Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

BULL! They claim this Bible of theirs is from God - and very obviously from their posts on this site, they believe in and try to use Leviticus law.

Homosexuality laws, and slavery, being just two of these.

You folks can't claim it ain't so, - after you yourselves have used it.

*

Sorry, it ain't so. I have never used OT laws for anything but history. You are wrong. If others claim OT laws apply in the Christian dispensation, they are wrong

 

[Shadow Wolf]

homosexual marriages are not recognized within the Church.

Ya know, many of the arguments used by the church today that are against homosexuality were also used against inter-racial marriages. Many churches didn't recognize them then, and today it's hardly an issue unless it's someone who is old and clinging onto ways that are dying out.

Perhaps, since you are an authority, you should tell them they aren't happy, they really do not love their spouse, they don't deserve natural born children, and they must abandon all, because YOU say they cannot change.

What do you mean?
And it's not him, or me, saying they can't change, but lots and lots and lots of research into the subject.

 

[shmogie]

I find it kinda of weird that you would deny someone participation in Communion or Baptism. Wouldn't that be up to the god you worship to decide if "he" will accept such a thing or not?

God has made it clear that baptism is the outward demonstration of repentence and a changed heart. Cherished sin must be relinquished. A woman with 14 convictions for shoplifting in the previous 18 months must surely declare that that sin has been abandoned before baptism. Communion is a very serious thing, it is the most sacred and important of sacraments. One must approach it with a clean and renewed conscience. There have been times when I have not taken communion when I felt I wasn't right with God. Once again, a sinful condition not abandoned precludes participation

 

[shmogie]

Ya know, many of the arguments used by the church today that are against homosexuality were also used against inter-racial marriages. Many churches didn't recognize them then, and today it's hardly an issue unless it's someone who is old and clinging onto ways that are dying out.

What do you mean?
And it's not him, or me, saying they can't change, but lots and lots and lots of research into the subject.

No. Clearly stated verses condemning homosexual acts were never used for anything related to inter racial marriages. The lots and lots of research must be wrong, because the fact is that there are lot's and lot's of homosexuals who have changed. You and others are being totally dogmatic, your research says they cannot change, ergo one who is happily pursuing a heterosexual lifestyle, can't really be doing what they obviously are, nor can they be who they say they are, because the research says they can't

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Clearly stated verses condemning homosexual acts were never used for anything related to inter racial marriages. The lots and lots of research must be wrong, because the fact is that there are lot's and lot's of homosexuals who have changed. You and others are being totally dogmatic, your research says they cannot change, ergo one who is happily pursuing a heterosexual lifestyle, can't really be doing what they obviously are, nor can they be who they say they are, because the research says they can't

Who am I to believe. A person who just says they can change and be happy, or a myriad of systematic studies that show they don't change, and things such as reparative therapy causing increased depression and suicidal tendencies.
And, if you notice, I didn't say all the arguments were the same, I said many of the arguments are the same.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Old Testament has been by the New Testament. Some OT laws have been reintroduced in the new. You are quoting laws that were abandoned by Israel a century or more before Christ, Jews today don't use the Torah and other parts of the OT , they have been using the Talmud to interpret and define their beliefs for 2,000 years. Slavery is not a Talmudic institution.

Baloney! Doesn't change a thing that I said.

And religious Jews cannot abandon the laws of YHVH. They may choose not to implement them in a modern world, but that is totally different from abandoning them.

According to Jewish Encyclopedia - you are wrong on that - "Slavery is not a Talmudic institution."

" At the first acquisition of an adult Gentile bondman by an Israelite owner, the Talmud teaches that the bondman should be consulted with respect to becoming circumcised. and that, if he persistently refuses during a space of twelve months to undergo the rite, the owner should return him to the Gentile owner."

And it tells us at the top of the article that we are talking about real slaves - not bondsmen.

"The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49)."

"Ever since the Diaspora wealthy Jews have owned non-Jewish slaves wherever slavery was recognized by law. As soon as it became optional whether bondmen or bondwomen should be circumcised and converted into Jewish bondage, generally they were not thus received. Under older decisions ("Yad," 'Abadim, v. 5) the Biblical rule that the bondman or bondwoman becomes free by the loss of "eye or tooth" is applied only to those received into the Jewish fold; hence though the lack of witnesses and of ordained judges might be overcome, this path to freedom was shut off by the absence of bondmen and bondwomen to whom it applied."

"But later authorities (especially in Christian countries; see ReMA's gloss on Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 267, 4) assert that the Israelite, in purchasing the bondman, may specially contract not to introduce him into Judaism; and that "now and here" such a contract would be presumed in all cases, because Jews are not permitted to make converts."

So obviously still keeping slaves into Christian times.

*

 

[shmogie]

Baloney! Doesn't change a thing that I said.

And religious Jews cannot abandon the laws of YHVH. They may choose not to implement them in a modern world, but that is totally different from abandoning them.

According to Jewish Encyclopedia - you are wrong on that - "Slavery is not a Talmudic institution."

" At the first acquisition of an adult Gentile bondman by an Israelite owner, the Talmud teaches that the bondman should be consulted with respect to becoming circumcised. and that, if he persistently refuses during a space of twelve months to undergo the rite, the owner should return him to the Gentile owner."

And it tells us at the top of the article that we are talking about real slaves - not bondsmen.

"The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49)."

"Ever since the Diaspora wealthy Jews have owned non-Jewish slaves wherever slavery was recognized by law. As soon as it became optional whether bondmen or bondwomen should be circumcised and converted into Jewish bondage, generally they were not thus received. Under older decisions ("Yad," 'Abadim, v. 5) the Biblical rule that the bondman or bondwoman becomes free by the loss of "eye or tooth" is applied only to those received into the Jewish fold; hence though the lack of witnesses and of ordained judges might be overcome, this path to freedom was shut off by the absence of bondmen and bondwomen to whom it applied."

"But later authorities (especially in Christian countries; see ReMA's gloss on Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 267, 4) assert that the Israelite, in purchasing the bondman, may specially contract not to introduce him into Judaism; and that "now and here" such a contract would be presumed in all cases, because Jews are not permitted to make converts."

So obviously still keeping slaves into Christian times.

*

 

[shmogie]

[/QUOTEI stand corrected. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Christianity. Jews never kept slaves after 70 AD as far as I know, and they certainly don't keep them now. However, this is a side issue, and not related to the thread title

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't quote the Levitical law re anything other than history

You use that law against homosexuals.

There is no New Testament probation on homosexuality as you have been shown - (a sex rite in worship of God as a bird) - obviously is about Sacred Sex - not homosexuality.

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals.

*

 

[shmogie]

Who am I to believe. A person who just says they can change and be happy, or a myriad of systematic studies that show they don't change, and things such as reparative therapy causing increased depression and suicidal tendencies.
And, if you notice, I didn't say all the arguments were the same, I said many of the arguments are the same.

You are free to believe whomever you choose. I would suggest however that you not call one of these folks a liar, no matter how much you believe they are. Perhaps your research is excluding the spiritual factor, and its ability to effect change in a person. None of the "arguments" are the same. The position is expressed in clear NT texts, that's it. No crossover with inter racial marrige

 

[shmogie]

You use that law against homosexuals.

There is no New Testament probation on homosexuality as you have been shown - (a sex rite in worship of God as a bird) - obviously is about Sacred Sex - not homosexuality.

Jesus said nothing against homosexuals.

*

Here is where you lose touch with reality, and drift away. Jesus said nothing about a lot of things. What you have "shown" is nonsense from a nonsense source

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No crossover with inter racial marrige

The crossover is that Christians were using the Bible to defend their bigotry against inter-racial marriages, and, yes, many of the arguments are the same, and they often lead to a "moral decay" and "end of society" type of nonsense.

Perhaps your research is excluding the spiritual factor, and its ability to effect change in a person.

Then why do these "spiritual" therapies so very frequently end with the patient being worse-off after therapy than when they began?

 

[Ingledsva]

stand corrected. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Christianity. Jews never kept slaves after 70 AD as far as I know, and they certainly don't keep them now. However, this is a side issue, and not related to the thread title

Baloney! ALL of the religions of Abraham are connected, and used their religious texts to condone their slave trade.

"American mainland colonial Jews imported slaves from Africa at a rate proportionate to the general population. As slave sellers, their role was more marginal, although their involvement in the Brazilian and Caribbean trade is believed to be considerably more significant"

The Columbia History of Jews and Judaism in America, by Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael

"Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in Brazil and Suriname, but also in Barbados and Jamaica. Especially in Suriname, Jews owned many large plantations. Many of the ethnic Jews in the New World, particularly in Brazil, were "New Christians" or "Conversos", some of which continued to practice Judaism, so the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish slave owners is a difficult distinction for scholars to make"

The Jewish - Christian - Islamic slave trade continued uninterrupted up to the civil war, and beyond in the case of Islam.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Here is where you lose touch with reality, and drift away. Jesus said nothing about a lot of things. What you have "shown" is nonsense from a nonsense source

LOL! Sure it is!

Tell me how sex rites in worship of God as an animal, - is homosexuality.

This is Idolatry - sex worship for another God.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

EDIT - Forgot to add - that "Jesus said nothing about a lot things" is ridiculous.

We are discussing things Christians claim are in the OT. Jesus was a Jew. He said he did NOT come to change the LAW.

Yet he said nothing against homosexuals. Something one would assume to be very important - the way Christians go on about it.

But - again - he said nothing about it. Perhaps because it isn't actually in Tanakh!

*


*

 

[sojourner]

Systemic violence. what the hell are you talking about ? You and your ilk love to accuse, the more outrageous the better. Well, f**k you and your judgemental, smug, and debased reasoning.

*sigh* let me explain. The established majority (read: white, male, Protestant, Christian) have historically held the social power and set the social standard in this country. And that establishment has systemically kept the "minority du jour" from participating fully in society. Up until the 20th century, women were denied the vote, land and property ownership, and access to the job market. They are still denied full access to ministry in some denominations. That represents a systemic dehumanization, based upon a person's sex. First Nations people and those of Asian descent were also systemically discriminated against -- as well as Jews. Blacks were systemically enslaved, and when freed, were subject to Jim Crow and "separate but equal" discrimination. These forms of discrimination, upheld through laws and social rules, were dehumanizing to those so discriminated against. Today, the same kinds of laws and rules keep homosexuals from full participation. Just like other, preceding minorities. In fact, the selfsame arguments that were used in the last century to justify a biblical position of discrimination against blacks are today being used to justify systemic discrimination against homosexuals. Simply substitute "homosexual" for "black." I'm accusing you because you're part of the problem of systemic discrimination with your oh-so-"pure" church that denies membership to the "unrepentant" homosexual.

F**ck me? You seem to be the one hellbent on condemnation here.

 

[sojourner]

State sponsored marriages are not the same as Christian marriages, homosexual marriages are not recognized within the Church

Yes they are -- just not in YOUR church.

your reasoning is proven false by one time homosexuals that are thriving with spouses and children

It's also borne out by the many, many more who are vastly unhappy, stuck, and suicidal. Do you really want to throw those people under the bus just to assuage your own sense of what's "right?"

 

[shmogie]

Yes they are -- just not in YOUR church.


It's also borne out by the many, many more who are vastly unhappy, stuck, and suicidal. Do you really want to throw those people under the bus just to assuage your own sense of what's "right?"

Don;'t you get it, I don't think you are as stupid as you appear. I am doing nothing to anybody. It is not my sense of right or wrong, it is two thousand years of very clear understanding of scripture, Scripture that I believe is God inspired and is part of the standards I try and uphold. You may not like it, any number of people may not like it, that is totally irrelevant to me.No one should seek membership in my church if they are unable or unwilling to meet the membership requirements. End of story, end of discussion

 

[sojourner]

You don't tell me when sin has or has not been committed, your authority is nil.

You don't tell anyone else when sin has or has not been committed. Your authority is nil. And you further have no authority to determine what the bible definitively does or does not say with regard to homosexuals, or their orientation, or their expressions of love. You've got no credibility other than your own overblown bibliolatry.

 

[sojourner]

I am doing nothing to anybody.

Yes. You are, according to what you're posting here.

It is not my sense of right or wrong, it is two thousand years of very clear understanding of scripture, Scripture that I believe is God inspired and is part of the standards I try and uphold

Your understanding is clear as mud.

No one should seek membership in my church if they are unable or unwilling to meet the membership requirements. End of story, end of discussion

Thanks for not upholding the biblical concept of hospitality, or Christ's example of including the outcast.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why? It's mortals who are doing the dehumanizing -- not God.

Why would you not respect me? Is there a reason I should doubt that a Christian would give another person full respect?

The prophets speak for God....why do you contradict me?

Why do you ask?