Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

I'm sorry. I am really not judging you or anyone. I actually don't think and I don't believe God expects non-believers to desire or even be able to live by His design related to sexuality or anything else. I do think God desires that all come to Him for freedom and deliverance from anything that is outside His wisdom and will for each of us. I think when we do therein we find wholeness and eternal fulfillment and joy. This coming to Him is something between each person and God, who alone is the judge.

If everyone is broken, why should we not try to exploit the next broken one? Do I run any risk to break him or myself even more?

By the way, do you think there was a time in our evolutionary past when we were not broken?

Ciao

- viole

I don't quite understand your point re "exploit the next broken one". I believe in the past of humanity there was a time when humans were as God originally intended

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I personally don't feel I need anything beyond God's word, but in the the real world I see that sexuality outside of God's design doesn't bring lasting satisfaction or fulfillment and does bring much heartache, emptiness and varying degrees of physical and emotional ailments.

Quite a claim to assume that actively homosexual individuals aren't really happy or their relationships really fulfilling. I've seen no evidence of this. In fact what I've seen more is the only boundary to their happiness and fulfillment is the constant disapproval and shaming, or worse sociopolitical oppression or personal attacks, done by people purportedly caring about whether or not they are really happy.

 

[shmogie]

Just to add, that in the case of Matthew- that gospel may not have originally been named for him. Origen and others refer to Matthew by the name 'Gospel of the Hebrews', as well as 'Gospel of the Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc'

These were all variants of Matthew as we today have it, and Jerome admits he as good as coined the name 'Gospel of Matthew'.

"May not. I appreciate an honest point

Texts back then were often named in that way. The books were named for the apostles, not written by them. At least that is what the evidence tells us. In other words, the authors weren't trying to trick us. They were honoring the apostles.

Evidence ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quite a claim to assume that actively homosexual individuals aren't really happy or their relationships really fulfilling. I've seen no evidence of this. In fact what I've seen more is the only boundary to their happiness and fulfillment is the constant disapproval and shaming, or worse sociopolitical oppression or personal attacks, done by people purportedly caring about whether or not they are really happy.

Oh this! ^^^^
You said that so much better than I did.

 

[shmogie]

Luke is an exception though. Apparently historians do think that Luke, who traveled with Paul, did write that Gospel. But, unfortunately both Luke and Paul never met Jesus.

Well actually Paul did meet Jesus, perhaps in a way you don't acknowledge. Luke makes it clear his Gospel was the result of his investigation into the events, by interviewing the original witnesses. If the dating of the Gospels is, at the earliest 140 AD, as has been proposed, then he could have never spoken to the original witnesses. A blatant lie

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I personally don't feel I need anything beyond God's word, but in the the real world I see that sexuality outside of God's design doesn't bring lasting satisfaction or fulfillment and does bring much heartache, emptiness and varying degrees of physical and emotional ailments.

Do you really and honestly believe those without god are not happy, dont have a fulfilling life, with headache and emptiness?

 

[leibowde84]

"May not. I appreciate an honest point

Evidence ?

Mark: Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[73][74][75]


^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
^ Eisenman, Robert H. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.

 

[leibowde84]

"May not. I appreciate an honest point

Evidence ?

Matthew: According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[82] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[82] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[86]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[87][88][89][90] Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic.[91] The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.[92]

 

[leibowde84]

"May not. I appreciate an honest point

Evidence ?

John: In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[113][114] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[115] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[116][117] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[118]

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][119]

All references can be found under the reference section at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

 

[leibowde84]

Well actually Paul did meet Jesus, perhaps in a way you don't acknowledge. Luke makes it clear his Gospel was the result of his investigation into the events, by interviewing the original witnesses. If the dating of the Gospels is, at the earliest 140 AD, as has been proposed, then he could have never spoken to the original witnesses. A blatant lie

Claims made in the Gospels themselves referring to authenticity shouldn't be included as evidence in any way. This should be obvious as claims without supporting external evidence are merely empty claims.

 

[shmogie]

Do you really and honestly believe those without god are not happy, dont have a fulfilling life, with headache and emptiness?

If you believe that this is all there is, or that everyone winds up the same in an afterlife, or something of the kind, them you will be as happy as you can be with this life under those circumstances. If you believe in the kind of happiness that Christianity promises, then you will expand your happiness, for now, and in the afterlife

 

[InChrist]

I don't agree, as most of the same sex couples I know personally contradict these claims. But, what evidence leads you to believe this? Can you point to any studies that show this from a psychological perspective?

There are many studies which I think it would be best for you to research yourself. Doing so would be more meaningful for you personally. Besides, I had several links bookmarked, but lost them recently in a hard drive problem and I don't have time now to do a lot of research. Here is one link below to get you started...
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf

 

[shmogie]

John: In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[113][114] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[115] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[116][117] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[118]

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][119]

All references can be found under the reference section at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

No problem, and no reason to believe the beloved disciple wasn't named John

 

[leibowde84]

If you believe that this is all there is, or that everyone winds up the same in an afterlife, or something of the kind, them you will be as happy as you can be with this life under those circumstances. If you believe in the kind of happiness that Christianity promises, then you will expand your happiness, for now, and in the afterlife

Can you support this claim without resorting to circular reasoning, i.e. using scripture to support your claim that scripture is true?

 

[leibowde84]

There are many studies which I think it would be best for you to research yourself. Doing so would be more meaningful for you personally. Besides, I had several links bookmarked, but lost them recently in a hard drive problem and I don't have time now to do a lot of research. Here is one link below to get you started...
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf

This doesn't say anything about the cause being going against God's will. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim of causation?

 

[shmogie]

Matthew: According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[82] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[82] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[86]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.[87][88][89][90] Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic.[91] The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.[92]

Matthew recounts Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple, yet it says nothing about the actual destruction of the temple in 70AD. If it were written post 70 AD this would have been a logical thing to expect as confirmation of the prophecy, yes ?

 

[leibowde84]

Matthew recounts Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple, yet it says nothing about the actual destruction of the temple in 70AD. If it were written post 70 AD this would have been a logical thing to expect as confirmation of the prophecy, yes ?

Nope. It would be far more likely that the author wouldn't include that in order to strengthen the power of the prophecy by claiming to predict the destruction of the temple in the future even though it had already happened.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you really and honestly believe those without god are not happy, dont have a fulfilling life, with headache and emptiness?

On the flip side, because I can't help but feel it can't be stressed enough, for some of us this "god" filled us with self-hatred, anger, depression, and made life miserable. All because some people believe those outside of their little boxes of "black and white," "either or" cannot and will not accept those who do not rigidly fall in line.

 

[shmogie]

Claims made in the Gospels themselves referring to authenticity shouldn't be included as evidence in any way. This should be obvious as claims without supporting external evidence are merely empty claims.

I am not speaking of " claims made in the Gospels referring to authenticity ", I am speaking of evidence within the Gospels that can be applied in a logical fashion to establish authenticity. You are saying that a witness statement cannot be evaluated to establish the veracity of that witness. Contrary to the rules or evidence, that is totally illogical

 

[shmogie]

Nope. It would be far more likely that the author wouldn't include that in order to strengthen the power of the prophecy by claiming to predict the destruction of the temple in the future even though it had already happened.

Oh, a double bluff huh ? LOL