Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ben Dhyan]

So are you now accepting that monotheism doesn't have a monopoly on religion and spirituality? Are you now recognising the validity of non-theist spiritual traditions?

Hmmm.......odd that you have never noticed my sig line......

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hmmm.......odd that you have never noticed my sig line......

But you interpret all those traditions through a theist lens, something I have objected to in the past. And you continually dismiss "atheists" as having nothing to say about spirituality.

 

[Sees]

Lately, as this thread pops up again and again in the Recent Posts listing, I read the title as "Are victimless crimes considered a crime according to your religion?" - can't help but chuckle a bit.


Are fish still a vegetable?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you interpret all those traditions through a theist lens, something I have objected to in the past. And you continually dismiss "atheists" as having nothing to say about spirituality.

Not really....has it not occurred to you that you may be interpreting my words through an atheist lens and thus misunderstanding.....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not really....has it not occurred to you that you may be interpreting my words through an atheist lens and thus misunderstanding.....

Yes, really. When it next happens I can point it out if you wish. Though I'd prefer it if you just stopped talking down to everyone who doesn't share your belief system. As I've observed before, you are not a preacher and we are not your congregation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Lately, as this thread pops up again and again in the Recent Posts listing, I read the title as "Are victimless crimes considered a crime according to your religion?" - can't help but chuckle a bit.

Yeah, I know.

Ironically, homophobia isn't a victimless crime.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So would you think it unfair and unreasonable if people discriminated against you on the basis of being left-handed, or called you an abomination?

Of course it is a fact that left-handedness used to be a sign of being in allegiance with the devil, and as recently as the 20th century left-handed children were treated harshly and made to use their right hand.

 

[shmogie]

Cop-out plain and simple. No true Scotsman!

And I will add, - how can you claim that when their accepted Bible says they can hold slaves forever???

How are they not true Christians - when they are doing what their Bible says they can do?

*

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's another lesson ... don't assume that everyone defines these terms in the same way. I would say that the initial burden would be on you to define God in a limited, "difinitive" way. Short of that, there is no reason to even discuss God's existence.

So would you think it unfair and unreasonable if people discriminated against you on the basis of being left-handed, or called you an abomination?

When I was in college I had the good fortune to take a Spanish literature class. We spent the entire quarter on the book Don Quixote. The poor Don went off his head, and in his mind he became a great knight champion for good, fighter for the oppressed. He saw a donkey as a powerful charger, his shabby little friend as knights equirrey, a prostitute as a great princess. He put a pot on his head as his knights helmet, and went forth to do battle.The problem was, he totally was confused about his enemy, didn';t grasp reality, but made it what he so strongly wanted it to be, in spite of the evidence other wise, He attacked windmills and fulling dams because he saw them as evil knights that he must destroy. I see a wonderful parallel with some posters on this thread. You have created an enemy because you need to have one, you have no respect for the enemy you have created, because in your minds he deserves none. You preach tolerance and acceptance, but like the poor Don, those outside your knightly code are evil, regardless of reality. And like Don Quixote, you tilt at windmills, believing to be what you have made them to be.
a wonderful play was written from the book, and its title applies so beautifully to you who want to bend and twist what is real, into your own alternate reality. You may charge enemies you have created, you may demand that the real evidence of reality be considered as it is in the realm of your minds, but like the title of the play, it is " The Impossible Dream"

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know what would be great? If people would just answer simple questions the first time they're asked, instead of having to go 'round and 'round the merry-go-round first.

 

[shmogie]

You know what would be great? If people would just answer simple questions the first time they're asked, instead of having to go 'round and 'round the merry-go-round first.

Yes, yes It has no bearing on me, I have not, and do not discriminate based on anyone being left hand. I call no one, for any reason, an abomination. I, like everyone, discriminate. I try not to walk down dark alley's at night in high crime area's, I don;'t go to restaurants that have had poor reviews, I personally boycott publications that are worthless to me, etc., etc., etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, yes It has no bearing on me, I have not, and do not discriminate based on anyone being left hand. I call no one, for any reason, an abomination. I, like everyone, discriminate. I try not to walk down dark alley's at night in high crime area's, I don;'t go to restaurants that have had poor reviews, I personally boycott publications that are worthless to me, etc., etc., etc.

So the question then, is why?

You admittedly discriminate against people who identify as gay. You said that you avoid friendships with them and things like that. You have said they are abnormal. So the question about left-handedness is a relevant one given that left handed people are also "abnormal" according to your definition of the word. Why do you not avoid friendships with left handed people for the same reason? Or redheads? Or people with green eyes? They are all "abnormal."

Since you are left-handed and therefore "abnormal," would you think it unfair and unreasonable if people discriminated against you for being left-handed, which is something you had no choice in?

 

[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,

You make it sound like the Bible gives an excuse to discriminate people. It's not even written in the Bible, and they (dare to) discriminate me!

However, these baptists see you heading towards hell, together with Kermit the Frog: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=49703

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

Well, there are several myths about left handlers. I am not sure though how really substantiated they are. Confirmation bias is always behind the corner.

A bit like the myth that most of the greatest Italian artists and geniuses of the renaissance were gays. Michelangelo and Leonardo probably were. Leonardo was also a left hander. I find it ironic that the catholic church chooses the next deputy of God on earth under the pictures of a gay man.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

The Catholic church is liable to do anything, they do not practice sola scriptura, allowing tradition and the various popes ex cathedra statements as equal with the Bible. People who truly want to say or do something, even if they shouldn't, most often find an excuse to do so The Bible is no excuse for saying or doing evil things. The NT does make some clears statements re homosexuals, but these statements are not an excuse to ignore the other statements about how all people are to be treated. The Bible makes crystal clear that if there is to be any judging done, God will do it. The believer has no part in it. There is one instruction re homosexuality that might be construed as judging, and this is used by people to inflate the instruction to imply much that it is not concerned with. The instruction is this; declared homosexuals within the church are to be avoided. It further says that to avoid homosexuals outside the church, one would have to leave the world, and that Biblical standards do not apply to them. So, my denomination does not allow full church membership to declared homosexuals. They are welcome to attend and participate in all things but two rites that are reserved for members only. The state of their soul in relationship to God cannot be judged and any speculation on that matter is wrong. Statements on that matter are doubly wrong. So, is the instruction and adhering to it discriminatory ? Yes, if discrimination is using something for a filter to evaluate statements, actions, or conditions and the response to those. I submit that we all discriminate for one reason or another. The reason seems proper at the time. The problem you and others create for me, if I attend a church that adheres to the standard, and you believe I am wrong and should change, is that I cannot. My faith in sola scriptura is so strong, asking me to abandon part of it is the same as asking a homosexual to pretend he or she is a heterosexual. I believe both are wrong. Whether homosexuality is simply a choice or a condition that cannot be changed, or any combination of both and no one knows for sure, is irrelevant to those few sentences, they say what they say

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Catholic church is liable to do anything, they do not practice sola scriptura, allowing tradition and the various popes ex cathedra statements as equal with the Bible. People who truly want to say or do something, even if they shouldn't, most often find an excuse to do so The Bible is no excuse for saying or doing evil things. The NT does make some clears statements re homosexuals, but these statements are not an excuse to ignore the other statements about how all people are to be treated. The Bible makes crystal clear that if there is to be any judging done, God will do it. The believer has no part in it. There is one instruction re homosexuality that might be construed as judging, and this is used by people to inflate the instruction to imply much that it is not concerned with. The instruction is this; declared homosexuals within the church are to be avoided. It further says that to avoid homosexuals outside the church, one would have to leave the world, and that Biblical standards do not apply to them. So, my denomination does not allow full church membership to declared homosexuals. They are welcome to attend and participate in all things but two rites that are reserved for members only. The state of their soul in relationship to God cannot be judged and any speculation on that matter is wrong. Statements on that matter are doubly wrong. So, is the instruction and adhering to it discriminatory ? Yes, if discrimination is using something for a filter to evaluate statements, actions, or conditions and the response to those. I submit that we all discriminate for one reason or another. The reason seems proper at the time. The problem you and others create for me, if I attend a church that adheres to the standard, and you believe I am wrong and should change, is that I cannot. My faith in sola scriptura is so strong, asking me to abandon part of it is the same as asking a homosexual to pretend he or she is a heterosexual. I believe both are wrong. Whether homosexuality is simply a choice or a condition that cannot be changed, or any combination of both and no one knows for sure, is irrelevant to those few sentences, they say what they say

Most people know for sure that sexual orientation is not a choice. Let's not pretend there's some big controversy there.
From my experience, the ones that don't, are those who find themselves having to find a way to justify their Biblical beliefs against homosexuality.

 

[shmogie]

So the question then, is why?

You admittedly discriminate against people who identify as gay. You said that you avoid friendships with them and things like that. You have said they are abnormal. So the question about left-handedness is a relevant one given that left handed people are also "abnormal" according to your definition of the word. Why do you not avoid friendships with left handed people for the same reason? Or redheads? Or people with green eyes? They are all "abnormal."

Since you are left-handed and therefore "abnormal," would you think it unfair and unreasonable if people discriminated against you for being left-handed, which is something you had no choice in?

I do not discriminate against homosexuals in the way you mean, in an illegal or immoral fashion. If someone believed lefty's were the devil incarnate, and chose to avoid me, why should I care ? As you have stated,my definition of "normal" is simply what the majority are. Normal, abnormal are not derogatory terms, lefty's are abnormal because rightys are the norm for the majority. I personally have no friends that are homosexuals because I have known none that I want to be friends with, I do not seek them out because I have no reason to. Those who I interact with, including family members, I treat exactly as I would anyone else. I once had a person to whom I reported who I was unsure of his "sexual orientation". He spoke of his attraction to women, but I suspected he might be bisexual by other things he said. I certainly never knew for sure. We became great friends, and did lots of things together. I set the boundary that detailed talk of sex, any of it, was something I was uncomfortable with and I did not want to hear it, he respected that boundary

 

[shmogie]

Most people know for sure that sexual orientation is not a choice. Let's not pretend there's some big controversy there.
From my experience, the ones that don't, are those who find themselves having to find a way to justify their Biblical beliefs against homosexuality.

Well most people may know for sure ( I think your statement is factually wrong) but that knowledge is not based on any a priori factual conclusive evidence. There is not a controversy that I know of, there are differences of opinion on conflicting evidence. If you believe the evidence leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have not sought out all the evidence, you are wrong.

 

[shmogie]

Well most people may know for sure ( I think your statement is factually wrong) but that knowledge is not based on any a priori factual conclusive evidence. There is not a controversy that I know of, there are differences of opinion on conflicting evidence. If you believe the evidence leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have not sought out all the evidence, you are wrong.

BTW, I have no reason to justify my Biblical beliefs to anyone but myself. Anyone else can take it or leave it as they choose

 

[viole]

BTW, I have no reason to justify my Biblical beliefs to anyone but myself. Anyone else can take it or leave it as they choose

True. The moment you need to justify them is when they interfere with society, which might not care about them. Like when they are are used as the main argument to prevent gays from marrying.

If you are against gay marriages for personal reasons, there is not much we can do. Your opinion is as good as mine. Things like gays adopting children are not obvious. And I can somehow understand the concerns, even if I do not share them, of the average person.

But If you delegate the whole issue to what is very likely the figment of the imagination of some ancient people, then you should expect to be called out.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not discriminate against homosexuals in the way you mean, in an illegal or immoral fashion.

I don't think I said you did.

If someone believed lefty's were the devil incarnate, and chose to avoid me, why should I care ? As you have stated,my definition of "normal" is simply what the majority are. Normal, abnormal are not derogatory terms, lefty's are abnormal because rightys are the norm for the majority. I personally have no friends that are homosexuals because I have known none that I want to be friends with, I do not seek them out because I have no reason to. Those who I interact with, including family members, I treat exactly as I would anyone else. I once had a person to whom I reported who I was unsure of his "sexual orientation". He spoke of his attraction to women, but I suspected he might be bisexual by other things he said. I certainly never knew for sure. We became great friends, and did lots of things together. I set the boundary that detailed talk of sex, any of it, was something I was uncomfortable with and I did not want to hear it, he respected that boundary

I'm trying to figure out your thought process on this. And boy oh boy, you are not making it easy for me by avoiding every single question asked of you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well most people may know for sure ( I think your statement is factually wrong) but that knowledge is not based on any a priori factual conclusive evidence. There is not a controversy that I know of, there are differences of opinion on conflicting evidence. If you believe the evidence leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have not sought out all the evidence, you are wrong.

Why do you think that statement is factually wrong? It's the most obvious thing in the world to me.

This is why I keep asking you when you consciously chose your sexual orientation. I'm trying to illuminate the obvious. Get it?