Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

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

OK, if reading very clear properly translated words is an interpretation, so be it

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really, it doesn't matter. He is of the, I guess, for a lack of anything else to go by at the moment, of the "super privileged." Not only does he live with privilege, and all that entails, but his position is also such that he has never really had his status of privilege challenged. We can fairly assume his sexuality has never been questioned or challenged. This is a difficult assumption to make, but we have plenty of his posts now to act as a guide to suggest this has never happened to him. Of course no one has told him his sexual attractions are shameful, that they will get him into hell, they make him less of a man, or that god wants nothing to do with his abominable ***. Never has this happened to him, never has he had to question such things, I'll even guess he has never pondered such things.
The two things I can deduce are that either he is bisexual, and has attractions towards both but because he did factually decide just to focus on women he has such views of "choice," (but this strikes me as very unlikely, because he doesn't strike me as the type to ever have had a sexual attraction towards a man), or, what seems more likely, he has no idea and he is basing his views upon what is a strictly conservative Christian perspective, a view that doesn't even consider for a moment "I haven't been there." To me, in my "not-quite-yet-a-full-"judge and jurry," he seems very likely to be of the group that just doesn't know. Though the "choice" we frequently see out of people who do seem to be bisexual, he seems to be straight (or just very dishonest, which in this regards doesn't seem as likely as in regards to other things). So we are left with his belief in sexuality as a choice. Now, obviously, those who are homosexual do not believe it is a choice, and the scientific community at large does not believe this. So what we are left with is that his information comes from rigidly conservative sources, and although these sources make up a very slim minority, he has chosen to believe them over other sources, probably for no other reason than his religious conviction - and this cannot be ignored or understated because anyone who says such things can take a blind-bet and assume that anything he says is from the perspective of a conservative Christian, the perspective of someone who does not understand and who does not understand.
This thread is actually pretty good. We have Jeager, a Christian who does not judge homosexuals and has professed a deep friendship with a homosexual (so deep that he entrusts his very well being and life with a homosexual), and then we have Shmogie, who is also a Christian, but who has said his best friend cannot be homosexual. Personally, I'd say I'm for more interested in the "Christian vs. Christian" aspect of it, because they both have the same book, the same Messiah, and the same god, but they have two completely different approaches on the subject. But, at the same times, it's not that interesting because one of those Christians has shown he's more accepting of others, which is what we see Christ doing throughout his time in the NT, and another Christian who shuns others and turns them away. We also have examples of Christ doing such a thing, but this was with hypocrites and money lenders being present at the temple. Adding the perspective of someone who is GLBT, trained in psychology or psychiatry, or well read in the subject isn't so interesting. What is interesting, however, is when two people of the same identical religion have two completely different views. I leave Ben out because he is not on the same level of acceptance as Jeager or on the same level of "no" that Shmogie is on, yet it's also interesting to add because that gives us a third view, which is not the level of acceptance as human beings that Jeager's is on, but Ben has also said he will not even associate with homosexuals, leaving him in the middle of the two, albeit closer to Shmogie's view than Jeager's.
So, what we are left with is who of these Christians is right? I am in a position to add my own experience to weigh the thoughts of the two, and my own experience, which does come from a view more similar to Shmogie's, which is a past that left me miserable and wanting to die. Had I been a member of a church who was affirming, I may have never left my faith to begin with. Obviously my position is heavily biases. But we can review what Christ did and taught. When reviewing the first four books of the NT, I have no reason to believe that Christ himself would have turned someone away for being homosexual, unlike Shmogie who said he won't even associate with them.

I'm starting to think this is actually the case.

It really is interesting to see such a full and diverse range of beliefs from Christians on this subject. And it reinforces the view that the Bible isn't so clear-cut on the issue after all, given all the differing positions on it seen on this thread (and others).

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe God is not human.

You are.

 

[shmogie]

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.

It is not an attitude, that implies I can "change my attitude". I cannot change clear directions spoken by one I believe speaks for the Divine, whatever my attitude. The continual use of the term "violence" when none exists is one of the most dishonest uses of the language I have ever seen. You would have me sacrifice my faith, on the alter of someones feelings might be hurt. Won't happen

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I've known people whom Jesus was apparently unable to help. Or people who found Jesus and continued to have addiction problems. There is a lot of work and a lifetime commitment involved in overcoming 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.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Addiction is tough, and most addicts relapse at least once.

I believe you should name one that works.

Like listening and being there for a person who needs your help. Going to AA meetings and/or treatment with them and just plain old being supportive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Not that anybody probably cares too much, but this is the version of Christianity I find to be the most positive and spiritual and uplifting and just overall great for humanity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not an attitude, that implies I can "change my attitude". I cannot change clear directions spoken by one I believe speaks for the Divine, whatever my attitude. The continual use of the term "violence" when none exists is one of the most dishonest uses of the language I have ever seen. You would have me sacrifice my faith, on the alter of someones feelings might be hurt. Won't happen

Sojourner has pointed out to you countless times by now that it is about far more than just "hurting someone's feelings." At least acknowledge that much.

 

[shmogie]

I'm starting to think this is actually the case.

It really is interesting to see such a full and diverse range of beliefs from Christians on this subject. And it reinforces the view that the Bible isn't so clear-cut on the issue after all, given all the differing positions on it seen on this thread (and others).

The Bible is perfectly clear cut. Others may deny portions they don't agree with, or use all types of qualifiers to lead them to positions they are comfortable with. That is between they and God. As to privilege I don't have a clue what the woman is talking about. Certainly from a socio/economic perspective I wasn't "privileged". I was raised by a divorced, disabled mother who was very wise and did her very best for me, but we were dirt poor. I was usually the poorest kid in school, but I got excellent grades. I worked 6 hrs. a night as a janitor, and on the weekends at a gas station, so I could attend university classes during the day, a " full load " of classes. So stop with the privilege nonsense, my success was because I worked my *** off. Of course my sexuality was never challenged, why would anyone do that ? I was a normal male interacting with other normal males and females. I simply don't know what she is trying to say

 

[shmogie]

Sojourner has pointed out to you countless times by now that it is about far more than just "hurting someone's feelings." At least acknowledge that much.

In my case I say nothing to harm anyone's view of themselves, if they ask, and none have, I will give an honest answer. The issue, as far as I know, has never arisen or been discussed in my church, I no longer sit on the church board or membership committee, so I have no active role if the issue were to arise. Since I have retired and my wife and I have moved to a small town, where everybody knows everybody, those homosexuals who have made themselves known are treated by me like any other person I might run into in the post office or gas station. We don't discuss their sexuality or mine. This is the only time in years that I have discussed the matter in such depth, and it was only because of the thread title and my desire to be honest and present the Biblical view. So, in my case, it is really whether someones feelings have been hurt who reads my posts. I cannot be accountable for what others say. If I hear it, and they are being needlessly repressive or antagonistic, I can ask them to correct it, that is all.

 

[sojourner]

It is not an attitude, that implies I can "change my attitude". I cannot change clear directions spoken by one I believe speaks for the Divine, whatever my attitude. The continual use of the term "violence" when none exists is one of the most dishonest uses of the language I have ever seen. You would have me sacrifice my faith, on the alter of someones feelings might be hurt. Won't happen

Violence is as violence does. If your faith causes you to throw someone under the bus, I would point you to the teaching of Jesus where he says, "If you cause any of these little ones to stumble..." and to the teaching shortly thereafter that says, "If your eye causes you to sin..." And to Paul's teaching: "Love does not insist on its own way." Jesus sacrificed himself on the altar of human sin -- what's so important about your faith?

 

[sojourner]

Not that anybody probably cares too much, but this is the version of Christianity I find to be the most positive and spiritual and uplifting and just overall great for humanity.

It's the only version that works for me...

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is perfectly clear cut.

No. It's not.

So stop with the privilege nonsense

You're a straight, male Protestant, living in America. That makes you one of the privileged.

 

[sojourner]

In my case I say nothing to harm anyone's view of themselves

Every time you call someone's sexual veracity into question, you do that very thing.

it was only because of the thread title and my desire to be honest and present the Biblical view.

You didn't present the biblical view. You presented your view of "what the bible says."

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is perfectly clear cut. Others may deny portions they don't agree with, or use all types of qualifiers to lead them to positions they are comfortable with. That is between they and God. As to privilege I don't have a clue what the woman is talking about. Certainly from a socio/economic perspective I wasn't "privileged". I was raised by a divorced, disabled mother who was very wise and did her very best for me, but we were dirt poor. I was usually the poorest kid in school, but I got excellent grades. I worked 6 hrs. a night as a janitor, and on the weekends at a gas station, so I could attend university classes during the day, a " full load " of classes. So stop with the privilege nonsense, my success was because I worked my *** off. Of course my sexuality was never challenged, why would anyone do that ? I was a normal male interacting with other normal males and females. I simply don't know what she is trying to say

It apparently is not, given the varying opinions on the subject of homosexuality just on this thread alone.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In my case I say nothing to harm anyone's view of themselves, if they ask, and none have, I will give an honest answer. The issue, as far as I know, has never arisen or been discussed in my church, I no longer sit on the church board or membership committee, so I have no active role if the issue were to arise. Since I have retired and my wife and I have moved to a small town, where everybody knows everybody, those homosexuals who have made themselves known are treated by me like any other person I might run into in the post office or gas station. We don't discuss their sexuality or mine. This is the only time in years that I have discussed the matter in such depth, and it was only because of the thread title and my desire to be honest and present the Biblical view. So, in my case, it is really whether someones feelings have been hurt who reads my posts. I cannot be accountable for what others say. If I hear it, and they are being needlessly repressive or antagonistic, I can ask them to correct it, that is all.

I'm happy to hear that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have taken the time to carefully look at the evidence.

You haven't. How do I know? Because you have been given links with sources and evidence, yet you still go on asking for evidence of things we have already posted.

It is no an "attitude" it is following a a specific Biblical instruction,

The Bible does not instruct you to not have any association with sinners, and it does not give you any instructions as to whom can or cannot be your friends.

"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 isn't a bastardization of language, but the real result of poverty, under employment, homelessness, lack of access to resources, and other things that cause very real harm because of discriminatory policies that are based on prejudiced world views. Homosexuals are far from the only group that suffers from institutionalized violence.

It will NEVER happen with me, and millions and millions, and millions of believers across the world

These "millions and millions and millions of believers" are abandoning the anti-homosexual views they got from the Bible, and replacing it with "they too are the children of God" that they got from the Bible, they are becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, and aren't seeing it as any sort of deal or issue.

I simply don't know what she is trying to say

What I'm saying is you've never had someone challenge or question your sexuality. You've never had to deal with people judging your entire existence based on your sexual orientation. And, yes, you are privileged. If you made good grades, how many people were surprised to see an articulate and educated white person? You cannot be fired or evicted over your sexual orientation. You don't go through your day hearing how people like you are going to tear apart this nation's moral fabric and cause its downfall and destruction, and God will never send a hurricane after you.

 

[shmogie]

Not that anybody probably cares too much, but this is the version of Christianity I find to be the most positive and spiritual and uplifting and just overall great for humanity.

Nicely written, and I understand where you are coming from. I believe Christ loves humanity and we are predestined to be saved. We have free will, and that may affect our ultimate and final, condition. Christ wanted his message to be preached to every person, irrespective of race, religion creed or sexuality. His message is an offer that can be freely accepted or rejected. The NT of the Bible is the only definitive source of Christ's teachings. He himself set the precedent that if his message is rejected, one must move on, just as he did. He makes it clear that there are two roads to follow, and many will follow the wrong road. Paul was an Apostle. along with the others, who was inspired by God to preach to the Gentiles, and to establish the Gentile church. He confirms over and over again the love of God for all people, but he also confirms that God cannot and will not abide with or compromise with sin. As the old true cliche says, God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Christians should love sinners, but they have no responsibility to judge the sin. We are all sinners, and as the bumper sticker says, Christians are just forgiven. I might add the Christ said the Spirit would come, and empower people to fight the sin in their lives. Paul left clear rules that one is to follow. It has nothing to do with someone making judgements, it has every thing to do with people following the code of behavior laid down by God through Paul. I and people like me try and follow that code, because we believe it is Gods will for us. We do not hate, we do not accuse, we do not persecute our services are open to all, and all are free to attend, and they always focus on Christ's love, a love so strong, he died as a result of it. However,Christ used the word repent more than he did love, and repent means to change from worldly ways, and embrace

Gods way. God through Christ and the Apostles defined his way, and to paraphrase Pilate, "what will you do with this man ?" I neither accuse or convict, that is solely Gods pervue, but I have an obligation to follow as far as I am able those things that were laid down as a guide to my behavior, all of them. those who choose otherwise and call themselves Christians will find no dispute with me. We all walk our path's as we believe we should. That is the way it was intended

 

[viole]

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. Instead, you have resorted to disingenuous word play to dismiss my view. 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. 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. 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. And everywhere in between, I have. All with solid credentials, all with some kind of research that supports their position. 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 think it was a good question. It does not need advanced science to respond. So, you are deflecting.

Did you consciously choose to be sexually attracted by females? Was that a clear choice of yours? Do you remember being at a cross road where you could freely choose to be attracted by females or man? Could you possibly be sexually attracted by a man, if you really wanted? Can you want that?

I really don't see how that is possible, under the premise of strict monosexuality. I cannot possibly force myself to be sexually attracted by a good looking woman, even if I recognize that she is good looking. The same with men. I cannot possibly choose to be attracted by man X or by man Y. It is, literally, beyond my control. In the same way I cannot possibly choose what food I like and what not, independently from what the rest of the world thinks about that food and me eating it or not.

It is no word play. Just simple questions.. I think that "word play" must be translated here into "I do not want to answer that".

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

You haven't. How do I know? Because you have been given links with sources and evidence, yet you still go on asking for evidence of things we have already posted.

The Bible does not instruct you to not have any association with sinners, and it does not give you any instructions as to whom can or cannot be your friends.

It isn't a bastardization of language, but the real result of poverty, under employment, homelessness, lack of access to resources, and other things that cause very real harm because of discriminatory policies that are based on prejudiced world views. Homosexuals are far from the only group that suffers from institutionalized violence.

These "millions and millions and millions of believers" are abandoning the anti-homosexual views they got from the Bible, and replacing it with "they too are the children of God" that they got from the Bible, they are becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, and aren't seeing it as any sort of deal or issue.

What I'm saying is you've never had someone challenge or question your sexuality. You've never had to deal with people judging your entire existence based on your sexual orientation. And, yes, you are privileged. If you made good grades, how many people were surprised to see an articulate and educated white person? You cannot be fired or evicted over your sexual orientation. You don't go through your day hearing how people like you are going to tear apart this nation's moral fabric and cause its downfall and destruction, and God will never send a hurricane after you.

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you. But you were washed. You were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6; 9-11 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people but i certainly did not mean the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters since then you would need to go out of this world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother who is sexually immoral, or an idolater, or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner= not even to eat with such people, 1cor.5; 9-11 NKJV Do not call me a liar as to what the Bible says, the translation is the same in 7 different versions (translations) and the words are properly translated according to the Greek lexicons I have checked. Note that in Paul's day there were homosexuals who by Gods power became heterosexuals. It is illegal to fire or evict someone because they are homosexuals, that is denying their rights defined in the Constitution. the rest of your post is blather, not pertinent to the discussion as far as I am concerned.