Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

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."
Without addressing the homosexual issue, where you and I know most clearly where we stand, I would suggest you read Genesis
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.

Without addressing the homosexual issue where you and I know exactly where we stand, I would suggest you reread Genesis. It no where says the earth is flat, it actually says the opposite., The "dome" concept came from the ancient Greeks, not the Bible

 

[shmogie]

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

What a joke

 

[sojourner]

No one ever stated as I did, that we all have a right to our views, and each should be respected.

But apparently, those who are homosexual can't hold that view and be a full human being in your world. That's not "respecting each." You can't say that someone "is sin" and respect their humanity at the same time.

 

[sojourner]

Without addressing the homosexual issue where you and I know exactly where we stand, I would suggest you reread Genesis. It no where says the earth is flat, it actually says the opposite., The "dome" concept came from the ancient Greeks, not the Bible

Nope. The Hebrew word translated as "sky" or "heavens" is raqiya. The definition of raqiya is, "A hammered-out bowl." One doesn't "hammer out" what isn't rigid. It's an ancient Semitic concept -- and most likely Sumerian in origin. When a bowl is placed over a surface, that surface must (by geometric law) be both round and flat (or ... wait for it! ... disc-shaped). I would suggest that you exegete the texts.

 

[sojourner]

What a joke

Then MLK and Bonhoeffer were jokes, too. You're lambasting some pretty heavy-hitters in the social justice world. And it's not looking too good for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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!

If I could like this a thousand times, I would. Exactly!

(Plus I love a good Seinfeld reference )

 

[shmogie]

Nope. The Hebrew word translated as "sky" or "heavens" is raqiya. The definition of raqiya is, "A hammered-out bowl." One doesn't "hammer out" what isn't rigid. It's an ancient Semitic concept -- and most likely Sumerian in origin. When a bowl is placed over a surface, that surface must (by geometric law) be both round and flat (or ... wait for it! ... disc-shaped). I would suggest that you exegete the texts.

Herein is your problem, You project meanings into a sample word that you have no idea if the author intended those meanings. Some cosmologists propose that the universe is round, or round with flat areas to the side. Therefore a bowl shape description for what is above a certain point on earth would be accurate. Using the example of a bowl shape does not address the method used to construct the bowl, a literal bowls rigidity, or the nature of the surface below the shape, you assume it does ,the author used the best example he could reference. Using your methodology, when Christ called himself a door, that would mean he was made of wood., I think you will find the ancient Greeks proposed a series of ( I believe it was Aristotle, but I am not sure) clear rigid "bowls" that maintained the separation between heavenly bodies, planets separated by rigid wall and trapped into orbit, or at least their proper place, etc.,

 

[shmogie]

Then MLK and Bonhoeffer were jokes, too. You're lambasting some pretty heavy-hitters in the social justice world. And it's not looking too good for you.

I have read Bonhoffer to some extent, I don't recall him addressing the homosexual issue at all. If he does, please tell me where, I would like to read it. As to MLK, I am not very familiar with his writings, but I have black friends, one a pastor, who assure me that he too wasn;'t about homosexuality. In fact, some of them are quite angry that homosexual apologists use the example of the civil rights movement as applying to them and their agenda

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

So, then how do you explain that it doesn't matter what faith, religion, or god, the results all seem to be the same?

Herein is your problem, You project meanings into a sample word that you have no idea if the author intended those meanings.

The entirety of your own arguments rest upon this same problem. We know, factually, our modern concept of homosexuality did not exist "back then" because sex was sex and they didn't really divide between heterosexual and homosexual like we do today; We also know that with many ancient cultures the issue wasn't the guy poking a guy, it was the guy getting poked by a guy. We know the Bible does NOT specifically state homosexuals, as all it references is a "man who lies with a man as he would a woman." To me, this seems to implicate bisexuality more than homosexuality (an ancient form of the ignorant "greedy ********" expression of today), especially considering there is absolutely nothing about women having sex with women. But, it doesn't matter, because in the end we are trying to place a modern concept into an ancient text that did not understand our modern concept.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As to MLK, I am not very familiar with his writings, but I have black friends, one a pastor, who assure me that he too wasn;

You don't even realize that you blew an extremely massive whole in your own credibility. You basically just dropped a nuke on yourself, because you just gave us a very strong reason to doubt your Biblical studies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have read Bonhoffer to some extent, I don't recall him addressing the homosexual issue at all. If he does, please tell me where, I would like to read it. As to MLK, I am not very familiar with his writings, but I have black friends, one a pastor, who assure me that he too wasn;'t about homosexuality. In fact, some of them are quite angry that homosexual apologists use the example of the civil rights movement as applying to them and their agenda

"Some of them" should rethink their position on that, considering the struggles they've gone through in order to gain equality. I wonder why they would think they're entitled to civil rights but not anyone else that's struggling against discrimination?

 

[shmogie]

But apparently, those who are homosexual can't hold that view and be a full human being in your world. That's not "respecting each." You can't say that someone "is sin" and respect their humanity at the same time.

Nonsense, we all "are sin": We are born in sin, and sin is a condition as well as an act., A person born unable to speak or take any physical action is still a sinner. The issue is not whether each and every one of us is a sinner, the issue is what we will do with the sin. If you will revisit the NT scripture I posted, Paul makes it clear that judging anyone for any sin who is outside the Church is not a Christian's business, Those people are certainly humans, just as we all are, and their sin, whatever it is, is no worse than mine. The difference is that Christians have become convicted of their sinful acts and condition within the framework of Christianity, and accept Christianity's method of dealing with it. I have no right to arbitrarily begin saying that one or any sin, is no longer a sin. The teaching is clear, all sin's are enumerated, It is not my job to rewrite what iswritten

 

[shmogie]

You don't even realize that you blew an extremely massive whole in your own credibility. You basically just dropped a nuke on yourself, because you just gave us a very strong reason to doubt your Biblical studies.

Huh, how is that ?

 

[shmogie]

"Some of them" should rethink their position on that, considering the struggles they've gone through in order to gain equality. I wonder why they would think they're entitled to civil rights but not anyone else that's struggling against discrimination?

I don't know, unless they believe being born black is not a choice, and being a homosexual is.

 

[shmogie]

You don't even realize that you blew an extremely massive whole in your own credibility. You basically just dropped a nuke on yourself, because you just gave us a very strong reason to doubt your Biblical studies.

Hmmm, not being very familiar with MLK's writings, and having black friends gives you very strong reason to doubt my Biblical studies ? If I had no black friends, and read everything MLK wrote, would you then have no reason to doubt my Biblical studies >??>

 

[sojourner]

Herein is your problem, You project meanings into a sample word that you have no idea if the author intended those meanings. Some cosmologists propose that the universe is round, or round with flat areas to the side. Therefore a bowl shape description for what is above a certain point on earth would be accurate. Using the example of a bowl shape does not address the method used to construct the bowl, a literal bowls rigidity, or the nature of the surface below the shape, you assume it does ,the author used the best example he could reference. Using your methodology, when Christ called himself a door, that would mean he was made of wood., I think you will find the ancient Greeks proposed a series of ( I believe it was Aristotle, but I am not sure) clear rigid "bowls" that maintained the separation between heavenly bodies, planets separated by rigid wall and trapped into orbit, or at least their proper place, etc.,

Nah. Greek metaphor isn't ancient Sumerian understanding. At all. The sky isn't rigid, and it's not a dome. And to just assume that the writers, somehow, had superhuman understanding is ridiculous.

 

[sojourner]

I have read Bonhoffer to some extent, I don't recall him addressing the homosexual issue at all. If he does, please tell me where, I would like to read it. As to MLK, I am not very familiar with his writings, but I have black friends, one a pastor, who assure me that he too wasn;'t about homosexuality. In fact, some of them are quite angry that homosexual apologists use the example of the civil rights movement as applying to them and their agenda

He didn't. But he did address the issue of resistance and complicity. You're deflecting, because you've been caught with your argumentative pants down. It won't work. The idea of resistance/complicity is well-documented and accepted as anything but a "joke."

 

[sojourner]

As to MLK, I am not very familiar with his writings, but I have black friends, one a pastor, who assure me that he too wasn;'t about homosexuality. In fact, some of them are quite angry that homosexual apologists use the example of the civil rights movement as applying to them and their agenda

He, too, spoke about the issue of resistance/complicity. The blacks don't have to like the reference for it to be there.

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense, we all "are sin"

No. We are all created "good."

Those people are certainly humans, just as we all are, and their sin, whatever it is, is no worse than mine. The difference is that Christians have become convicted of their sinful acts and condition within the framework of Christianity, and accept Christianity's method of dealing with it.

Christianity, though, doesn't have "a method." Unless you're projecting your church's beliefs on the rest of us, that is. Which goes against what you posted earlier about all of this being an individual thing...

I have no right to arbitrarily begin saying that one or any sin, is no longer a sin. The teaching is clear, all sin's are enumerated, It is not my job to rewrite what iswritten

But it IS your job to exegete the texts fully before blithely dismissing what they really say.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know, unless they believe being born black is not a choice, and being a homosexual is.

Their belief about homosexuals would be wrong.