Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ben Dhyan]

God and I are fine. I don't need to argue with Him about it. It's the dumb, illogical and hateful humans I'm always having to argue with about this stuff.

Based on your rhetoric, it seems you are the only hateful one of all three of us... I have no problem with God, you, or myself....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Based on your rhetoric, it seems you are the only hateful one of all three of us... I have no problem with God, you, or myself....

Nothing I said was hateful. Just because someone has stupid views (I've had stupid views in the past, too) doesn't mean they can't learn, reconsider and change their views. It happens a lot. Should happen more.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing I said was hateful. Just because someone has stupid views (I've had stupid views in the past, too) doesn't mean they can't learn, reconsider and change their views. It happens a lot. Should happen more.

Just be careful...I may throw Matthew 5:22 at you otherwise...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just be careful...I may throw Matthew 5:22 at you otherwise...

That would be better advice for @shmogie , who was cursing at people earlier. Did you call him on that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That would be better advice for @shmogie , who was cursing at people earlier. Did you call him on that?

Nah....he'd probably just tell me that nothing he said was hateful....just because someone has stupid views (I'd had stupid views in the past, too) doesn't mean they can't learn, reconsider and change their views. It happens a lot. Should happen more. ....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nah....he'd probably just tell me that nothing he said was hateful....just because someone has stupid views (I'd had stupid views in the past, too) doesn't mean they can't learn, reconsider and change their views. It happens a lot. Should happen more. ....

Now you're just mocking me. I'm done talking to you.

 

[viole]

I am not talking about treatment facilities, or indoctrination or anything of the like. I am talking about people who were exposed to the Gospel, studied and developed faith, very deep faith, and said one day " I have been changed by the power of God, he performed a miracle in my life". They weren't shamed, they weren't compelled God simply changed them I believe it, they believed it, and years later they still believe it. There is no room in your world for miracles of God, but that doesn't make them any less real.

If homosexuality is a choice, does it take God's intervention to simply change a choice? And why does He do that? Isn't that messing around with our free will to choose whether to sin or not?

You seem to contradict the assumption that homosexuality is not built in some people naturally. That it takes miracles to change it. A miracle like curing a child from cancer, or some other naturally occurring things.

If miracles are the temporary suspension of the laws of nature, then a miracle involving the conversion of a gay into a straight is the temporary suspension of the laws of nature. Therefore, staying gay was just following the default course of nature.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

I know what the word means, and you missed one itty bitty detail about the verses you quoted.... the Ancient Israelites were given the right to make slaves of the sojourners among them, but not to go into a foreign land and (but, for profit) make slaves of the foreigners there, which is what happened with the Slave Trade. And once again, those verses clearly speak about Ancient Israelites, not 17th century Englishmen. Tell you what, until you can provide me with an unequivocally universal command from God (meaning, God speaking to or about the whole human race, not just a specific ancient group of people who were scattered across the four corners of the earth), I will stick with my previous statements on the matter. You have done absolutely nothing substantial to change my opinion on the matter.

And this is absolute BULL!

The Bible itself has stories of them conquering other lands and taking slaves - especially sex slaves.

One such verse -

Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy woman;

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days.And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

Concubines are sex slaves - and if you read your Bible you will see they often came from other nations.

We are also told they can buy from the foreigners - whom obviously would be bringing in foreign slaves.

And we have a history of their slave use and slave trade right up to and including the Civil war, - as already shown.

Here is some of that information.

" 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.


"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.


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13799-slaves-and-slavery


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

*

 

[JoStories]

It's not just an American thing, either. It's widespread in various cultures. Being penetrated by another man or male is usually viewed as "lowering" oneself to the status of a woman or being "emasculated". It's a very ancient notion and was prevalent throughout the Hellenic world, especially. In the Hellenic world, the one who penetrates wasn't really stigmatized, because to penetrate, in of itself, was viewed as masculine. So for an adult man to take on a young male lover or a male who is viewed as feminine and penetrate him wasn't viewed as a problem. Those ideas spread throughout the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa, etc. which all tend to have "macho" cultures. They also have very sizable homosexual "undergrounds" and the practice of pederasty is common.

Basically, it's a "macho" patriarchal view and it's tied into sexism. Men raised in those cultures tend to be pretty neurotic when it comes to that, because it's so culturally tied into their notions of what masculinity is, itself. They don't want to be seen as "sissies", "punks" and "b_tches". Look at prison, for example. Male prisons are hypermasculine environments and male on male rape is used as a way of humiliating and dominating another male, and that's because our culture tends to see taking the penetrative role in sex as inherently being dominating and an act of possession.

Anyway, that view of sexuality and imbuing genitals with some sort of binary categorization or function has basically made our culture pretty bonkers about sex. Sexism, homophobia and transphobia are all strongly interlinked and they're mostly the product of male neurosis with leads them to suppress and hurt themselves and also to oppress and hurt others. Men in general need to do a lot of self-searching and grow the hell up, in general.

Women's sexuality has been much more ignored, historically and socially. They really didn't care what women did, as long as the women the men wanted were sexually available to them. Of course, the typical straight man's fantasy of women being sexual with each other is male-centric and heterosexist. It erases and objectifies lesbians and their actual sexuality. Because they obviously just need to be banged well enough by a guy in order to "fix" them and make them see what they're "missing", and obviously lesbianism exists to serve male needs.

Yes, of course its across many cultures. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a culture that did not objective the two issues, in one way or another. But Frank, this mini-essay deserved a repeat. Bravo!

 

[JoStories]

When I left Christianity, the "friends" I lost thought I was demonically possessed.

My mother's church friends continue, to this day, to pressure her into forcing me into that faith. Also they pray that I will 'come back to the true faith'. I never lost friends by my choosing Buddhism, and there was a time when I trained with my Shaman to replace him. I found that it was so much work that I could not do that, with no pay, and support myself and my mother. But for your friends to think you were demonically possessed?? Shame on them.

 

[JoStories]

I no longer participated in the parties, I didn;t take long motorcycle rides with them on Sunday, I didn't appreciate some of the language that I used to use but, then tried to stop, the off color jokes no longer amused me, we simply ceased having a lot of things in common. There was no " break" They simply stopped inviting me to do things they knew I would prefer not to do any longer, and I understood that. If they needed help, they know I would step up, just as I know they would help me

I fail to see how a motorcycle ride is against the Bible. I can understand the language thing, although I don't really because its simply a word with little to no meaning. For example, I knew a woman who would say "I don't give a rip" Now can someone explain to me how that is different in any way from "I don't give a sh*t". The meaning behind the words is exactly the same. All you are doing is deluding yourself.

 

[JoStories]

You are the one who is unable to understand clear and precise words correctly translated from the Greek, not I. Perhaps your glasses of denial and obfuscation should be removed, so you can see what is perfectly clear to hundreds of millions of people. Try it, it might sting, but the truth is always better than lies

What of the parts of the Bible that were written in Aramaic or Hebrew? You seem to think the Bible was all written in Greek. In order for me to study the Bible historically and culturally, I had to learn enough of all 3 languages to understand the differences in semantics that were at times profound in their meanings. Can you read or understand any of those languages and have you seen the differences in meaning that I speak of?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, of course its across many cultures. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a culture that did not objective the two issues, in one way or another. But Frank, this mini-essay deserved a repeat. Bravo!

Thanks.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

People's stories about their hardships dealing with so-called Christians make me sad. I'm a queer (not gay, not using the term that way) and transsexual but thankfully I was able to reconcile those things with my relationship to God. I am not celibate or pursuing celibacy, either. I had to learn not to let others get in the way of my relationship with God and Christ. I spent periods in anger and hatred at the Church for its mistreatment of LGBT people, among many other people. But I have to keep in mind that I'm part of the Church, too. The ones who abuse others in the name of God don't own it.

 

[sojourner]

Fine...you can pretend whatever......

Right back at ya.

 

[sojourner]

Only in your mind....pretense..

Pfft. Whatever makes you comfortable. If you're happy throwing people under the bus for the sake of your own comfort, I can't help it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

People's stories about their hardships dealing with so-called Christians make me sad. I'm a queer (not gay, not using the term that way) and transsexual but thankfully I was able to reconcile those things with my relationship to God. I am not celibate or pursuing celibacy, either. I had to learn not to let others get in the way of my relationship with God and Christ. I spent periods in anger and hatred at the Church for its mistreatment of LGBT people, among many other people. But I have to keep in mind that I'm part of the Church, too. The ones who abuse others in the name of God don't own it.

I know Christians who are make a point of being inclusive and treating everyone with respect as equals, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation. To me they are the real Christians, and I have little patience with Bible-thumping homophobes or judgemental attitudes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thank you but no sir....personal sexual practices, speculation about sexual erotic zones, and hypothetical genitalia design, are not high on my religious agenda to argue about right now...

If you have such strong feelings towards them, certianly you can explain why. But it seems more that you can't, rather than an unwillingness, to defend your position of the sexual functions of non-genital areas, and you can't even list one homosexual sex act that is exclusively and more frequently preferred by homosexuals.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Love is not a sin; lust is a sin

How does body parts turn love to lust?

 

[shmogie]

What of the parts of the Bible that were written in Aramaic or Hebrew? You seem to think the Bible was all written in Greek. In order for me to study the Bible historically and culturally, I had to learn enough of all 3 languages to understand the differences in semantics that were at times profound in their meanings. Can you read or understand any of those languages and have you seen the differences in meaning that I speak of?

Most of the NT texts were written in Greek, or if they were in Aramaic, those texts have not survived but very early Greek translations do., I have had exposure to NT Greek, but more importantly, I know people who know it fluently, and I as well own 8 different Greek to English translations, and the highest rated Greek to English lexicons, I have little interest in Hebrew, for the OT is not that upon which I build my faith. As history, it is very interesting, but that is where I leave it. In the verses that are being discussed, the words are perfectly clear, unambiguous, and any nuances of semantics, or any other kind simply don';t exist. The writers want to make a statement that was clear then, as well as clear today. They understood fully that what they wrote would be foundation principles of the faith, for the duration, thus it is emphatic and clear. Here is the problem that others have that I do not. A) IF the NT was divinely inspired, B) IF it says things that people do not like and do not accept C) its credibility must be attacked.. So, first are those who are convinced that it doesn't say what it does who do circus flips and reach the realms of incredulity in affirming what you read is not what you read. Second, there are those who deny the inspiration, thus denying the authority, so they can do whatever they choose. Then, my particular favorites are the deniers, who simply say "it doesn't say that", I guess if they thought somehow in their mind that murder was acceptable, they would say "it doesn't say that" when murder is enumerated as sinful. All are free to believe and do as they choose. Christianity has always been about the freedom of choices. I or the many multiple millions that believe as I do are not asking anyone to believe anything..............