually, I have hung out with and associated with such people. I do visit people in the "worst part of town," I've been friends with drug dealers, even a convicted child molester I have treated with decency and respect. Unless you've harmed me, or a friend, I have no reason to hate you, shun you, or treat you with anything less than what any other human being is entitled to. Poor, wealth, well, ill, intelligent, foolish, the only people I do not tolerate are bullies, or those who tolerate bullying. Then I'll bite your head off.

You are full of bull. Your position is nonsense, and your name calling is the product of a childish mind. I have the right to be friends, or not, with whomever I choose. You are once again extrapolating from your own personal prejudice. I don't hate anyone, nor do I treat anyone with less than respect, Why are you so hell bent on completing your warped picture, with false brushes. Well, you must take up with Paul whether it is Un Christlike not to be Pals with whom he identifies very clearly. So, according to your logic, if I don't have homosexual friends, I am, by default, a hater who treats them badly. Paul said that his admonitions applied to believers only. He said further that you would have to leave the planet to disassociate yourself from them in daily life. So, apparently, you demand that I must allow those who think like you to dictate who I must befriend, that I must allow you to tell me what the Bible says, and I must allow you to decide who should be offered membership in my church. Once I do those things, am I copacetic with you ? Or, must we complete the job with you telling me what to think too ? I have an obligation to treat all people with whom I come into contact fairly and with dignity and respect. That's it. As long as I do that you have no basis for your static, and your projections are wishes on your part rather than having any basis in reality

 

[shmogie]

My positions are neither bizarre, nor erroneous (in my opinion.)

People whom can't prove their position with sound rebuttal and research, - often decide to no longer debate with me.

*

I see, others recognize the futility of debating with someone whose positions are nonsense.

 

[shmogie]

Not in my opinion.

Some later translations say that homosexuality is sin.


*

You are free to your own opinion.

 

[shmogie]

Get real!

Homosexuality and murder don't belong together in any sentence.

I'm getting tired of CRAP, and CRIMES, that have nothing to do homosexuality, being alluded to as the same.


*

A sin, is a sin, is a sin. Don't like it ? Don't accept it

 

[sojourner]

OK you believe the Bible doesn't view homosexuality as sinful, I, and the Church for 2,000 years , believe it does. You are free to believe whatever you choose. Oh, I know emphatically what the Bible says, you don't think so, fine. Christian standards are clearly enumerated by Christ and the Apostles, they are unambiguous. They have been unambiguous and held by the Church for 2,000 years, even by people who knew Christ, you believe they, the Church, and believers who hold the standards they did are wrong. So, believe that folly if you choose, you have that absolute right, just as people have the right to believe in the loch ness monster, or that the earth has been hollowed out for alien bases. I don't care what you believe, and your paltry arguments to change what I believe are of less value than the fate of a peanut shell in the Australian outback. So, just let it go

No. I won't "just let it go," simply because you're claiming some kind of historical entitlement to "the truth." There's too much at stake for ones who are systemically oppressed and have little or no voice in the mainstream. I refuse to be complicit in that violence of discrimination and judgment, and I will speak out against it every chance I get, speaking for those who can't speak for themselves and standing in solidarity with them against this evil. You yell about the "standards of Christ," and I shall yell louder that the standards of Christ are NOT judgment and condemnation, but welcome and inclusion of everyone, as they are, who they are.

As I've already pointed out, the morality we are to hold is not implacable, and our knowledge is not complete. The church believed for a long time that the earth was flat and immovable. The writer of Genesis asserts that the earth is a flat disc, and that the sky is a rigid dome. The church persecuted those who tried to prove otherwise. We know and can prove that the bible is WRONG in that regard. Your claim to "2000 years" of church history is not cogent here. It is not "you and the rest of the Church" against me. The Pope is increasingly open toward homosexuality. The ECUSA, ELCA, UCC, DOC, PCUSA and others now openly embrace homosexuality -- even within the clergy.

This has nothing to do with "biblical morality," and everything to do with maintaining the current power status quo. You want to claim that you have "the truth." Believe that folly if you want, but if you spew discriminatory venom in a public forum, you're going to find that I shall not keep quiet, and shall stand against it.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, the claim is that the universe and everything in it was created in six days. Now, if you were there as a witness, you have standing to address the issue. Since you probably were not, you have an opinion. Spit in your right hand and you are holding the equal value of opinions

Actually, science is on my side of that argument. You continue to spit, yourself, and see how far it goes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, apparently, you demand that I must allow those who think like you to dictate who I must befriend,

I never made such a claim. However, what I did say was that if you refuse to be friends with a homosexual simply because they are homosexual, you have prejudices against them. It's not an issue of having gay friends, but if you would be friends with gay people. But you don't even want to associate with them. I'm not trying to tell you how to think, or who do be friends with, but a flat-out refusal to even associate with a certain group because of some trivial, petty, and insignificant difference, I will call that bigotry because it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, science is on my side of that argument. You continue to spit, yourself, and see how far it goes.

That's the great thing about science. You didn't have to actually be there to find clues, reveal the evidence, and piece together how things came to be.

 

[Ingledsva]

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

You haven't proven that Paul actually said any such thing. It can't even be proven that he wrote those verses.

We have challenged all of "his" so-called verses against homosexuals.

And Jesus said nothing about same sex people and marriage. I'll assume you are referring to Matthew 19 - which says nothing about homosexuals.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

So why do you folks keep harping on "supposed" Tanakh texts about homosexuality?

The NT actually says nothing against homosexuals, - as has been shown.

Jesus never said anything against homosexuals.

*

 

[sojourner]

it was Christ who established the doctrine of the trinity

It was the Council of Nicea.

Homosexuality IS a sin

It is not. Homosexual acts, in some contexts, may be considered sinful, but not the orientation. You go ahead and quote your "7 translations." The problem isn't in the translation -- it's in the intended meaning. The writers were either mistaken with regard to the nature of the acts they were condemning, or they were talking about non-committed, non-loving encounters. In any case, none of them were talking about sexual orientation (homosexuality). They were talking about homosexual acts. As we well know, one does not have to be homosexual in order to commit homosexual acts. There's a huge difference between the orientation and the act.

 

[sojourner]

I will call it what I choose

If you're calling it a "disorder," you'd be wrong. Why use an inaccurate term that only serves to dehumanize a group of people, just to satisfy your overblown sense of morality and entitlement?

 

[sojourner]

I find the homosexual revisionism of the bible so egregiously contrived and incredulous...it makes those activists who push it look ridiculous. Having said that, I reiterate...they should be respected as human beings as we all like to be respected...

Asserting that they are sin is not respecting them -- it dehumanizes them. What's being revised is the context in which the meaning is conveyed. To the writers, homosexuality was non-existent, yet you read into the texts a meaning based in your own understanding of homosexuality. That's revisionism.