• 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?

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
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.

Apparently you missed the part where they already tried this.

They found - that forcing the child into the "body" type = mainly male or female, resulted in identity problems and suicides later in these children's lives, - because, - even though the body was mostly one sex - they were actually the other sex, - being forced to try to live as the opposite!

In other words - for instance - a male born with mainly female body - was being chemically altered to try to make them fully the sex they appeared to be, female, -- thus forcing what was actually a male - to try to live and have sex as a female with another male = actually a male-male relationship. Result = suicides.

*
 

InChrist

Free4ever
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."

*
I find it so sad to even have to respond to such things as this which display such a lack of understanding and attempt to slant the truth of the scriptures and life of Jesus Christ.

Unmasking a False Gospel
"A recent book by Stephen C. Carlson shows us how the basics of scholarship were eclipsed by sensationalism on the left, compounded by willful dismissal on the right, and why "Secret Mark" needs to be seen as a fraud. In "The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark" (Baylor University Press, 151 pages, $24.95), Mr. Carlson, a lawyer, argues his case as if in a civil proceeding, meeting the test of proof by preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. He has mastered his brief impressively, and although in my view he does not quite prove that Smith was a forger, he does demonstrate — within the limits of certainty that incomplete evidence involves — that "Secret Mark" is someone's forgery, and that Smith, who died in 1991, was the likely culprit."

"Smith surely realized that the Greek text would not indicate a sexual liaison except in a modern understanding of its words. This explains why, in a later book called "Jesus the Magician," he does not refer to the "Secret Gospel" as offering proof for his position. Mr. Carlson sees that as Smith's implicit recognition of the forgery. That is possible, although I do not think Mr. Carlson has proved that Smith personally forged the "Secret Gospel." But he has shown that Smith had every reason to know that both the text and the sexual meaning attributed to it are spurious. That he used "Secret Mark" in the way he did ruins his reputation as a scholar."

excerpts from:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/unmasking-a-false-gospel/42197/
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Here is what I dont understand. Why would you think same-sex is okay given its not in the Bible? I was talking to Jostories on this in post 4165 and 4166.

Thats like saying "okay, I will murder today" because the bible doesnt say "thou can murder" so its okay. Even though it says you cannot murder. Why would I assume that murder is okay (or marrriage) when scripture emphasis the opposite?

Scripture specificly states marriage is between male and female both in culture and in text. There is no scripture that says opposite. Why would anyone assume factually that same-sex marriage is okay? Even more so, where in the Bible are they basing their opinions on?

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.

*

Also, there is no sacred intimacy between same-sex individiuals in the Bible only lust. The definition of homosexuality is basd on actions in lust in the Bible. We cant assume that these actions are right because the intention isnt in the Bible. If it were just intent, you can fit almost anything not in the Bible to meet ones needs. It also expresses what Is in the Bible. Christians interpret all same-sex actions as sinful

because like marriage, no scripture says otherwise.

Wrong yes. Bothersome yes. Can I change that, no.

It is what it is.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
It doesnt say only, of course. The culture and the bible says male and female. It doesnt mention about same sex marriage. If murder wasnt in the bible would it be right?

That is how many christians see their logic. I dont agree with it and that doesnt mean scripture doesnt teach it. In this case it is both biblical and cultural. Cant get around that.

Just because I disagree with what the bible says about male and female marriage, doesnt change that scripture and hebrew and roman culture does not promote same sex marriage.

I cant change someone else's holy book based on my opinion. It is what it is. Plus, I dont believe the bible is the end all to christian faith. I do agree, according to the Catholic doctrine and Bible, that marriage is between male and female. Only according to Catholic doctrine and Bible,


My personal opinion, its wrong. I disagree. Dont like it. That doesnt change a thing, though. Why should I care anymore. I left.
This really has nothing to do with anything but I just wanted to tell you that I really admire your attitude and your outlook that comes through in your posts. :)
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Jesus was also QUITE clear that marriage doesn't matter in heaven AND encouraged celibacy AND had nothing good to say about families at all and would tell you to drop that sacred spouse in a heartbeat if Jesus told you to.


You don't seem to mind other people claiming some carpenter's kid is a god...


What about intersex people? They are both or neither or somewhere in between. God's Word said that there just two genders and yet there are many who clearly aren't one of the two. Is God incompetent? "Sorry, guy, I was gonna finish those testes, but I just wasn't into it and the game was about to be on, so ..."


I would imagine it's like having a PC body but a Mac mind. :)


Go back in time:
see here

I don't care what Paul says, but even the stopped watch is right at least once a day, and it is Paul to whom is attributed, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This very verse was used, in part, to justify gay marriages in the church (see above link).


a little light reading


How else would he figure out they weren't f-ckable unless he tried it?


So after looking for sex amongst all other living things, he could only settle for his feminized clone. Luke and Leia have NOTHING on this couple.


God told ME that humans wrote the bible and that HIS real opinion would be verified in nature/reality. I consider anyone who would pick a book over God to be idolators. That you think they can't contradict each other means you are EQUATING a deity with some pieces of paper.


We're talking about the guy who blatantly broke Sabbath rules, dishonored his parents, coveted things that didn't belong to him, etc? THAT GUY? The one always in trouble by the clergy for breaking some sort of religious law?


And Jesus said he couldn't ... unless Jesus was the one who told you to leave your family like a leper.


Yes, the Jedi Order didn't exist yet. :)
Love this post.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No,"all the rest of the evidence" didn't include anything about correlations of brain size with homosexuality, that I recall
The person who was responding to you wasn't talking about brain size. They were talking about chemical makeup in relation to gender identification.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I find it so sad to even have to respond to such things as this which display such a lack of understanding and attempt to slant the truth of the scriptures and life of Jesus Christ.
Unmasking a False Gospel
"A recent book by Stephen C. Carlson shows us how the basics of scholarship were eclipsed by sensationalism on the left, compounded by willful dismissal on the right, and why "Secret Mark" needs to be seen as a fraud. In "The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark" (Baylor University Press, 151 pages, $24.95), Mr. Carlson, a lawyer, argues his case as if in a civil proceeding, meeting the test of proof by preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. He has mastered his brief impressively, and although in my view he does not quite prove that Smith was a forger, he does demonstrate — within the limits of certainty that incomplete evidence involves — that "Secret Mark" is someone's forgery, and that Smith, who died in 1991, was the likely culprit."

"Smith surely realized that the Greek text would not indicate a sexual liaison except in a modern understanding of its words. This explains why, in a later book called "Jesus the Magician," he does not refer to the "Secret Gospel" as offering proof for his position. Mr. Carlson sees that as Smith's implicit recognition of the forgery. That is possible, although I do not think Mr. Carlson has proved that Smith personally forged the "Secret Gospel." But he has shown that Smith had every reason to know that both the text and the sexual meaning attributed to it are spurious. That he used "Secret Mark" in the way he did ruins his reputation as a scholar."

excerpts from:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/unmasking-a-false-gospel/42197/

First - it has not been disproved.

And did you notice that, inadvertently, that quote tells us he had a REPUTATION AS A SCHOLAR?

Interesting - isn't it, - that since this info - doesn't jive with this authors ideas about Christianity, - suddenly his REPUTATION AS A SCHOLAR is ruined.

Secondly - they have absolute proof, by their writings, - that some Christian sects used sex in their rites.

You folks please do go read that article :D as it DOES NOT actually prove anything false, - and includes that other well known Biblical scholars like Elaine Pagels thought well of it.

"Helmut Koester at Harvard has even claimed that "Secret Mark" is an earlier version of the Gospel according to Mark in the New Testament. Elaine Pagels wrote a glowing foreword for a reprint of Smith's book for Dawn Horse Press, the publishing wing of a movement guided by the self-designated Avatar Adi Da Samraj, who claimed to continue Jesus's sexually liberating practices.

And this ADMISSION - "

"He has mastered his brief impressively, and although in my view he does not quite prove that Smith was a forger, he does demonstrate — within the limits of certainty that incomplete evidence involves — that "Secret Mark" is someone's forgery, and that Smith, who died in 1991, was the likely culprit."

And this - which proves it did exist -

"These and later images in color constitute the only material evidence for the existence of the document, which was moved from the Mar Saba monastery to a library in Jerusalem in 1977. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the legal custodian, has not released the text for further study; its use in the West to portray Jesus as homoerotic probably explains why.

The article is pure speculation - with no proof.

In other words - baloney!

*
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Apparently you missed the part where they already tried this.

They found - that forcing the child into the "body" type = mainly male or female, resulted in identity problems and suicides later in these children's lives, - because, - even though the body was mostly one sex - they were actually the other sex, - being forced to try to live as the opposite!

In other words - for instance - a male born with mainly female body - was being chemically altered to try to make them fully the sex they appeared to be, female, -- thus forcing what was actually a male - to try to live and have sex as a female with another male = actually a male-male relationship. Result = suicides.

*
So then, it isn't true. Hormones and brain chemicals are not the basis of homosexuality
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."

*
NONSENSE.....................Non Canonical, Any and all of the Church Fathers were not Apostles, Perverted and spurious "gospels" were written well into the dark ages. There were cults which were rooted out in the first century, that no one takes seriously
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So you think making a claim, not providing an explanation and then saying, "Agree to disagree" is the same thing as providing an explanation.
Okay, good to know.
No, I am making a claim, have given , have given an acceptable explanation, and you are free to disagree
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The person who was responding to you wasn't talking about brain size. They were talking about chemical makeup in relation to gender identification.
It started with a discussion of brain size, you will not in my
The person who was responding to you wasn't talking about brain size. They were talking about chemical makeup in relation to gender identification.
No, the discussion was about brain size with another poster. I said this to the person you are referencing, who chimed in, apparently confused about what we were discussing.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
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.
And that claim is false. There is no "universal" form of marriage (it can be so loosely defined that it's more of a temporary pairing than "marriage"), and polygamy has been practiced, by our species as a whole, far more frequently than monogamy.
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 ?
It's been tried, and it doesn't work. All it will do is worsen psychological problems, and increase the chance of suicide.
 
Top