Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Unveiled Artist]

I do. How would it be possible for anyone to have true happiness or lasting fulfillment if we were each created for the sole purpose of being in an eternal loving relationship with God our Creator...and we are not?

I respect your belief. I never had that type of unopened* view. You have to understand that not everyone is at a downfall because their sole purpose is not based on your faith. Their happiness (true happiness) is based between that person and their faith or values.

That is like my telling you, you do not experience true happiness because you do not talk with the spirits (who are a part of you), your ancestors, your deceased family. You do not understand what true happiness even means.

Do you believe this just because I said this?
Why dont you believe it when it is true?

The answers to these questions are not false. Thinking openmindly, I have to accept and with unconditional love believe what you said is true about yourself. I dont know you. John doesnt know you. Only god and you.

Who am I to judge base on my belief?

Who are you to judge based on yours?

*unopened minded not meant as an insult

 

[InChrist]

But you must agree that you don't know anything about what it's like to naturally be attracted to those of the same sex? As a heterosexual, can you imagine if the tables were turned and God demanded that you be with members of your same sex? Would you be able to change your own sexual orientation?

I can imagine or honestly maybe I can't completely imagine how difficult such a situation would be. I do know that I would not be able to change my sexual attraction, if that were the case. But I believe in the God who created heaven and earth and He is able. I am at the point where I know that His will and wisdom is so much better and more desirable than anything I could ever desire in the flesh. I am aware that not everyone is at that point and many struggle and fight for what they want and what feels good and right for themselves, but I just think that fulfillment and wholeness will never come apart from God's perfection and holy design for His creation. I believe He cares intimately, personally, and immensely for each unique person. So each day I say, Lord, what is your perfect, loving will for me today?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everyone struggles in one area or another with some major issue(s) in their life which are contrary to God's will or design. I certainly did deal with pressure prior to deliverance, freedom, wholeness and fulfillment in Christ.

We're not talking about one of many random sins in the Bible, but of something that is a fundamental part of who are as humans. Nearly almost everyone has sexual attractions, because it is a very human trait to have. People desire loving relationships with others, and many Christians feel homosexuals should be denied this. This isn't like smoking a cigarette, gambling, drunkeness, or some other temptation that you can take-it-or-leave-it, but something that is a very deep and very personal thing that has huge implications as to who we are as a person.

I do. How would it be possible for anyone to have true happiness or lasting fulfillment if we were each created for the sole purpose of being in an eternal loving relationship with God our Creator...and we are not?

Then how is it I found more happiness and lasting fulfillment after I ceased following Christianity and began following Existentialism?

The point being made is that I know a non Christian cannot have the true happiness a Christian has because my faith tells me this.

You don't know this. I had no happiness, at all, as a Christian. In my post-Christian life, however, I allowed myself to do things that did make me happy, that did allow me to accept myself, and even look at myself in the mirror without being overcome with depression.

 

[InChrist]

I respect your belief. I never had that type of unopened* view. You have to understand that not everyone is at a downfall because their sole purpose is not based on your faith. Their happiness (true happiness) is based between that person and their faith or values.

That is like my telling you, you do not experience true happiness because you do not talk with the spirits (who are a part of you), your ancestors, your deceased family. You do not understand what true happiness even means.

Do you believe this just because I said this?
Why dont you believe it when it is true?

The answers to these questions are not false. Thinking openmindly, I have to accept and with unconditional love believe what you said is true about yourself. I dont know you. John doesnt know you. Only god and you.

Who am I to judge base on my belief?

Who are you to judge based on yours?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I do respect your right to your beliefs and realize that everyone has various beliefs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The point being made is that I know a non Christian cannot have the true happiness a Christian has because my faith tells me this. There are degrees of happiness, and different types, Christian happiness can only be experienced by a Christian. My faith might tell me Christian happiness might be best for everyone, but I certainly have no right to use that as a tool to judge anyone, nor do I think the person who posted the original post was doing so

True. In my opinion, though, to place other forms of happiness under the christian one is unhealthy. We dont experience the same "type" of happiness (based on different sources) but its as intense, meaningful, and life changing as a christian born again.

 

[leibowde84]

I can imagine or honestly maybe I can't completely imagine how difficult such a situation would be. I do know that I would not be able to change my sexual attraction, if that were the case. But I believe in the God who created heaven and earth and He is able. I am at the point where I know that His will and wisdom is so much better and more desirable than anything I could ever desire in the flesh. I am aware that not everyone is at that point and many struggle and fight for what they want and what feels good and right for themselves, but I just think that fulfillment and wholeness will never come apart from God's perfection and holy design for His creation. I believe He cares intimately, personally, and immensely for each unique person. So each day I say, Lord, what is your perfect, loving will for me today?

But to them, all signs are pointing to them being better off being themselves. It not like addiction or crime. Would God really be so cruel as to make them attracted to only those who they aren't meant to be with? I think not.

 

[shmogie]

I find it so obvious that this is an evolutionary trait that has come up as a product of consciousness. Positive thinking and hope for a long life make people more likely to be successful. It seems logical that this hope wouldn't be limited to our life on earth, as the belief that everything ends with death would limit that hope in a profound way. Also, our belief in judgment after death helps many to be better morally. As a societal species, we have benefitted from this belief.

Yes, however there are a whole lot of philosophical questions, separate from religion that arise, is everything there is meaningless ( including my life) is there any purpose for what there is, and on and on. An evolutionary atheist sometimes is confronted with these issues, and the darkness that comes with there is no meaning, there is no purpose, we just live out our pitiful, meaningless lives on a planet in a universe that is meaningless and purposeless and of no value. I know these dark periods and thoughts come, because I was an atheist and experienced them

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, however there are a whole lot of philosophical questions, separate from religion that arise, is everything there is meaningless ( including my life) is there any purpose for what there is, and on and on. An evolutionary atheist sometimes is confronted with these issues, and the darkness that comes with there is no meaning, there is no purpose, we just live out our pitiful, meaningless lives on a planet in a universe that is meaningless and purposeless and of no value. I know these dark periods and thoughts come, because I was an atheist and experienced them

This makes no sense. In no way is an afterlife necessary to make life meaningful. How can you even think such a thing. We all can contribute to the betterment of others. Imho, that should be enough.

 

[shmogie]

True. In my opinion, though, to place other forms of happiness under the christian one is unhealthy. We dont experience the same "type" of happiness (based on different sources) but its as intense, meaningful, and life changing as a christian born again.

You believe it as intense, meaningful and life changing to a Christian being born again, I believe it is not. We are at an impasse

 

[shmogie]

This makes no sense. In no way is an afterlife necessary to make life meaningful. How can you even think such a thing. We all can contribute to the betterment of others. Imho, that should be enough.

I wasn't talking specifically about an afterlife. I was talking about true philosophical questions. Why contribute to the betterment of others ? They are going to be just as dead as me in a flicker of time. Why do you think it is "good" to contribute to the betterment of others ? Who decides what is "good" ?

 

[InChrist]

We're not talking about one of many random sins in the Bible, but of something that is a fundamental part of who are as humans. Nearly almost everyone has sexual attractions, because it is a very human trait to have. People desire loving relationships with others, and many Christians feel homosexuals should be denied this. This isn't like smoking a cigarette, gambling, drunkeness, or some other temptation that you can take-it-or-leave-it, but something that is a very deep and very personal thing that has huge implications as to who we are as a person.

Then how is it I found more happiness and lasting fulfillment after I ceased following Christianity and began following Existentialism?

Yes, everyone has sexual attractions, but I think our culture and world now has become so overly sexualized that it has overshadowed a person's true identity. I'm sure there is so much more to who you are and your identity as a person than your "sexual" identity. I've read a lot of your posts. I don't just read them with an attitude of finding fault or thinking of ways to argue, but with the hope of seeing the real you and getting to understand your heart and thoughts. Since I don't know you personally and only on a forum I could so easily be wrong, but I don't sense that you are very happy or have found fulfillment in your life.

 

[shmogie]

This is counter intuitive. You literally claimed that you know based on faith.

Yep, you got it in one. Many thing are counter intuitive, but still true

 

[InChrist]

But to them, all signs are pointing to them being better off being themselves. It not like addiction or crime. Would God really be so cruel as to make them attracted to only those who they aren't meant to be with? I think not.

Why do you say that God makes them attracted to those they aren't meant to be with? Does God lead us into temptation?

 

[leibowde84]

I wasn't talking specifically about an afterlife. I was talking about true philosophical questions. Why contribute to the betterment of others ? They are going to be just as dead as me in a flicker of time. Why do you think it is "good" to contribute to the betterment of others ? Who decides what is "good" ?

Progress in the arts, social cohesion, scientific understanding, and even government can enable those to come in the future to be able to further enlighten themselves to the workings of existence and live more enjoyable lives. I fail to see where death even plays a part. It is more than enough to be able to add to the progress of societal evolution and human understanding of our world and the cosmos. You don't think that is enough?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You believe it as intense, meaningful and life changing to a Christian being born again, I believe it is not. We are at an impasse

When I practiced Catholicm and told my Catholic friend I cant just change how I see other people's happiness based on my relationship with Christ. Who am I to say they arent happy.

She tells me,

It takes time.

It was well intended and on the other hand very descriminative. Not because she didnt care for my views but for her views overide the views of other people who know more about themselves than she does.

What can I say.

 

[leibowde84]

I wasn't talking specifically about an afterlife. I was talking about true philosophical questions. Why contribute to the betterment of others ? They are going to be just as dead as me in a flicker of time. Why do you think it is "good" to contribute to the betterment of others ? Who decides what is "good" ?

I don't think it is "good", but that is a vague term plagued with subjectivity. I personally get enjoyment out of my attempt to contribute to society in any way I can. If death is the end, I will live on in those contributions and those that follow as a result. I am not selfish enough to base meaning entirely on my own immortal soul. I don't find it necessary for my own consciousness to live on for meaning to be attainable in life. It seems to be asking for far too much in the interest of self preservation.

 

[leibowde84]

Yep, you got it in one. Many thing are counter intuitive, but still true

Alright, but things that are contradictory, like the claim that you know based on faith, cannot be true. All I'm saying is that the claim of certainty based on faith is necessarily false.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you say that God makes them attracted to those they aren't meant to be with? Does God lead us into temptation?

All I know is that every homosexual I know did not make any choice to only be attracted to members of the same sex. Most were obviously on that team at very early ages, pretty much since puberty. Under your logic, who is responsible for their "temptations".

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva, my dear, I must say that you have proven yourself well-researched on the subject of Judeo-Christianity and slavery, so in lieu of this, I say challenge happily accepted!

From the Jewish Encyclopedia website (the same from which you cited ) concerning Hebrew slaves in general:

“The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv. 12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile.”

And additionally, concerning the amount of work required for a slave:

“The Hebrew servant, Scripture says (Lev. xxv. 43), must not be treated with rigor. This was held to mean that no needless work must be imposed on him for the purpose of keeping him under discipline; nor, as Maimonides thinks, any unlimited task such as might be imposed by the command: "Work on till I come!" Nor must he be put to bondman's work (ib. verse 39), i.e., to any humiliating task, such as only slaves perform; and if practicable, he should be set to the same trade in which he was engaged while a freeman.”

Part 1 - More than 1200 characters so I have to split it into two parts.

LOL! You obviously didn't read the material I posted. The HEBREW could only keep other HEBREW as indentured servants. I've already said this!

ALL others could be held and bred forever!

Concerning foreign-born slaves:

“ The Israelite is permitted by Lev. xxv. 44-46 to buy bondmen and bondwomen (in the true sense of the word) from among the surrounding nations, or from the strangers dwelling in his land, and from the descendants of these born in the land; the "indwelling" stranger being distinguished from the stranger who lives under the same law as the Israelite. Such bondmen or bondwomen become a possession, and are inherited by children like other property. But the law limits the absolute power of the master. If he strikes his bondman or bondwoman so as to cause the loss of an eye or a tooth, he or she goes free. If he smites him or her so as to cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder; but not when death ensues on a subsequent day (Ex. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27). Another alleviation of bondage is the law (Deut. xxiii. 16, 17) forbidding the return of a fugitive slave to his master by those among whom he seeks shelter. The religious status of bondmen owned by Israelites is well defined by the Scriptures, which make them an integral part of the community. The males, though of foreign blood, whether bought for money, or "born in the house," are to be circumcised (Gen. xvii. 27; Ex. xii. 44), and when circumcised are to be admitted to eat of the Passover meal (ib.). Likewise the bondmen or bondwomen of a priest may eat of his holy meats (Lev. xxii. 11). Neither bondmen nor bondwomen are to be required to work on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10); indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V. "may be refreshed") is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the Sabbath.(Ex. xxii)”

Apparently you don't read what you post, before you post it. And - Apparently you didn't read the JEWISH information I posted which tells us the actual word means SLAVE, not bondsman, - which is why it says "in the TRUE sense of the word!" I note you left that part out. LOL! The part that says the TRUE MEANING of the word is SLAVE. I didn't leave that pertinent information out of my post! Go look!


SEE PART TWO

*


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Concerning the manner in which slaves were to be regarded in Talmudic Law, the Jewish Virtual Library has this to say:

“In the case of a pauper who sells himself into slavery or a man who is redeemed from bondage to a stranger, no distinction may be made between a slave and a hired laborer (Lev. 25:40, 53). A master may not rule ruthlessly over these slaves (Lev. 25:43, 46, 53) nor ill-treat them (Deut. 23:17); Ben Sira adds: "If thou treat him ill and he proceeds to run away, in what way shalt thou find him?" (Ecclus. 33:31). A master may chastise his slave to a reasonable extent (Ecclus. 33:26) but not wound him (Ex. 21:26–27). The workload of a slave should never exceed his physical strength (Ecclus. 33:28–29). A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master but given refuge (Deut. 23:16). There was no similar rule prevailing in neighboring countries (cf. I Kings 2:39–40). The*abduction of a person for sale into bondage is a capital offense (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). In general, "thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 15:15), and that you are now the slaves of God Who redeemed you from Egypt (Lev. 25:55).”

Additionally,

“The biblical "for to the double of the hire of a hireling hath heserved thee six years" (Deut. 15:18) was interpreted as allowing slaves to be given double the work of hired laborers: while the latter work only during daytime, slaves may be required to work also at night (Sif. Deut. 123). The Talmud (Kid. 15a) states that this merely gives the master the right to give the slave a bondwoman in order to beget children. There is some early authority to the effect that a slave has no right to maintenance which can be enforced in law, notwithstanding his obligation to work (Git. 1:6; Git. 12a), the biblical "he fareth well with thee" (Deut. 15:16) being attributed to Hebrew slaves only (Kid. 22a). However, the predominant view, as expressed by Maimonides, is: "It is permissible to work the slave hard; but while this is the law, the ways of ethics and prudence are that the master should be just and merciful, not make the yoke too heavy on his slave, and not press him too hard; and that he should give him of all food and drink. And thus the early sages used to do – they gave their slaves of everything they ate and drank themselves, and had food served to their slaves even before partaking of it themselves… Slaves may not be maltreated or offended – the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out, as it is written [Job 31:13–14]: 'If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or maid-servant when they contended with me, what then shall I do when God riseth up? and when He remembereth what shall I answer?'" (Yad, Avadim 9:8; and cf. YD 267:17). In another context, Maimonides says of the laws relating to slavery that they are all "mercy, compassion, and forbearance": "You are in duty bound to see that your slave makes progress; you must benefit him and must not hurt him with words. He ought to rise and advance with you, be with you in the place you chose for yourself, and when fortune is good to you, do not grudge him his portion" (Guide 3:39).”

LOL! What does how they treated their REAL SLAVES - have to do with our discussion about them having REAL SLAVERY?

And isn't it interesting that a Talmudic view shows the right to BREED SLAVES - which is RAPE. Again TRUE SLAVERY.

In regards to Post-Talmudic Law, the JVL says as quoted:

“Slavery became practically extinct in the Diaspora, and was prohibited except insofar as the secular laws allowed it, for instance, where rulers sold tax defaulters into bondage or offered prisoners of war for sale into slavery (Yad, Avadim 9:4; Tur and Sh. Ar., YD 267:18). However, it was laid down that even these "slaves" ought not to be treated as such, except if they did not conduct themselves properly (Yad, Avadim 1:8; YD 267:16). An incident related in the Talmud (BM 73b) was relied on as a precedent for the proposition that bondage may be imposed as punishment for misconduct (YD 267:15).”

LOL! Did you even BOTHER to read this before you posted it? Note the highlighted words!

They very OBVIOUSLY continued to hold REAL SLAVES past the DISPORIA - as STATED THERE!

From chabad.org's article, Torah, Slavery, and the Jews on the subject, quoting Maimonides and the Mishneh Torah:

“It is permissible to work a non-Jewish servant harshly. Yet, although this is the law, the way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a servant, and to provide them from every dish and every drink.

The early sages would give their servants from every dish on their table. They would feed their animals and their servants before sitting to their own meals. Does it not say (Psalms 123:2), "As the eyes of the servant to the hand of his master; as the eyes of the maid to her mistress [so our eyes are towards the L-rd our G‑d...]"?

So, too, you should not denigrate a servant, neither physically nor verbally. The Torah made him your servant to do work, not to be disgraced. Do not treat him with constant screaming and anger, rather speak with him pleasantly and listen to his complaints. Such were the good ways in which Job took pride when he said, "Did I ever despise the judgment of my servant and my maid when they argued with me? Did not my Maker make him, too, in the belly; did not the same One form us both in the womb?"

For anger and cruelty are only found among other nations. The children of Abraham, our father--and they are Israel, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has provided the goodness of Torah and commanded us righteous judgments and statutes--they are compassionate to all. This is one of the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, that we are commanded to emulate (Psalms 145:9): "And He has compassion for all He has made."

Furthermore, all who have compassion will be treated compassionately, as was stated (Deuteronomy 13:18), "He will give you compassion and He will have compassion upon you and multiply you." ”

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Indentured Servants, 9:8)

Sources?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.html#2

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13799-slaves-and-slavery

My apologies in advance for the incompleteness of the source listing. It is now almost 3 am, and I am quite tired. I will end this portion with wishing you well.

Not a problem with the sourcing, - as with this post you PROVED that what I said was absolutely correct. LOL! And that YOU are wrong.

Next time I suggest you read it better.