• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
shmogie said:
No, that is not generally accepted. There is a school of thought that says they weren't eyewitnesses, based upon the belief the texts didn't exist till around 140 AD. However there is very strong and significant evidence that the texts were written by 100 AD, and many, many scholars put the date to 50-80 AD and many of these people aren't believers, they have no axe to grind. A fragment of Mark was found with the dead sea scrolls, long before it was discovered , the contents of the cave were dated at 50 AD. So, the writers could very well have been eyewitnesses. There is significant evidence for me to believe that this is true, and my beliefs are true
Click to expand...
I don't know where you're coming up with that. They gospel writers themselves don't even claim to be eyewitnesses.

The Book of Luke starts off by pointing out that it's not a firsthand account: "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:2-4)

An account of an eyewitness account is not an eyewitness account. It's a second-hand account.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Y
shmogie said:
Well, of course it is perfectly clear in the Bible. How far does this " I identify as " thing go, is someone an alien from Mars because he identifies as such, or a vampire, or a grapefruit ? How far, what are the boundaries ? Lets take that famous transgender guy, Bruce Jenner. What it boils down to is this, after all the surgery, all the slicing and dicing, he is still a male. Genetically he is, his skeleton identifies him as such, his voice identifies him as such, features, all of it. So, here is where people depart from reality, he lives a fantasy that he is a woman, and others agree to participate in his fantasy by pretending he is a woman too. Ludicrous. He can be whatever he thinks he is, even a vampire, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone, However, I don't believe in vampires, so I won't participate in his fantasy. He is just plain old Bruce, getting up there, long in the tooth, but is addicted to attention, ergo, to me, he is just an old man pretending to be a vampire so people will notice him, or, he is just plain insane
Click to expand...
So brain chemistry has nothing to do with who we are? Just body parts like genitals, arms, legs completely define our sexual orientation and identity?

That's a narrow and incomplete view, in my opinion.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
shmogie said:
Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia, about the sinking of the Titanic, slot machines, beastiality, and a million other things, does that mean he agreed with pedophilia ? You are right, homosexual marriage didn't exist in mid century Jewish society, it was considered wrong and sinful. When Christ spoke of marriage he only spoke of men and women. If homosexual marriage was to be acceptable, why didn't he speak of it ? He didn't speak of it because he considered it wrong. Further, Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, who much more than Jews were involved with homosexuality, made it very clear how Christians should view the practice.
Click to expand...
So why go ahead and just assume things about his view on such matters?
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
I don't know where you're coming up with that. They gospel writers themselves don't even claim to be eyewitnesses.

The Book of Luke starts off by pointing out that it's not a firsthand account: "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:2-4)

An account of an eyewitness account is not an eyewitness account. It's a second-hand account.
Click to expand...
Sigh, I have already stipulated earlier that Luke was the result of his investigation. Look at the other Gospels, eyewitness accounts
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
viole said:
I always wondered why Jesus needed any training at all. He could make prophecies, but did not know about the Law. What?

How about a miracle like in the Matrix? Law know-how download in a few seconds.

Was the trinity a binity before He was born? :)

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
He was human, he needed training to walk, and speak, etc. He was a human that;'s the point. If you continue in this vein, expect no more responses from me
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
shmogie said:
He was human, he needed training to walk, and speak, etc. He was a human that;'s the point. If you continue in this vein, expect no more responses from me
Click to expand...

Well, sorry. i like to attempt humor sometimes. :)

I always wondered why religious people get offended when someone makes fun of their beliefs while expecting that atheist are not when religious people mock theirs, like when they say we believe the universe created itself, or other logical nonsense.

But rest assured that I cannot possibly be offended by any mocking whatsoever. So you can shoot at will. But now I know that you can, so I will try to be more sensitive about your mountain moving strong faith.

Now, seriously. Did Jesus exist before His human birth? In case He did, was He conscious? And when He incarnated, did He forget everything?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
shmogie said:
He was human, he needed training to walk, and speak, etc. He was a human that;'s the point. If you continue in this vein, expect no more responses from me
Click to expand...
Why would the son of God, who could walk on water, turn water into wine, give vision to the blind, and raise the dead, need training to walk and talk? He obviously didn't get training for the other stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top