Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[JoStories]

You kinda got to look at culture and tradition too. I mean, I would love marriage in the Bible to be between woman and woman (or however they want to translate it to allow to people of any gender to take the marriage sacrament) if I were christian; and, it just doesnt work that way.

Its like trying to squeese a number into a math equation to get the number you want even though the equation itself wont allow it.

I mean my post in 4097 doesnt say exclucively "Man and woman can only be married' and by the nature of the Bible, context, and culture to me it cant be really debated that it means anything outside of that.

There is so much context that marriage or union under holy covenant is between man and woman in the Bible its almost laughable (but I wont laugh) when I hear otherwise. Same-sex relations, yes,I understand that. The Bible doesnt point out who is straight, gay, bi, etc doing their lustful behaviors. It also doesnt mention that two people can love each other in flesh and spirit regardless the gender.

There is a lot of things missing in the Bible. Marriage, though, because of the culture and its heavy emphasis on wives and husbands being in union with Christ (etc) doesnt make me stop and think that it says otherwise because it doesnt mention it?

Then how do you explain the heavy emphasis on eunuchs of that time period. Up until the last of the 1800's, being made a eunuch was a gift to some children, as they could become castrati. In Rome, being a eunuch was very much accepted at that time. And for someone who states they are not Christian, you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to stand WITH the Bible.
;s

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes it does. But no where does it say that marriage cannot be between people of the same sex. You are inferring that they mean only heterosexual but you have no evidence to back that up.

You have two verses from the OT and a few verses from Paul, whom all know never knew Christ and was a serious misogynist, etc. Nowhere did you post anything that came from the mouth of Christ, if we even accept that what is written to have been said by him is allegedly true. Like it or not, the Bible does not explicitly state that SSM is prohibited.

No where does it say that marriage cannot be between same-sex partners.

Why would I assume that it is okay for same-sex partners to marry just because it is not in scripture? Especially when its specific in who should marry (all ten or so verses or so I posted) both in culture and scripture (making a point).

The evidence is that scripture does not mention that marriage cannot be between same-sex partners. That leaves me to assume based on culture and scripture that god specifically wanted marriage to be between male and female.

Where can you find where same-sex marriage is mentioned to where in context and culture of that period, anyone would accept that type of marriage from the beginning to now?

Where in scripture does anything come from the mouth of Christ?

No Christian I know, at least and denominations I been through ever separated Christ from the gospels just because it is spoken through his disciples and not himself personally (as so they disagree).

What are you trying to say?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes it does. But no where does it say that marriage cannot be between people of the same sex. You are inferring that they mean only heterosexual but you have no evidence to back that up. You have two verses from the OT and a few verses from Paul, whom all know never knew Christ and was a serious misogynist, etc. Nowhere did you post anything that came from the mouth of Christ, if we even accept that what is written to have been said by him is allegedly true. Like it or not, the Bible does not explicitly state that SSM is prohibited.

On what you do base your opinion that there are no exclusions? Can you provide a source for this assumption? And before you come back at me asking for reasons for my stance that it is not excluded, I would say that there is one, but then, neither can you. And your math example is a straw man and in no way is germane.

Why would I assume that there is a reason that same-sex marriage is approved when everything says the opposite?

Why would you assume there are exclusions to marriage in scripture? Personal opinion? Your belief?

What are those exclusions to hetereosexual marriage based on?
What scriptures provide evidence that you can assume marriage is between anyone but male and female?

I mean, I disagree with the Bible; that doesnt mean I personally can change it to meet my opinions just because it isnt mentioned in scripture. (Me personally not a generalization)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes it does. But no where does it say that marriage cannot be between people of the same sex. You are inferring that they mean only heterosexual but you have no evidence to back that up. You have two verses from the OT and a few verses from Paul, whom all know never knew Christ and was a serious misogynist, etc. Nowhere did you post anything that came from the mouth of Christ, if we even accept that what is written to have been said by him is allegedly true. Like it or not, the Bible does not explicitly state that SSM is prohibited.

Then how do you explain the heavy emphasis on eunuchs of that time period. Up until the last of the 1800's, being made a eunuch was a gift to some children, as they could become castrati. In Rome, being a eunuch was very much accepted at that time. And for someone who states they are not Christian, you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to stand WITH the Bible.
;s

I cant. I have no clue what you are saying.

The basics is: Scripture says marriage is between male and female. There are no scriptures that says otherwise.

Why would I assume otherwise?

 

[shmogie]

The fact that he published is not the point, nor is his stance, although being a Christian apologist means that many would be skeptical of his work at best. The point is that no credible academician would use a source that old. Most instructor and professors, including me, would not accept any source older than roughly 2008, unless it
was historical in nature or was so incredibly germane to the topic. Karen King is a very astute Christian (Catholic btw) who sets aside her beliefs and can and has written great books on theology, such as The History of God. The issue here is that anyone in this field who wants to be taken seriously must set aside bias or not be accepted as credible to begin with. I hope this clears things up.

Albright was only one source I used. His qualifications as a Bible scholar are impeccable. I am not an academic. I was educated, trained, and spent a quarter of a century evaluating evidence as my profession. I use the legal rules of evidence in these matters. There are no artificial time limits, nor is bias simply assumed, without it being proven. Academia also uses rules, but for most of us the rules serve little purpose. Evidence is evidence, unless it can be impeached on a variety of grounds that can be proven to that specific piece of evidence

 

[shmogie]

Why would I assume that there is a reason that same-sex marriage is approved when everything says the opposite?

Why would you assume there are exclusions to marriage in scripture? Personal opinion? Your belief?

What are those exclusions to hetereosexual marriage based on?
What scriptures provide evidence that you can assume marriage is between anyone but male and female?

I mean, I disagree with the Bible; that doesnt mean I personally can change it to meet my opinions just because it isnt mentioned in scripture. (Me personally not a generalization)

Carlita, you have done an excellent job of summing up the Biblical position ( yes, I know you disagree) You are now dealing with a position that defies reason, logic and denies the patently obvious.This is grasping at an imaginary straw, a desperate attempt to deny what exists, and replace it with a wish. As my mother used to say "if wishes were horses beggars would ride". These folk have a saddle, but will never have a horse to put it on.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, you have done an excellent job of summing up the Biblical position ( yes, I know you disagree) You are now dealing with a position that defies reason, logic and denies the patently obvious.This is grasping at an imaginary straw, a desperate attempt to deny what exists, and replace it with a wish. As my mother used to say "if wishes were horses beggars would ride". These folk have a saddle, but will never have a horse to put it on.

Thank you. It hit me like a block on my head when I finally had it explained from a Catholic perspective. I assume marriage is pretty much universally taught by most christian denominations that it is between male and female.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, without even bringing up all the questions and debate as to translations and the meanings of words that hail from long-dead cultures, the Bible clearly does not say marriage is only for a man and a women. The most obvious and easiest example is king David, who had at least eight wives, and Solomon who alleged had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
So this whole idea of marriage being "between one man and one woman" is not at all Biblical. It's easily shot down just as soon as someone says "marriage is between."

What balderdash. Christianity is based upon the NT. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. The Apostles who were married, were married to women, In stating the qualifications for church leaders Paul says they must be married to one woman, Christ spoke of marriage between a man and woman, and his statement to the Samaratin woman at the well was in the context of adultery between a man and woman and marriage between a man and woman. All the marriage advice given in the Epistles addresses husbands and wives. There is no record of homosexual relationships in the NT without the appellation of it being totally unacceptable. Claiming that omission equals permission would have been considered heresy by Christ, the Apostles, the Apostolic church, the immediate post Apostolic church, the church for 1900 years. In the modern era it comes about as a political movement attempting to interject itself in all facets of life. As in most alleged progressive political movements it demands obedience to it's dictates, and in this case it demands mind bending irrationality to change no into yes. Those who worship at the alter of mammon are free to do virtually whatever they choose, and no doubt there will be, ( if there isn't already) a homosexual Bible, a fantasy adulteration and reconstruction to fit the political model demanded that all must accept. That bird won't fly, that dog won't hunt. The Bible, and specifically the NT, makes it perfectly clear that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.This is engraved in the hardest marble, it cannot and will not be changed.Finito

 

[shmogie]

Thank you. It hit me like a block on my head when I finally had it explained from a Catholic perspective. I assume marriage is pretty much universally taught by most christian denominations that it is between male and female.

Yes, though some have bent to the progressive/political idea you see here. As a Christian, it';s not my problem, it is between they and God

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christianity is based upon the NT.

And the NT comes from the OT. Not much of a point in Jesus saying he didn't come to do away with the law if the OT isn't supposed to be considered.
Or does god like to change his mind? Was he ok with polygamy before Jesus and suddenly he developed an issue with it?

 

[InChrist]

And the NT comes from the OT. Not much of a point in Jesus saying he didn't come to do away with the law if the OT isn't supposed to be considered.
Or does god like to change his mind? Was he ok with polygamy before Jesus and suddenly he developed an issue with it?

I think from reading the scriptures polygamy was never God's ideal design for marriage, although He allowed it to take place for various reasons during certain historical time periods as He has often allowed humanity to do things which fall way short of ideal, for a time.

"Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

 

[InChrist]

What balderdash. Christianity is based upon the NT. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. The Apostles who were married, were married to women, In stating the qualifications for church leaders Paul says they must be married to one woman, Christ spoke of marriage between a man and woman, and his statement to the Samaratin woman at the well was in the context of adultery between a man and woman and marriage between a man and woman. All the marriage advice given in the Epistles addresses husbands and wives. There is no record of homosexual relationships in the NT without the appellation of it being totally unacceptable. Claiming that omission equals permission would have been considered heresy by Christ, the Apostles, the Apostolic church, the immediate post Apostolic church, the church for 1900 years. In the modern era it comes about as a political movement attempting to interject itself in all facets of life. As in most alleged progressive political movements it demands obedience to it's dictates, and in this case it demands mind bending irrationality to change no into yes. Those who worship at the alter of mammon are free to do virtually whatever they choose, and no doubt there will be, ( if there isn't already) a homosexual Bible, a fantasy adulteration and reconstruction to fit the political model demanded that all must accept. That bird won't fly, that dog won't hunt. The Bible, and specifically the NT, makes it perfectly clear that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.This is engraved in the hardest marble, it cannot and will not be changed.Finito

I agree, the Bible is solid in defining marriage between male and female and the NT specifically between one man and one woman. Along with the scriptures, every historical human civilization has universally agreed with this view concerning marriage between male and female.

"The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage."

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

every historical human civilization has universally agreed with this view concerning marriage between male and female.

That is blatantly false, as our species has practiced various forms of polygamy far more frequently that monogamy.

 

[shmogie]

And the NT comes from the OT. Not much of a point in Jesus saying he didn't come to do away with the law if the OT isn't supposed to be considered.
Or does god like to change his mind? Was he ok with polygamy before Jesus and suddenly he developed an issue with it?

Refining and refocusing are'nt changing. It is clearly stated that God allowed some things, not promoted or sanctioned. With Christ, those things ended

 

[InChrist]

That is blatantly false, as our species has practiced various forms of polygamy far more frequently that monogamy.

The words you quoted and responded to are in reference to the universal, historical standard of male and female marriage as opposed to same sex marriage, I was not addressing polygamy in that post you just responded to.

 

[leibowde84]

Hmmm, how can a brain be gender identified ?, Does a gender identified male/ female brain, look different from a female identified/ female brain ?

The chemical makeup and hormones released are different.

 

[Ingledsva]

The bible does not say Marriage is only between male and female.

It does say marriage is between male and female

Its specific in all the verses I gave you.

You mean to say that marriage isnt between male and female in the Bible?
Please say yes. Cause if you say no, I have no clue what to say other than the verses I gave you.

I'm trying to figure out how to say this.

If a Dog breading culture - writes a book describing all the Dog breeds, dog food, puppies, how to breed them, etc., - it would not mean there were no cat people doing their thing.

Nor would their absence from the Dog culture book, - mean the Dog people thought it a sin to breed cats.

As a Dog culture they are interested in promoting Dog breeding, - thus they write about it, and not cats.

We have a patriarchal culture concerned with lineage and clan. So much so that if a woman's husband died without children, the brother would have sex with her to provide an heir.

Thus they write about everyday things between male and female.

Their ignoring of "other" does not mean "other" didn't exist, or was evil, or condemned.

I've already shown that all the so-called against homosexuality verses, are actually about Sacred Sex Prostitutes. They ALL either have words actually meaning a Sacred Prostitute, such as Qadesh, or in two cases, have Moleck with them - which means the same thing, Sacred Sex worship - Idolatry.

If this very patriarchal, linage driven culture, - does not bother to actually write down, no gay, and no gay marriage, then we cannot assume that they thought it a sin, or forbid it, or condemned it. They just ignored it.

If they were worried about it, or actually condemned it, we would have many verses telling us specifically that it was a sin, - or that they can't marry, etc. We don't have such.

*

 

[shmogie]

The chemical makeup and hormones released are different.

Really ? We were talking about appearance, So then a male who identifies as a female doesn't produce testosterone and the brain chemicals are different. Then, if you can prove this, for all cases, then you have found that elusive cause of homosexuality ! So, why not take that born male, designed as a male, and give him hormones and meds that alter brain chemicals and help him to be what he was born as ? A happy male in a males body, not an alleged female in a males body.

 

[jeager106]

This is a long thread and I don't recall if I mentioned this before but will take a chance
and mention it here.
Years ago I had an uncle who bred hounds for hunters.
Sometimes a male hound would "hump" other male dogs at every opportunity.
Uncle said these male dogs were "queer" and he'd shoot them dead.
Reason he gave was that they might breed a female and produce other
"queer" dogs.
I haven't a clue but I always made sure uncle knew I wasn't!!!

 

[Ingledsva]

What balderdash. Christianity is based upon the NT. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. The Apostles who were married, were married to women, In stating the qualifications for church leaders Paul says they must be married to one woman, Christ spoke of marriage between a man and woman, and his statement to the Samaratin woman at the well was in the context of adultery between a man and woman and marriage between a man and woman. All the marriage advice given in the Epistles addresses husbands and wives. There is no record of homosexual relationships in the NT without the appellation of it being totally unacceptable. Claiming that omission equals permission would have been considered heresy by Christ, the Apostles, the Apostolic church, the immediate post Apostolic church, the church for 1900 years. In the modern era it comes about as a political movement attempting to interject itself in all facets of life. As in most alleged progressive political movements it demands obedience to it's dictates, and in this case it demands mind bending irrationality to change no into yes. Those who worship at the alter of mammon are free to do virtually whatever they choose, and no doubt there will be, ( if there isn't already) a homosexual Bible, a fantasy adulteration and reconstruction to fit the political model demanded that all must accept. That bird won't fly, that dog won't hunt. The Bible, and specifically the NT, makes it perfectly clear that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.This is engraved in the hardest marble, it cannot and will not be changed.Finito

And we have writings that suggest homosexuality in Jesus' secret teachings. So obviously not so cut and dried.

And Christian sects that had sex-rites including homosexuality.

And this - information on a text concealed by church fathers -

"Scholars have long wondered at a curious passage in the canonical Gospel of Mark (undisputedly the oldest of the canonical gospels) which seems to hint that a detail or two might have been left out: “Then they came to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples…” (Mark 10:46). But what happened in Jericho on Jesus' whistle-stop tour of the provinces?"

"One that Clement and the Church fathers not only suppressed the passage but found it “scandalous.” Second, the plain meaning of the words “naked man with naked man” and “whom Jesus loved” support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the sacrament was practiced. Third, that it was a practice of some Christian sects for (like in Tantra Yoga) to engage in sexual intercourse as part of a union with God. Such was said of some Christian communities. There are passages in the Pauline Epistles which admonishing certain unnamed sexual practices and there is a letter from a Roman physician describing in detail this practice. Morton Smith, the discoverer of the letter writes: “Freedom from the [Mosaic] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of Gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling” (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 94, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. "

“Bishop Clement of Alexandria has 3 surviving books Exhortation to the Greeks, The Insructor, and the Miscellanies, and several fragments and lesser works. One is a letter to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the "Secret Gospel of Mark." Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of "Secret Mark" in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy "Secret Mark" from the church library!”


“To you, therefore I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked refuting the falsifications by the very words of the [Secret] Gospel” (Barnstone 342). "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her unto the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

*