Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

Ben Dhyan · Feb 21, 2016

sojourner said:
Neither text says, "Homosexuality is an abomination." Both talk about acts that are judged to be abominable, but those acts could be the result of any number of causes, none of which are specified. Homosexuality isn't the acts. Homosexuality is an orientation. The passages mean what they say. But what do they say? We don't really know until we know the impetus for the acts. Male/female intercourse is abominable if it's a violent act of rape, or a lustful act. But it's not an abomination if it's an expression of love between two consenting, committed adults.

It's the same with homosexual acts. The writers didn't allow for that because they were unaware of homosexuality as an orientation. In that culture, it was also taboo for a man to act in the role of a woman, because men embodied honor; women embodied shame. Therefore, acting in the role of a woman was shameful.

Our culture does not embed shame and honor into sexual identity. Our culture understands the concept of same-sex orientation. The passages mean something different to us than they meant to the writers.

Revisionism doesn't work for me....it says what it means and means what it says....

Ben Dhyan · Feb 21, 2016

sojourner said:
Yet you seem to want to apply your subjective, biblical principles objectively to everyone else. You can't have it both ways.

Says who...where did I say try and do that...quote me?

shmogie · Feb 21, 2016

sojourner said:
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.

Hyperbole, a nice word, but it doesn;t apply here. What is hyperbole is your blanket accusation of millions of people of being bigots and committing violence, because they don't agree with you. Since you speak of social justice, lets explore what the law has to say about it, I know a bit about the law." Social justice" is the law's guarantee that irrespective of race, gender, religion, disability, or "sexual orieintation", people are to be treated equally and without bias in their interactions with the government, in employment, service providers who serve the public at large, public educational institutions, private educational institutions that accept any government funds, retail institutions, and housing. I may have missed one or two, the law classes were years ago, and I didn't work in this field of litigation. There are certain caveats to these, such as employment standards. There is the legal concept of the freedom of association. This guarantee's private informal groups, or organized groups who use no government funds in their activities the right to define membership in the group however they choose, whether it be a friday night poker game with five black guys who exclude women and white males, or a national motorcycle club who only accepts white members, or the black panthers or the kkk. No one can compel them to associate with any others but whom they choose. There is the freedom of religion, guaranteed by the first amendment. This guarantees the right of an individual or group to practice their religion as they see fit. Further, reasonable deference to their free exercise of religion must be provided by employers, the government, and institutions. This is the only definition of social justice that counts. Your mindless accusations have no legal standing. You want to limit Constitutionally guaranteed rights, so your brand of social justice can be compelled by the government. Your accusations, from a moral standard, fail, because morality is determined by the individual. All of your finger pointing and accusations are based upon your definition. I have every right to define morality as I choose, as long as I do not legally impinge on someone or some group.

shmogie · Feb 21, 2016

sojourner said:
See #3339.

I posted no OT scripture, that was by someone else

shmogie · Feb 21, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
But what of every other religion? They make the same claims, they have their proofs, and they are experienced by their adherents. Any god, any religion, it doesn't matter.

Well then, let them make their claims.

Shadow Wolf · Feb 21, 2016

ben d said:
Sure...there is only one Absolute Reality...but many paths...

Do you mean you accept the equal validity of any religion?

shmogie said:
Well then, let them make their claims.

And you want to tell someone else they ran?

Ben Dhyan · Feb 22, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
Do you mean you accept the equal validity of any religion?

No....though mostly they provide a religious starting point...the kingdom is within...

JoStories · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
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..............

You say here that you have little interest in the OT or Hebrew but it is the OT that you are browbeating people with here and that is written in Hebrew. You take that one verse and then have the audacity to tell people the rest that is written there is not germane. And furthermore, the words are not perfectly clear or there would be no debate about the issue. If you can take that one verse and use it for your agenda, why not the rest? Too difficult or is it just too much work? Or perhaps you love lobster and are willing, according to your palate to over look that verse. Or perhaps you prefer silk shirts and over look that one in the pursuit of your vanity. The rest here I couldn't care less about. What kind of person who denies the veracity of your Bible and who you like? Please!

JoStories · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
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.

So you admit your failing and don't see how that one alleged 'sin' is no better or worse than any other that a person may commit. Seems like hubris to me. You go on and on about how it matters not to you what people believe and that that is between them and God, but here you are carrying on for page after page trying to convince people, some of whom ARE gay, that they are 'sinners' and must repent. A bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? How about not trying stones at those people and clean up your own backyard?

JoStories · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
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 would actually be funny if it were not so sad. Turn what you have said here and compare that to the myriad posts you have written trying to convince us that the Bible does condemn homosexuality and that any church that has those members are going against what the Bible states. Wow..just wow. If ever there was a Freudian moment here.

JoStories · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
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

Ok, let's talk about the various translations that are out there, and to begin, we are talking about English translations of the OT and that one verse. Here are some various verse translation and you will note how different they are in meaning based in the words used.

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1

NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

I was going to post the verse in Hebrew with the accurate translation but my PC is having a melt down and I have to restart. I will edit this in a few. Now, here is the Hebrew translation and you will note the missing words and insertion of what is assumed to have been meant here.
Cross References">

User Comments">

shmogie · Feb 22, 2016

All well and good, but I never posted any OT texts. Nevertheless, I believe the various translators and groups of translators over the year knew what they were doing. If someone wants to write their own Bible, and make it say what they want, they have every right to do so

sojourner · Feb 22, 2016

ben d said:
Revisionism doesn't work for me....it says what it means and means what it says....

Reality isn't "revisionism." It says what it says, but what it says takes on different meaning for different times and cultures. For example, Someone may say, "He's a gay young man." The person has said what the person has said, but what did the person mean? And what meaning do we make of it? Did the person mean that the young man was lighthearted? Or did he mean that the young man was homosexual? Do we understand that someone who lived in the 1920s, calling a young man "gay" most likely meant that the young man was lighthearted, and that our own cultural lens may transpose our own vernacular usage of "gay" to make the speaker say something he never said? Because, in our own usage, "gay" doesn't mean "lighthearted" anymore. It means "homosexual." So, when the speaker refers to Lindbergh as "gay," we run into trouble when we transpose that to assert that history tells us Lindbergh was homosexual, rather than lighthearted.

When the bible mentions that for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, what does the writer mean? Especially when there was no term for "homosexual" then? (If there's no word, there's no concept.) There was no concept of homosexuality as any kind of natural inclination toward those of the same sex. Therefore, the acts must be unnatural (in fact, the texts say that very thing!) To say that the acts are "unnatural" doesn't come from some "holy inspiration." It comes out of the writer's ignorance that such a thing as homosexuality (the orientation) even exists. And before you go braying on about the writer only writing what God told him to write, remember that the writers of Genesis said that the earth was a flat disc, and the sky was a rigid dome, upon which were fixed the sun, moon, and stars. That was their limited understanding -- not some scientifically-valid "inspiration from God." Science has told us that the earth is spherical, and that the sky is not a rigid dome. Science has, likewise taught us that normal, human sexualtiy can (and does) include homosexual orientation. And if the orientation is natural, the resulting acts cannot be "unnatural."

The biblical texts are complex, and are made more so by differences in culture and language. It says what it says; it's figuring out what, exactly, it says that's problematic.

sojourner · Feb 22, 2016

ben d said:
Says who...where did I say try and do that...quote me?

When you hold your subjective understanding of the texts up as objective truths (i.e.: "The bible says what it says"), not only for yourself, but for everyone else ("homosexuality is sin"), that's what you're doing.

SkepticThinker · Feb 22, 2016

ben d said:
That is your error...to imagine that because most people are at the belief stage....everyone is. Proof of God comes to the disciple not objectively but when the spirit of God illumines the mind, heart, and soul of the disciple....

Now I do not want to waste my time with a to and fro about the existence of God...if you are happy with your belief that there is no God...go for it my friend...

Anyone who can't demonstrate that the thing they believe in exists, is a person who believes, not one who knows. You're a human, just like everyone else, and as such, you are not privy to any special knowledge that the rest of us aren't aware of.

So believe you know all you want, and I will continue to suspend belief until someone can demonstrate to me that there is some reason I should believe.

Rick O'Shez · Feb 22, 2016

sojourner said:
When you hold your subjective understanding of the texts up as objective truths (i.e.: "The bible says what it says"), not only for yourself, but for everyone else ("homosexuality is sin"), that's what you're doing.

Prejudice exists and it is harmful. One can either challenge it or condone it. Discrimination hurts real people.

shmogie · Feb 22, 2016

JoStories said:
This would actually be funny if it were not so sad. Turn what you have said here and compare that to the myriad posts you have written trying to convince us that the Bible does condemn homosexuality and that any church that has those members are going against what the Bible states. Wow..just wow. If ever there was a Freudian moment here.

I have never posted anything to try and convince anybody of anything., I have stated a position and the Biblical evidence for it. Throughout I have emphasized the right of anybody and everybody to believe as they choose. That simple consideration has not been afforded to me., Because my denomination, based on Biblical grounds, does not accept homosexuals as full members, I have been called a bigot, a hater, and one who commits systematic violence against a prosecuted minority.,For what other reason would someone say such ludicrous things than yo try and change what I actually think ? Once again I suggest you look at the thread title, to me it is asking for an explanation and a reasonable exchange of idea's, not a verbal lynching. I further suggest that you look at the myriad of posts written trying to convince me and others that the Biblical position is wrong. No one ever stated as I did, that we all have a right to our views, and each should be respected. When I wouldn;'t accept their reasoning, the accusations and name calling began. In response, I did my share of name calling, which I regret. Here is the difference I accept a position that makes sense to me, to others it is a wrong position to hold., I doin;t ask or demand that anybody agree with me, on the other hand those who hold the different view demand agreement, and to not agree de facto makes you an evil person doing evil things

sojourner · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
What is hyperbole is your blanket accusation of millions of people of being bigots and committing violence, because they don't agree with you

No. What is hyperbole is your statement "because they don't agree with you." The fact is that the majority are against homosexuality -- and it probably is "millions" of people. And they're not just against homosexuality for themselves (individual moral accountability). They're against it for everyone (making individual moral decisions for everybody). People don't have to agree with me. I don't know how many times I've said that. This isn't about me. I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!). This is about when the majority systemically oppresses a minority -- in this case, homosexuals -- based upon who they are -- their personhood. When someone's personhood is oppressed, yeah, I've got a problem with that!

shmogie said:
There is the legal concept of the freedom of association. This guarantee's private informal groups, or organized groups who use no government funds in their activities the right to define membership in the group however they choose, whether it be a friday night poker game with five black guys who exclude women and white males, or a national motorcycle club who only accepts white members, or the black panthers or the kkk. No one can compel them to associate with any others but whom they choose. There is the freedom of religion, guaranteed by the first amendment. This guarantees the right of an individual or group to practice their religion as they see fit. Further, reasonable deference to their free exercise of religion must be provided by employers, the government, and institutions. This is the only definition of social justice that counts.

We're not really talking about legal concepts here, though. We're talking about what the religion says about homosexuality. Remember how Jesus was usually at odds with the religious authorities (the Lawgivers). And remember how Paul said, "23 'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up. 24 Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, 26 for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved." (1 Cor. 10)

The definition of social justice in a Christian concept is vastly different from the one you just offered, as the bible shows. It's not the legality we're concerned with, so much as it is the ethics. Is it ethical to systemically discriminate against a minority? Not according to the bible. Why do you think "homosexual" is included in non-discriminatory laws, right along with women, blacks, and Jews? Because they're systemically discriminated against!

shmogie said:
Your mindless accusations have no legal standing.

That's what the Pharisees said to Jesus...

shmogie said:
You want to limit Constitutionally guaranteed rights, so your brand of social justice can be compelled by the government.

No I don't. I just want people to do the socially-just thing. And BTW: the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to discriminate.

shmogie said:
I have every right to define morality as I choose, as long as I do not legally impinge on someone or some group.

"All things are legal; not all are beneficial." Of course you have the "right" to define morality -- for yourself. You can say, "It's not OK for me to be gay." But it's simply not beneficial to insist that others believe as you do (as you've accused me of doing -- Ironic, huh?

)

sojourner · Feb 22, 2016

shmogie said:
I posted no OT scripture, that was by someone else

Correct, but the exegetical treatment is exactly the same.

sojourner · Feb 22, 2016

Spiny Norman said:
Prejudice exists and it is harmful. One can either challenge it or condone it. Discrimination hurts real people.

IOW, one can either resist systemic violence, or be complicit in it. Some here have apparently chosen to be complicit.

Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Irishman bouncing off walls

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006