Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[sojourner]

The NT of the Bible is the only definitive source of Christ's teachings.

No it isn't. You just said yourself that God made God's will known through the apostles -- many of whom never wrote one word of the bible.

Christians should love sinners, but they have no responsibility to judge the sin.

Then why are you, as a Christian, judging people to be sin?

I and people like me try and follow that code, because we believe it is Gods will for us.

You. You try to follow that code. You can't decide for other people what that code is, or how to follow it, yet that's what you're doing here.

However,Christ used the word repent more than he did love, and repent means to change from worldly ways, and embrace

Gods way.

So, "Repent" is more important than "Love?" I don't think so. Paul didn't say, "The greatest of these is repentance." And BTW, "repent" doesn't particularly mean, "change from worldly ways." It can (and does) mean a number of things, only one of which may mean what you say. Many times, it's a call to refrain from what other people (read: "the world") think you should be, and to turn to your real identity -- no matter who flips your sexual switch.

God through Christ and the Apostles defined his way

And many of those apostles today are calling for an end to the institutional violence against homosexuality, embracing gay marriage, and devising ways to be more welcoming and inclusive of them. Does that also define the way of God?

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

And others have an obligation to follow as far as they are able, who God made them to be. Regardless of what you *think* the bible says about them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Thank you.

All I ask of people is to treat human beings with respect and dignity, regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc. I am not a Christian but I once belonged to a church where they taught us to treat everyone with love and respect and leave the judging up to god, as "he" is the only one who can truly see what is inside a person's heart.

 

[shmogie]

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

I am a normal male with all the attributes that implies, including heterosexuality consistent with the male physical characteristics I was born with. I never had to choose between sex with a male or female, I never thought of sex with a male, it never entered my mind. For over 90% of the population this is true. They are heterosexuals based upon the physical characteristics they were born with. Homosexuals are born with the physical characteristics of one sex this , and pursue sex, with the same sex. 90% percent plus is the norm . so this is abnormal. Something causes a person of to be abnormal. There is no consistent authoritative voice on the cause for this, Some homosexuals change to be consistent with their physical characteristics and heterosexuality, they choose this change, others do not, Is the cause a matter of choice ? No one can say for sure. I follow the Biblical rules in dealing with homosexuals, for the Bible is an inerrant authority to me.

 

[sojourner]

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

The translation is one of convenience, because there is no Greek word specifically meaning "homosexual" as we understand homosexuality.

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.

Here's what the Harper Collins Commentary has to say about the subject: "The list of vices is broadly the same as the one in 5:11, but underlines the sins of sexual immorality by adding 'adulterers' and by specifying both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality, which are absent from the list in Galatians, specify a special form of pedastery that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature." (emphasis mine)

It is illegal to fire or evict someone because they are homosexuals

It wasn't in the last place I lived. In fact, the city council (upon threat of a few large and powerful evangelical ministers in town) overturned a ruling that had added "homosexuals" to the list of people who could not be discriminated against on that basis. The committee formed to review the law said that it was investigating "what level of discrimination is acceptable."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Then what of Jesus who had no such restrictions, and who didn't bother to ask people what their sins are before letting them in his presence?

Note that in Paul's day there were homosexuals who by Gods power became heterosexuals.

This claim is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence of this, and, in addition, you are still ignoring the vast majority of people who are made worse off by trying to do such a thing. And the biggest problem with that claim is that homosexuality, as we understand it today, was a totally and completely unknown concept then. Not even the ancient Greeks and Romans, who regularly practiced male-homosexuality, had such a concept.

It is illegal to fire or evict someone because they are homosexuals, that is denying their rights defined in the Constitution.

It is indeed legal to do so. But you do not associate with the GLBT community, so of course you've not known or heard of anyone who has indeed been fired from their job or evicted from their home for being homosexual or transgender.

the rest of your post is blather, not pertinent to the discussion as far as I am concerned.

So, in other words, you have no interest in learning from others, from considering their words, or anything else that doesn't conform to your bubble.

 

[sojourner]

90% percent plus is the norm . so this is abnormal.

Here's where your logic is skewed. By this logic, 63% of the American population is the "norm," so the 12.5% of blacks is "abnormal." Do you think blacks are "abnormal?" What can they do to change -- to become "normal?" Is black a disease? What about the 5% of Asians? Are they, too, "abnormal," and can they "pray themselves white?" Do you see the slippery slope in calling a minority group "abnormal?" "Minority percentage" =/= "abnormal." Nor does "majority percentage" = "normal." 90% plus isn't "the norm." It's the majority. The "norm" is that most of us identify as heterosexual and a few of us identify as homosexual. That's the "norm."

the Bible is an inerrant authority to me.

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is inerrant.

 

[sojourner]

I am a normal male with all the attributes that implies, including heterosexuality consistent with the male physical characteristics I was born with. I never had to choose between sex with a male or female, I never thought of sex with a male, it never entered my mind.

So, you didn't "choose" to be attracted to women. What makes you think, then, that homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to the same sex?

 

[viole]

I am a normal male with all the attributes that implies, including heterosexuality consistent with the male physical characteristics I was born with. I never had to choose between sex with a male or female, I never thought of sex with a male, it never entered my mind. For over 90% of the population this is true. They are heterosexuals based upon the physical characteristics they were born with. Homosexuals are born with the physical characteristics of one sex this , and pursue sex, with the same sex. 90% percent plus is the norm . so this is abnormal. Something causes a person of to be abnormal. There is no consistent authoritative voice on the cause for this, Some homosexuals change to be consistent with their physical characteristics and heterosexuality, they choose this change, others do not, Is the cause a matter of choice ? No one can say for sure. I follow the Biblical rules in dealing with homosexuals, for the Bible is an inerrant authority to me.

Being "abnormal" (i.e. living at the outer extremes of a gaussian curve) does not entail being wrong, if being wrong means anything in this case. For sure, it does not give us any moral guidance on how to treat them. By the same logic you should deal with left handed people in the same you deal with gays. For, they are also "abnormal".

But, If your answer is that you follow the Bible, then my question to you is: should we risk to deprive people of their rights, given that by your own admission we are not sure either whether they really chose to be like that, because an ancient book, likely written by some bronze age goat herders, says so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am a normal male with all the attributes that implies, including heterosexuality consistent with the male physical characteristics I was born with. I never had to choose between sex with a male or female, I never thought of sex with a male, it never entered my mind. For over 90% of the population this is true.

What you've just described right here is practically the same thing experienced by gay people all over the world, except that they find themselves attracted to members of the same sex. And as you describe, sex with a member of the opposite sex has probably never entered their minds.

They are heterosexuals based upon the physical characteristics they were born with. Homosexuals are born with the physical characteristics of one sex this , and pursue sex, with the same sex. 90% percent plus is the norm . so this is abnormal. Something causes a person of to be abnormal. There is no consistent authoritative voice on the cause for this, Some homosexuals change to be consistent with their physical characteristics and heterosexuality, they choose this change, others do not, Is the cause a matter of choice ? No one can say for sure. I follow the Biblical rules in dealing with homosexuals, for the Bible is an inerrant authority to me.

Are you "normal?" I don't know. Maybe you're one of the 1-2% of the population that has red hair. Or green eyes. Or are you part of the 10% of people that are left-handed?
Do you wonder about what "causes" left-handedness? Or red hair?

 

[shmogie]

No it isn't. You just said yourself that God made God's will known through the apostles -- many of whom never wrote one word of the bible.


Then why are you, as a Christian, judging people to be sin?


You. You try to follow that code. You can't decide for other people what that code is, or how to follow it, yet that's what you're doing here.


So, "Repent" is more important than "Love?" I don't think so. Paul didn't say, "The greatest of these is repentance." And BTW, "repent" doesn't particularly mean, "change from worldly ways." It can (and does) mean a number of things, only one of which may mean what you say. Many times, it's a call to refrain from what other people (read: "the world") think you should be, and to turn to your real identity -- no matter who flips your sexual switch.


And many of those apostles today are calling for an end to the institutional violence against homosexuality, embracing gay marriage, and devising ways to be more welcoming and inclusive of them. Does that also define the way of God?

And others have an obligation to follow as far as they are able, who God made them to be. Regardless of what you *think* the bible says about them.

Sigh, there are no Apostles alive today. The Apostles wrote the NT. If you know of another source for the life and teachings of Christ that are accepted as authentic, please share. I am judging no one to be anything, that is not my perogative, I simply follow the well defined, properly translated, unambiguous code of behavior defined in the Bible. Others may decide they want to ignore that code, invent a different code, have no code, I can't tell them what to do, they are free to do as they choose. There actually is a lot of judging going on and you are the primary judger. What right do you have to tell me what to believe ? What right do you have to accuse me of something I have never done ? What right do you have to tell me how to live my life ? You have absolutely no right. You purposely distort and act totally ignorant of what I post, so in your arrogant, self righteous persona you can mount your soapbox and hurl invective and stupidiity. I am through with you and your self chosen chronic case of purposeful distortion, I will no longer respond to your ignorant BS, I choose who I interact with, and I want no part of you. Find someone else to try and absolve your guilt, and who will accept your rudeness

 

[shmogie]

Being "abnormal" (i..e. living at the outer extremes of a gaussian curve) does not entail being wrong, if being wrong means anything in this case. For sure, it does not give us any moral guidance on how to treat them. By the same logic you should deal with left handed people in the same you deal with gays. For, they are also "abnormal".

But, If your answer is that you follow the Bible, then my question to you is: should we risk to deprive people of their rights, given that by your admission you are not sure either whether they really chose to be like that, and because an ancient book, likely written by some bronze age goat herders, says so?

Ciao

- viole

I do not support denying anyone their rights, in fact I defend those whose rights have been compromised. Interestingly, I am left handed, we make up only 12-15% of the population, and the ible says nothing about our abnormality and we are daily discriminated against, Scissors are right handed, in college there was only one left handed desk and usually two of us in a class, We were not allowed to play any infield position in baseball but one but, leaders, great scientists, geniuses, great artists show a percentage of lefty's much higher than our percentage of the population, we don't choose that, we are born that way ( joke) You may have your opinion of the Bible, that is your right, as it is mine

 

[shmogie]

What you've just described right here is practically the same thing experienced by gay people all over the world, except that they find themselves attracted to members of the same sex. And as you describe, sex with a member of the opposite sex has probably never entered their minds.

Are you "normal?" I don't know. Maybe you're one of the 1-2% of the population that has red hair. Or green eyes. Or are you part of the 10% of people that are left-handed?
Do you wonder about what "causes" left-handedness? Or red hair?

I am left handed, and thus abnormal, I am sure there is a cause for this, I have never been curious about it

 

[shmogie]

So, you didn't "choose" to be attracted to women. What makes you think, then, that homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to the same sex?

Something causes them to behave differently from the norm of their physical characteristics, it is possible it is choice, since no one can say definitely what it is

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am left handed, and thus abnormal, I am sure there is a cause for this, I have never been curious about it

Then why is it so important to you to know what specific thing causes homosexuality but not the specific thing that causes left-handedness? (Assuming there is such a thing.) They both occur in the population at close to the same rate.
Red hair or green eyes occurs in even a much smaller percentage of the population. Sometimes people are born with green eyes, sometimes red hair and sometimes they're gay.

"Abnormal" doesn't equal "wrong."

 

[shmogie]

Here's where your logic is skewed. By this logic, 63% of the American population is the "norm," so the 12.5% of blacks is "abnormal." Do you think blacks are "abnormal?" What can they do to change -- to become "normal?" Is black a disease? What about the 5% of Asians? Are they, too, "abnormal," and can they "pray themselves white?" Do you see the slippery slope in calling a minority group "abnormal?" "Minority percentage" =/= "abnormal." Nor does "majority percentage" = "normal." 90% plus isn't "the norm." It's the majority. The "norm" is that most of us identify as heterosexual and a few of us identify as homosexual. That's the "norm."


Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is inerrant.

I have proven it to my satisfaction, I have no desire or need to prove it to you

 

[sojourner]

Something causes them to behave differently from the norm of their physical characteristics, it is possible it is choice, since no one can say definitely what it is

1) No, they don't behave differently from the norm of their physical characteristics. Kissing is kissing, touching is touching, attraction is attraction, petting is petting, cuddling is cuddling.
2) Then it's also just as possible that it's not a choice, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[sojourner]

I have proven it to my satisfaction, I have no desire or need to prove it to you

And yet, you want to hold the rest of the world to your standard for it. Interesting choice, especially given that you're not an expert on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am left handed, and thus abnormal, I am sure there is a cause for this, I have never been curious about it

It's not that they behave differently, exactly. They're just attracted to members of the same sex. I still don't see you making this important distinction.

 

[sojourner]

I am left handed, and thus abnormal, I am sure there is a cause for this, I have never been curious about it

But in this case, the majority of the culture doesn't tell you that you're less than human, going to hell, and not keeping you from ministry based on your handedness.

 

[shmogie]

Then why is it so important to you to know what specific thing causes homosexuality but not the specific thing that causes left-handedness? (Assuming there is such a thing.) They both occur in the population at close to the same rate.
Red hair or green eyes occurs in even a much smaller percentage of the population. Sometimes people are born with green eyes, sometimes red hair and sometimes they're gay.

"Abnormal" doesn't equal "wrong."

I agree abnormal does not equal wrong, I believe what the Bible says, but I have an obligation to myself to evaluate all the available evidence.