Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Rick O'Shez]

People who allow words to dehumanize them have little faith in their humanity

And what about people who don't care what effect their words have?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Luis might say this, but you and I both know it is completely absurd to claim this applies to all atheists.

Monotheists often try to claim a monopoly on religion and spirituality. It's tiresome.

And monotheists are the main offenders when it comes to prejudice against gays. Hmmm.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As a Christian, I owe them equal treatment as far as my conscience will allow, respect, kindness, all the things a true Christian believes anyone, and everyone deserves.

Yes, you do. That also means accepting differences rather than judging them.

 

[Sundance]

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

*

Any more recent instances? Y'know, involving CHRISTIANS, not post-Exile Jews, which I have not already discussed and refuted?

 

[shmogie]

Yes, you do. That also means accepting differences rather than judging them.

I don't judge them. I follow Biblical standards. If there is a problem, it is between they and the Bible, it has nothing to do with me

 

[Muffled]

I believe you have to be kind to be kind. There are ways of being kind that don't just amount to telling someone their troubles will all go away. (And oddly enough, that sounds kind of like what you were doing when you told him to accept Jesus in order to solve his problems.) There's much more to solving a drug addict's problems than just finding Jesus.

I have heard exactly that testimony. The person could not help himself but Jesus rescued him from his addiction.

.I believe there is a difference. A person who just says it does nothing to help but a person who receives Jesus finds help.

I believe you should name one that works.

 

[Muffled]

Do you really need somebody to tell you the difference between right and wrong?

I believe I am very good at deceiving myself into thinking that what I want is right.

 

[Muffled]

Humans are cherry pickers.

I believe God is not human.

 

[shmogie]

First, there is indeed much consensus in science psychology, and, for second, my degree is in psychology, so you probably want to stop trying to pretend you know when it's so very clear you don't. There may be some things that are "all over the map," but there is a very clear consensus on many issues, one of which is that homosexuality is not a choice and that no one should discriminate against them because it does lead to problems in life. I can stand firm that I know that both APAs agree with this, they have issued statements that agree with this, and that every single major psychological, psychiatric, sociological, anthropological, and counseling organization agrees with me. This even overlaps into the fields of biology and neurology. I can invoke a legion of sources that agree with me. You have an ancient book and a handful of sources, many of which had leaders preaching they can "prey the gay away" only to later be caught with male prostitutes.

Of course not all Christians are the same, but they are all Christians, they all follow Christ, they all hold the Bible as their sacred and holy text. That was the point. We have three Christians, yet all three of you have different approaches to the subject of homosexuality.

If they were having sex outside of marriage. But homosexuals can now get married in all places in America, so this "sex outside of marriage" does not apply to those homosexuals who are married.

If you really are sorry, you'll ditch the attitude that you won't even associate with homosexuals. It's that sort of attitude that does, factually, form the basis of institutional violence. This isn't beating someone up violence, but the violence that is a result of discrimination, lack of and legal protections for employment, lack of and protections for housing, lack of and protections for medical treatment, and lack of and protections for next-of-kin rights.

Marriage between homosexuals is a secular, legal concept, it is not a Biblically sanctioned institution. Believe what you choose, and what makes you fell better, I have taken the time to carefully look at the evidence. I do not go out specifically looking for homosexuals to be my friends,. I have never come across one that I would want to be my friend. It is no an "attitude" it is following a a specific Biblical instruction, that if other choose to ignore, they have that right.,Bull re "violence" that is a hyperbolic totally incorrect bastardization of the language manufactured to coerce people not strong in their beliefs a to cave to verbal intimidation., It will NEVER happen with me, and millions and millions, and millions of believers across the world

 

[shmogie]

Yes, you do. That also means accepting differences rather than judging them.

I accept the differences, they have the right to be whomever they choose to be, whomever they believe they are.

 

[sojourner]

An interesting diatribe. A clarification of facts, Contrary to your opinion science and psychology are all over the map, there is no consensus. Christianity is not homogeneous,so someone does not necessarily have " the exact same religion as I do". Roman Catholics are not the same, Jehovah's Witnesses are not the same and on and on it goes. There are serious doctrinal differences. I practice a form of Christianity based upon the Bible, primarily the NT, all of it. So, you believe Christ himself would not have turned someone away for being a homosexual, I agree. However, he told a woman sleeping with a man, not her husband, "go, and sin no more". Christ made it very clear that we all must give up something, to follow him. Now, if a person believes that Christ saves them in their sin, not from their sin, that belief is fine for them. However, Christ spent a great deal of time pointing out sin, and asking for repentence. Christ discussed marriage a lot, it is always between a man and woman, never between two of the same sex, so if the woman at the well was guilty of a sin for having sex outside of marriage, wouldn't two homosexuals doing the same be as guilty ? Wouldn't the instruction be the same ?
We do not have to speculate though, Paul made the issue very clear, you may believe that his words have not been translated right, or if one looks at the words for a long time, he is saying something else. That is perfectly OK, for you. I on the other hand believes he has the authority to say exactly what he says. You are right, I have not have had to experience the things you have had to, and it must have been terrible. I am sorry anyone has to go through that. However, those feelings do not mitigate my belief that the Bible and it's teachings and instructions, as written, cannot be compromised. I would hope that even if I was to be killed if I didn't compromise, like so many Christians in the middle east have been told, that I would stand firm and die, just as they have done. I would heartily encourage you to seek your peace wherever it is found, I am not the voice of God, I have no responsibility to convince you of anything, if that is needed, God will do it. I simply am presenting a position, and what evidence I believe confirms that position.

You and I have probably been more at odds here than any other two. Which is fine. But let me respond with my own statement of how I see things.

The bible was never meant to be a rigid, narrow, tightly-controlled -- or controlling -- thing. It was meant to paint a picture of God's people with a very broad brush -- to the point that several perspectives are shared, many traditions recorded, and the resulting contradictions left intact. The bible was never meant to define peoples' spiritual condition; it was meant to explain their spiritual condition, from the perspectives of the writers. As I've often said, Christianity is not the bible -- nor is the bible the whole of Christianity. Jesus pointed people to scripture, but Jesus also weighed scripture ("it is written ... but I tell you ... "). Jesus was more interested in putting people in right relationship than he was in correcting behavior. Jesus was more interested in wholeness than he was with righteousness. I just don't think it's either wise or possible to force a malleable and changing humanity into a rigid and ancient mold. I don't think it's wise to expect 21st century Western culture to hold to the standards of ancient, Eastern culture. I think we have to look at the biblical texts with a very critical eye, and hold our belief in what they say very gently, and we have to weigh what we find with our experience of the world -- all while keeping in mind that Jesus always came down on the side of love, and that love always trumps the Law. I'm convinced that Paul said what he said. I'm just as convinced that Paul was just as much a product of his culture as we are of ours. We see the world differently than Paul did, and so when we read Paul, we have to read from his perspective -- not from our own. I don't think Paul had any concept of homosexuality as an orientation -- not because it's not an orientation, but because Paul had very limited information about the human psyche and human sexuality. And we have to take those limitations under consideration when we read Paul. Is Paul railing against homosexuality in particular, or is he using what he *thinks* is sinful as an example and a call to purity? If so, then purity is the message -- not that "homosexuality is bad."

Science doesn't have all the answers here. But they have enough to create enough doubt such that that they have removed homosexuality from the DSM. It hasn't been considered aberrant since 1994 -- over 20 years now. I don't particularly look at science as the be-all-end-all. I look at the human heart. I look at what feels true. I see LGBTQ people and I see people trying to make sense of their lives as honestly as they can. I see differences that matter. I see a socio-cultural system wherein the majority voice shuts such people out -- won't let them be members of the church, won't let them live in their apartments, or work in their companies. I see people who have loved another for years, and been committed to another for years, yet being unable to express that love and commitment in an official and legal capacity. I see people being dehumanized just for being who they are and feeling the way they feel. I see people committing suicide and on the edge of suicide, because they can't live with the shame imposed upon them by the majority. I see the hurt in their hearts as they strive to be true to who they perceive themselves to be. And I perceive the lack of love and recognition on the part of the larger culture, who refuses to see them as real, honest and full human beings, who feel just as deeply, who care just as deeply, who search just as faithfully, and who live just as truly as the rest of us.

Time and again, these people are beat up, put down, stepped on, left out, ridiculed, disenfranchised, and stripped of their humanity. Time and time again, these people are denied a voice, or are outshouted by the majority. My position as a member of the Christian clergy is to create space for the voice of the oppressed -- to speak for them, if they can't speak for themselves, to offer Christ's love and hospitality to the stranger and the outcast, and to let them know that they have a friend who will support them, who will go out on a limb for them, who will welcome them to the Christian Table with open arms, who will include them fully, and who will give them the benefit of the doubt where their humanity and their wholeness is concerned. As a serious student of the bible, of the church, of theology, and of the world -- as one who tries his best to follow Jesus, I can not do any other and remain honest with myself.

 

[sojourner]

Marriage between homosexuals is a secular, legal concept, it is not a Biblically sanctioned institution. Believe what you choose, and what makes you fell better, I have taken the time to carefully look at the evidence. I do not go out specifically looking for homosexuals to be my friends,. I have never come across one that I would want to be my friend. It is no an "attitude" it is following a a specific Biblical instruction, that if other choose to ignore, they have that right.,Bull re "violence" that is a hyperbolic totally incorrect bastardization of the language manufactured to coerce people not strong in their beliefs a to cave to verbal intimidation., It will NEVER happen with me, and millions and millions, and millions of believers across the world

Marriage is a biblically-sanctioned concept. It is also a legal concept. Marriage. Period. The bible says "man and woman" because the writers were 1) more limited in their knowledge of human sexuality than we are, and 2) of a different culture than we are. I think its time we acknowledged those differences and weighed what's "said" against what's right, honest and fair.

You may think what you will, but the term "violence" is apropos here, because anytime one is made to feel less than than fully human by the socio-cultural system, it is violence. It may be very subtle, it may be very quiet, but it's still violence. it's not intimidation, it's dragging something into awareness that largely flies under the radar of the privileged, but that is always stabbing the heart of the unprivileged.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been patiently waiting for you and your fellow travelers to present evidence, any evidence to support your claims,

you have not because you cannot.

Several people including ShadowWolf and Draika (I believe it was) presented evidence to you early on in the thread.

The main evidence, as I am trying to illustrate to you, is obvious if you just think it through logically.

Instead, you have resorted to disingenuous word play to dismiss my view.

I’m trying to get a simple answer to a simple question in order to demonstrate something to you about choice (or lack thereof, in this case). You have tap danced around the question for quite a while now, which leads me to believe you may understand the point, but refuse to acknowledge it.

You know as well as anybody else does that we don’t consciously choose our sexual orientation because I think you know as well as anybody else does, that you didn’t consciously choose your sexual orientation.

It is time to take you down from your high horse, since you and your cohorts refuse to dismount. So, Lets look at the evidence on the matter. The American Psychological Association contends that the cause of homosexuality (their word, cause) is not understood.

We don’t know what “causes” heterosexuality either. So it must be a conscious choice?

However they list eight factors that are always present in homosexuals, virtually all are environmental. They concede that there is is no clear evidence that confirms homosexuals" are born, not made", my words.

I did look up what the APA had to say:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Look it up, in fact, look up all the research on the matter, identical twins, prison populations, "reformed" homosexuals, all of it from those who BELIEVE that homosexuals cannot be anything different to those who BELIEVE it is a choice.

I looked up what you had to say about the APA above and your statements turns out to be inaccurate. Let’s see what they have to say about “reformed” homosexual therapy:

“All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person's (client's) right to self-determination; be sensitive to the client's race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.”



All of your arguments have been addressed. I didn’t get any response when I pointed out to you that a person can obviously change their actions or behaviors but cannot change their brain chemistry in order to force themselves to actually be attracted to a gender they’re not attracted to. Unless you think you could, but then again, you wouldn’t answer the question.

And everywhere in between, I have. All with solid credentials, all with some kind of research that supports their position.

Solid credentials? What credentials did you supply again?

So, I have watched while you and others have peddled a sows ear as a silk purse, day after day, Using absolute terms like never, always, and wrong, spicing the rhetoric up with terms like bigot or hater, waiting for someone to be honest, you all failed. You have a BELIEF you believe is a fact. Your belief is wrong, you are no more right than I am. There is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the matter. So, in the end, you are presenting as the truth, what cannot be established as the truth, so it could be a lie. You have an agenda, the agenda is to present the muddy as clear, and excoriate any who dare say the muddy is muddy. I will say I am a little disappointed, I expected some intellectual honesty

I’ve been trying to point out to you how obvious it is, if you’d just think about it reasonably for a second, that we don’t choose our sexual orientation. Not our behavior, or our actions – our sexual orientation; who we find ourselves attracted to.


My agenda is for all people to be treated with dignity and respect because we’re all just human beings, in the end.

 

[sojourner]

I don't judge them. I follow Biblical standards. If there is a problem, it is between they and the Bible, it has nothing to do with me

Biblical standards are love, hospitality, and welcome.

 

[sojourner]

Several people including ShadowWolf and Draika (I believe it was) presented evidence to you early on in the thread.

The main evidence, as I am trying to illustrate to you, is obvious if you just think it through logically.




I’m trying to get a simple answer to a simple question in order to demonstrate something to you about choice (or lack thereof, in this case). You have tap danced around the question for quite a while now, which leads me to believe you may understand the point, but refuse to acknowledge it.

You know as well as anybody else does that we don’t consciously choose our sexual orientation because I think you know as well as anybody else does, that you didn’t consciously choose your sexual orientation.



We don’t know what “causes” heterosexuality either. So it must be a conscious choice?



I did look up what the APA had to say:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx





I looked up what you had to say about the APA above and your statements turns out to be inaccurate. Let’s see what they have to say about “reformed” homosexual therapy:

“All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person's (client's) right to self-determination; be sensitive to the client's race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.”



All of your arguments have been addressed. I didn’t get any response when I pointed out to you that a person can obviously change their actions or behaviors but cannot change their brain chemistry in order to force themselves to actually be attracted to a gender they’re not attracted to. Unless you think you could, but then again, you wouldn’t answer the question.




Solid credentials? What credentials did you supply again?




I’ve been trying to point out to you how obvious it is, if you’d just think about it reasonably for a second, that we don’t choose our sexual orientation. Not our behavior, or our actions – our sexual orientation; who we find ourselves attracted to.


My agenda is for all people to be treated with dignity and respect because we’re all just human beings, in the end.

Jordan fades back ... swish ... and THAT'S the ball game!

 

[shmogie]

And what about people who don't care what effect their words have?

So, to speak a truth, that might offend someone, somewhere, one must deny that truth ? I loathe in general members of violent gangs, if one is hurt by that, so be it. I loathe abortionists who commit murder by killing unborn children after the first trimester of pregnancy, if that hurts their feelings so be it. I do not dislike in any way shape or form homosexuals in general. I'm sure some are ********, and some are kind people. My experience has been with a family member and others that they are fine people., I only came across one who was an absolute loser, he was violent and frequently beat up his "friends:". So, the truth is, the Bible has clear directions for my interactions with homosexuals., it has nothing to do with my feelings I won't compromise my beliefs, or response to these instructions, if those words have a negative effect on someone, so be it. YOUR words may have a negative effect on me or those who believe like me, shall I ask you to shut up because your words might be offensive to me or they, or do you not really care ? You believe you are right, right? So, in your rightness you say what you believe, Why criticize me for doing the same ?

 

[shmogie]

Biblical standards are love, hospitality, and welcome.

There are may others and you know that.

 

[sojourner]

YOUR words may have a negative effect on me or those who believe like me, shall I ask you to shut up because your words might be offensive to me or they, or do you not really care ? You believe you are right, right? So, in your rightness you say what you believe, Why criticize me for doing the same ?

Because your words are complicit in the institutional violence that is in place and wielded by the majority against those who have no voice. Our words are speaking in resistance to that violence. It's not you that's being criticized, but the attitude. But your message criticizes individuals for being who they are.

 

[sojourner]

There are may others and you know that.

Those are the ones that take priority.

 

[sojourner]

I don't judge them. I follow Biblical standards. If there is a problem, it is between they and the Bible, it has nothing to do with me

It's hardly between them and the bible; the bible is multivalent. It's between them and your interpretation of the bible.