Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

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.

All are free to believe and do as they choose, that is between they and God. You must take up with the writers of the NT their, as you describe it "homophobia" ( a truly non applicable term ) or their judgemental attitudes. I don';t thump the Bible, I read and study it., I certainly would never even have broached this subject if it were not for the thread title., Apparently the question asked was a dishonest one, it should have been." If the Christian faith has very clear views on homosexuality tell us so we can verbally assault you ": The majority of you posting are angry, hostile and cannot bear someone having a different view from you collective groupthink. I have no doubt that if you could, in your hate, you would perform whatever form of harrassment against me or others likje me you could get away with, and feel perfectly justified by it. Because you are right and someone else who see's things differently has no right to those views. The gaystopo is alive and well, but so is the Christian Church, and since we have been told we can stand up to the very demons of hell, your static is insignificant.

 

[shmogie]

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.

You have the right to believe exactly what you choose, as to whether you, or I, or anybody else is part of the true Church, the mystical body of Christ, we will know in the end. A very prominent Christian writer said of that time, " some will be surprised they are in heaven, some will be surprised they are not" Stories of people having "hardships with so called Christians" makes me sad too. Everyone should always be treated with dignity and respect. If these hardships come about because one asks another to change a belief that they cannot compromise, then conscience takes precedence over any resultant "hardship"

 

[shmogie]

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.

If I other things more important to do on the day of the motorcycle ride, I didn't participate. Yes, words ultimately are just sounds, but nevertheless the sounds can be offensive to some people, so I try not to offended or be offended, so I do my best to refrain from using the words, and avoid people whose every third word is f**k. Although, I still in very strong anger let loose with words I would rather not use, I have to apologize to those who heard.

 

[shmogie]

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

I know many people who needed Gods grace to change from a conditions or conditions wrought by their choices. IF a person is given the faith to believe that God will help them overcome the web of their choices, and that is what they want, that in itself is a free choice. Seeking help from a source of help when you want help from the results of countless free choices that have led to addiction, habit, or whatever is wisdom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Except the Bible does clearly states, many times, to not commit murder.

I know many people who needed Gods grace to change from a conditions or conditions wrought by their choices.

You still haven't addressed the core issue of this, which is that you don't need god, faith, or religion to have these "religious" experiences. These religious experiences and changes have been well documented and observed in psychology, sociology, and even anthropology. We can say that people are experiencing something, but we can also say that you don't even need a god to experience it. Even with your cancer example, I know a Reiki practitioner who swears that her master doing Reiki caused her tumors to vanish, but we also know that cancer just sometimes does that for no apparent reason. Faith also does seem to help with mental states, healing, and even acceptance of death. But, faith in anything seems to work, just as long as they believe that it's happening.
I do agree that some people do change, but it's very rare, as it is rare for most things in general to cause long-term impacts that do not motivate on a deep and personal level Just look at how strict the military must be in order to enforce total compliance - that's how hard it generally is to change someone in a fundamental way. But because different things work for different people, if one god doesn't work, it doesn't surprise me if another one does.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The majority of you posting are angry, hostile and cannot bear someone having a different view from you collective groupthink.

No, but I do get frustrated with bigotry, discrimination and prejudice, particularly from people who claim to be following Christ's example.

 

[sojourner]

I have little interest in Hebrew, for the OT is not that upon which I build my faith

It was that upon which Jesus built his faith -- as well as the first Christians for the first at least 100 years of the church.

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

That's not quite true, and it's also patently false that other abiuities don't exist. Especially under contention is the fact that the writers didn't understand the concept of sexual orientation, so whatever statements they make with regard to the acts are to be understood by us with the caveat that our understanding of human sexuality is much broader than theirs. Therefore, we have to understand a couple of things. First, we have to understand that their statements concerning the nature of the acts are coming from a limited understanding of what causes people to act that way. Second, we have to look for the deeper truth of what's being conveyed. IOW, what's at stake here for the writers is the commission of acts that aren't authentic to who one is. These days, "who one is" can include homosexual as well as heterosexual individuals. So the message then becomes " don't act outside your nature."

They understood fully that what they wrote would be foundation principles of the faith, for the duration, thus it is emphatic and clear

No they didn't. They had no clue that they were writing the bible, and to assert that they did is naive. Further, to treat them as in any way infallible, based upon that silly notion is to mistreat the texts.

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

You forgot to mention the folks who revere the texts enough to give them a full, fair and honest exegetical treatment, so that they can be fully understood, and in order to foster accurate interpretations of what's written.

Christianity has always been about the freedom of choices

Apparently, that's not the case for members of your Christian church who "choose" to identify as gay snd to act upon their sexual nature responsibly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christianity has always been about the freedom of choices.

"Obey or leave," "my way or the highway," those approaches are the very anti-thesis of freedom of choice.

 

[sojourner]

Apparently the question asked was a dishonest one, it should have been." If the Christian faith has very clear views on homosexuality tell us so we can verbally assault y

No, it was honest, since the church obviously does not have clear views on the subject, and to pretend that it does is disingenuous.

The majority of you posting are angry, hostile and cannot bear someone having a different view from you collective groupthink

That would certainly apply to your church as you have described it: collective groupthink that cannot bear a homosexual being a member.

you would perform whatever er form of harrassment against me or others likje me you could get away with, and feel perfectly justified by i

You've certainly felt free to justify your own systemic harassment of homosexuals here...

The gaystopo is alive and well, but so is the Christian Church, and since we have been told we can stand up to the very demons of hell, your static is insignificant

Translation: "the bible is on our side, and so is the majority Christisn view. Therefore, you, as the minority, have no voice that is worth either listening to, or worth our respect." If that's not dehumanizing of the minority, I don't know what is!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

This is not about homosexual preferences....it is about what my religion has to say about homosexuality....and I've said it!

 

[shmogie]

No, it was honest, since the church obviously does not have clear views on the subject, and to pretend that it does is disingenuous.


That would certainly apply to your church as you have described it: collective groupthink that cannot bear a homosexual being a member.


You've certainly felt free to justify your own systemic harassment of homosexuals here...


Translation: "the bible is on our side, and so is the majority Christian view. Therefore, you, as the minority, have no voice that is worth either listening to, or worth our respect." If that's not dehumanizing of the minority, I don't know what is!

Disagreeing on principles, based upon 2,000 years of agreement, and the authority of the founders of the Church never were or are dehumanizing to anyone. You are right, there are denominations that have bridged the gap between the clear word and what they want to do. Homosexuals are allowed to be members, and all the rest. I have an acquaintance who was raised in my denomination, and came to the conclusion he was a homosexual and moved his membership to one of these denominations. He was blessed, and was told to go in peace. The last time he and I talked, he was spiritually fulfilled where he was, and I told him I was glad to hear it. What you cannot get through your skull is that a principle doesn't lead to any action against anyone, and those who don't want to abide by any of the foundation principles, say, an Arian, can find a congregation that fits with their principles. You want nothing less than for others to BELIEVE as you do, You are convinced that anyone who DISAGREES with you is, in your mind, committing heinous acts that their adherence to Biblical principles, in your mind, causes them to do. It is in no way different from the thought control that dear leader in N. Korea tries to practice. If you have a thought contrary to his will, and have the temerity to express it, you are branded an enemy for what actions dear leader thinks you will commit. This is classic left wing thought, and many homosexuals and their supporters have adopted whole heartedly. So your real issue is how I think, not why I think that way. You want everyone to think as you, and you are enraged by anyone who does not think like you. If you had your way, the right to free practice of religion would be eliminated, so you could use the state to punish and compel to believe like you. That is truly your agenda, you know it and I know it, It ain';t happening, get over it.

 

[shmogie]

It was that upon which Jesus built his faith -- as well as the first Christians for the first at least 100 years of the church.


That's not quite true, and it's also patently false that other abiuities don't exist. Especially under contention is the fact that the writers didn't understand the concept of sexual orientation, so whatever statements they make with regard to the acts are to be understood by us with the caveat that our understanding of human sexuality is much broader than theirs. Therefore, we have to understand a couple of things. First, we have to understand that their statements concerning the nature of the acts are coming from a limited understanding of what causes people to act that way. Second, we have to look for the deeper truth of what's being conveyed. IOW, what's at stake here for the writers is the commission of acts that aren't authentic to who one is. These days, "who one is" can include homosexual as well as heterosexual individuals. So the message then becomes " don't act outside your nature."


No they didn't. They had no clue that they were writing the bible, and to assert that they did is naive. Further, to treat them as in any way infallible, based upon that silly notion is to mistreat the texts.

You forgot to mention the folks who revere the texts enough to give them a full, fair and honest exegetical treatment, so that they can be fully understood, and in order to foster accurate interpretations of what's written.


Apparently, that's not the case for members of your Christian church who "choose" to identify as gay snd to act upon their sexual nature responsibly.

 

[sojourner]

This is not about homosexual preferences....it is about what my religion has to say about homosexuality....and I've said it!

Except hat what Xy says about homosexuality isn't definitively what you're saying the bible says. First of all, the bible doesn't address homosexuality in the way homosexuality is now understood. Second, the bible isn't the sum total so Xy. So, you haven't remotely accurately represented what Xy says about homosexuality.

 

[sojourner]

Disagreeing on principles, based upon 2,000 years of agreement, and the authority of the founders of the Church never were or are dehumanizing to anyone

Of course they are, when those principles dehumanize groups of minorities who are simply not accepted fully into society, based upon who they are -- such as women, blacks, Jews, First Nations, and homosexuals. And the church has systemically dehumanized all these groups over the course of 2000 years.

there are denominations that have bridged the gap between the clear word and what they want to d

There are also groups different from yours (which you've adequately described above) who have bridged the gap between bibliolatry and social justice.

You want nothing less than for others to BELIEVE as you do, You are convinced that anyone who DISAGREES with you is, in your mind, committing heinous acts that their adherence to Biblical principles, in your mind, causes them to do

I don't care what you believe. But when you insist that others be discriminated against, based upon some misunderstood biblical "principle," I'm going to speak out against that discrimination, both on behalf of those minorities discriminated against, and on behalf of a church that deserves much better representation than your posts have afforded it here.

So your real issue is how I think, not why I think that way. You want everyone to think as you, and you are enraged by anyone who does not think like you.

This had nothing to do with thought. It has to do with complicity in systemic violence against a minority group. And I shall continue to speak against such violence. Count on it.

If you had your way, the right to free practice of religion would be eliminated, so you could use the state to punish and compel to believe like you. That is truly your agenda, you know it and I know it, It ain';t happening, get over i

You're presenting a red herring here. I don't want religious uniformity. I want social justice for all minorities who are systemically screwed over by people who think they have some "right" or "obligation" to do so.

 

[shmogie]

What utter and complete bull. I gave you the opportunity to exegete the verses, and you metaphorically disappeared, Only to surface pissn' and moanin' with your worthless personal thoughts trying gobbilygook what the Bible says. The "person being who he is" whatever that is, is what The Bible writers meant is utter doublespeak The Writers were inspired, they understood completely what the wrote about, and they meant EXACTLY what they said. Your sad little hocus pocus philosophy pulled out of the air is amusing as well as sad. You adhere to those Bible commentaries who support what you believe, and that is perfectly OK, but they are in the minority, and greater minds say they are wrong, ,

 

[sojourner]

What utter and complete bull. I gave you the opportunity to exegete the verses, and you metaphorically disappeared, Only to surface pissn' and moanin' with your worthless personal thoughts trying gobbilygook what the Bible says. The "person being who he is" whatever that is, is what The Bible writers meant is utter doublespeak The Writers were inspired, they understood completely what the wrote about, and they meant EXACTLY what they said. Your sad little hocus pocus philosophy pulled out of the air is amusing as well as sad. You adhere to those Bible commentaries who support what you believe, and that is perfectly OK, but they are in the minority, and greater minds say they are wrong, ,

That's humorous. Not only are you misrepresenting what the bible says, you're also misrepresenting the writers, the scholarly commentators, and me. Who's next? Jesus? I'm sure that the writers did mean what they said. Problem is that their meaning is highly compromised by their ignorance of human sexuality.

 

[sojourner]

You adhere to those Bible commentaries who support what you believe, and that is perfectly OK, but they are in the minority, and greater minds say they are wrong

Those commentaries ARE the "greater minds."

 

[shmogie]

Of course they are, when those principles dehumanize groups of minorities who are simply not accepted fully into society, based upon who they are -- such as women, blacks, Jews, First Nations, and homosexuals. And the church has systemically dehumanized all these groups over the course of 2000 years.


There are also groups different from yours (which you've adequately described above) who have bridged the gap between bibliolatry and social justice.


I don't care what you believe. But when you insist that others be discriminated against, based upon some misunderstood biblical "principle," I'm going to speak out against that discrimination, both on behalf of those minorities discriminated against, and on behalf of a church that deserves much better representation than your posts have afforded it here.


This had nothing to do with thought. It has to do with complicity in systemic violence against a minority group. And I shall continue to speak against such violence. Count on it.


You're presenting a red herring here. I don't want religious uniformity. I want social justice for all minorities who are systemically screwed over by people who think they have some "right" or "obligation" to do so.

You are definitely one who has a lot of birds on your antenna. So, "social justice" means that everyone must be and do as you say, and those who doin;'t are "discriminating" and "committing violence:" against others., I assume then that you feel muslims should be members of my Church, because they are a minority, and excluded. Or how about demanding the LA Dodgers to hire a blind pitcher, because that is who he is, and he is being denied employment because of a condition he had nothing to do with. Since most women cannot pass the physical standards based upon the job, i.e., dragging a 175 pound dead weight X number of feet. You no doubt support changing the standard so they may be hired, irrespective of whether based upon sound research that says they will have to drag someone of that weight or more for that distance or more. Your sense of social justice is assuaged. I know of many Police Departments who will not allow Officers to smoke on duty, talk about discrimination. You discriminate, whether you believe it or not.Your mindless continually regurgitated codswollop is just that, inane, inaccurate bleatings from a sheep who demands others march in the same foolish, mindless, lying herd. I don';t buy it, I won't buy it, and the 10's of millions of us tell you we will NEVER think like you. It;'s just the way it is, and all of your debased whining will never change that fact.

 

[shmogie]

That's humorous. Not only are you misrepresenting what the bible says, you're also misrepresenting the writers, the scholarly commentators, and me. Who's next? Jesus? I'm sure that the writers did mean what they said. Problem is that their meaning is highly compromised by their ignorance of human sexuality.

You never addressed the texts, because they prove your lie, now you project that the writers were ignorant. Well, I project you are ignorant as well as it relates to what the writers knew, or did not know, you further have profoundly demonstrated your ignorance of Christ, the Apostles, and the Apostolic church

 

[sojourner]

You are definitely one who has a lot of birds on your antenna. So, "social justice" means that everyone must be and do as you say, and those who doin;'t are "discriminating" and "committing violence:" against others., I assume then that you feel muslims should be members of my Church, because they are a minority, and excluded. Or how about demanding the LA Dodgers to hire a blind pitcher, because that is who he is, and he is being denied employment because of a condition he had nothing to do with. Since most women cannot pass the physical standards based upon the job, i.e., dragging a 175 pound dead weight X number of feet. You no doubt support changing the standard so they may be hired, irrespective of whether based upon sound research that says they will have to drag someone of that weight or more for that distance or more. Your sense of social justice is assuaged. I know of many Police Departments who will not allow Officers to smoke on duty, talk about discrimination. You discriminate, whether you believe it or not.Your mindless continually regurgitated codswollop is just that, inane, inaccurate bleatings from a sheep who demands others march in the same foolish, mindless, lying herd. I don';t buy it, I won't buy it, and the 10's of millions of us tell you we will NEVER think like you. It;'s just the way it is, and all of your debased whining will never change that fact.

Hyperbole designed to assuage your guilt and misdirect our attention. I very clearly laid out the parameters for what constitutes systemic injustice, and you ignored all of them. Speaking out in support of social justice is hardly the bleating of a mindless sheep, for it's the mindless sheep who go along with the majority in being complicit in the injustices of the system. IOW, it's you doing the mindless bleating here.

Social justice is the equalizing of the social playing field between those with social power and those without. Like most others in the majority, you refuse to share any of it with others, whining instead that you're being forced into some kind of uniformity -- all the while completely ignorant of the fact that it's you who require uniformity before you'll grant access to your precious church. Hipocrisy isn't a Christian value.