Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[JoStories]

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

Lovely. All of that is one thing;...your opinion. Period. As has been note over and over again, nowhere in the OT or the NT does it NOT say that same sex couples cannot marry. You say it would heresy according to Christ but unless you knew him personally, at that time period and IN PERSON, you cannot say with 100% certainty that he would not have supported it. It has already been changed btw, by the SCOTUS. Get over it. We have the same rights as you. The rest I could not care less about.

 

[JoStories]

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

Very true and that practice could have been one man marrying several women or one woman marrying several men. and as all know, polygamy is still practiced today in this country and in Africa.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are no scriptures th

Nothing in that scripture specifically says opposite anywhere. What exclusions are you indicating? There is only one reference, that being man and woman, no where does it say that is the one and only type of relationship. There is no scripture that says it is okay but then does it say it is prohibited. That is my view of this. And considering I am not Christian, my view may be biased.

Scripture says marriage is between male and female (take out only and like words. I didnt say that in my further posts)

Scripture does not mention same-sex marriages

This is my point: There is no scripture that says it is okay but then does it say it is prohibited.

That sums up those two underline sentences you marked on my post. Scripture doesnt say it is okay. I personally assumed it is not because all scripture quotes regarding marriage and unions revolve male and female.

I know it doesnt say its prehibited. From a scriptural point of view, not mine and not yours, that doesnt make it right.

I think you are mixing my opinions vs my interpretations of scripture. My opinion is same-sex marriages is right. My interpretation in this case doesnt reflect my opinion. Its an objectie interpretation that states there is no mention of promotion of same-sex marriages in the bible, all the verses I posted said male/femnale unions, why would I think the Bible is for something it doesnt mention? Even more so, not only doesnt mention but emphasis the opposite?

Take the word Only out. I agree there is room for interpretation because it isnt in the bible. My point is one, because it isnt in the bible and two, because there are many verses that talk about male/female marriage and unions, three, why would I consider same-sex marriage right according to the bible when the bible doesnt mention it and emphasis the opposite?

Im basically repeating my questions cause I dont know if you actively read my posts or not.

--

Side note: I dont need to be christian to defend christian concepts that make sense according to their scripture not my opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You must use context if you really want to prove your point.

What scripture in context does scripture say "dont worry. You can marry anyone?

Or verses about male-female marriage. - BUT - none against same sex marriage.

I know. You are looking over my points.

That does not make it right just not mentioned.

Perhaps because it doesn't say same sex coupling is lust.

This is severely by context and it yells louder than scripture talks about marriage.

If a man cannot sleep with another man as with a woman is not based on lust, as many people (straight/gay/bi), what is it based on?

Is it good actions allowed by god or bad?

If bad, why would you assume god would change his mind and say "oh. You can have same sex relations just have good intent"

That would be nice. The bible doesnt say that. Why assume otherwise?

Where does it not look kindly to same sex relationships?

You are looking for versus verbatum. There are none. Again. There are None.

What it says is that god defines homosexual relations as obominations. That IS in scripture verbatum. How can you view same-sex Lust as Good "according to the bible" when it says it is not?

Based on this, how do you figure it is good?

That means god contradicts himself.

Thus they cannot use the Bible to condemn same-sex marriage.

Of course they can.

Example--read in context.

If this text book says 2 and 2 is 4 and you say its 5, there is a problem. You read it and Nowhere does it say it says 5.

Someone tells you "2 and 2 is 4. I know because I am a math expert."

You are not. They proove to you in many ways in context/support that the answer is 4. They tell you why and how.

You press on that it is 5. Where are you getting this answer from? What is it based on?

Its not the math book. Everything is depended on this math book. The mathematican proves you wrong because it doesnt mention it. If it did, both equations cant be right

--

In scripture, if gay marriage was okay then it would not say all those OT ans NT versus that it is between male and female. Youd take away the culture and practices christians feel are sanctioned by god. If it says that, god would be contradicting himself.

He specifically says marriage is between male and female.

--

What are you basing your opinion on? Lack of evidence?

If so, specifcally how does this proove you are right?

What scripture in context supports what you say is right?

These questions I will repeat until answered. They are the cornerstone of this debate.

Support your opinion with scripture.

I am not christian but if I want to proove a christian concept true or false, Id go to the source.

Not the dictionary. Not articles. Not opinion.

Scripture. That is the common foundation for this debate. If you cannot support your position, how can you defend it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Scripture does not need to say "same sex marriage is wrong" verbatim just as a math book doesnt need to say "two and two is five" verbatim for both to be wrong.

Instead, "according to scripture" not personal opinion, scripture says marriage is between male and female just as the math book says 2 and 2 is 4.

If both statements are supported by facts according to their sources and no fact and support in the same book defutes them, how are they wrong?

What evidence in scripture and mathbook prooves their statements false even though their negation isnt in their "scriptures"?

 

[shmogie]

Lovely. All of that is one thing;...your opinion. Period. As has been note over and over again, nowhere in the OT or the NT does it NOT say that same sex couples cannot marry. You say it would heresy according to Christ but unless you knew him personally, at that time period and IN PERSON, you cannot say with 100% certainty that he would not have supported it. It has already been changed btw, by the SCOTUS. Get over it. We have the same rights as you. The rest I could not care less about.

I have never doubted your right's under the Constitution, I have defended those right's. You do not have the right to demand people sacrifice their right to freely practice their religion. The government has no right to define marriage for Christians in the practice of their faith, It is clear for anyone who can think logically that the "omission is permission" argument re the Bible is laughable, I could destroy it in 10 minutes before a jury. No evidence, an opinion based upon wishes is not evidence of anything. The Bible is clear, and always has been. homosexuality in any form within the Christian Church is unacceptable

 

[shmogie]

Well, as one of those professor who live in those proverbial white towers on university grounds, I can say that no one within that venue would use a reference that old, unless, as I noted, there is reason and most of the time,, it better be damned good. I have no idea what evaluating evidence means but that reference; Albright, is not acceptable by current theology scholars and acceptable rules of academia.

There are other worlds beside Academia, worlds where evidence must be impeached based on other evidence showing it is not valid. An artificial time line does not apply.

 

[shmogie]

LOL! You need to reread that.

See post # 4211.



It would not matter if such "cults" were supposedly later "rooted out." They provide us evidence of sex rites in Christian groups.

See post # 4197.

*

No, the provide evidence of what occurred in decidedly non Christian groups. A self applied label is not a definition. A person can call themselves a fence post, that doesn't make them one

 

[shmogie]

It took me awhile to find this info in more recent articles.

"According to one study, the human brain can show “masculine” or “feminine” traits, irrespective of physical sexual characteristics. When the fetus develops, gender identity and the sexual differentiation of the genitals may develop independently of one another. The former takes place during the second half of pregnancy while the latter starts much earlier, within the first 8 weeks of gestation. Incidentally, incongruent development in these two regions usually leads to transsexuality."

"Several other studies indicate that sexual orientation — heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality — is determined by peculiarities of the brain structure and differences in brain chemistry. Cultural or societal factors, upbringing, moral leanings, and educational attainments do not determine sexual orientation as greatly as neural mechanisms do.

"A landmark study by Savic and Lindström indicates that there are cerebral differences in homosexual and heterosexual individuals. There are differences in brain anatomy, activities, and neurological connections. Brain scan images of the subjects who participated in this study show that the brains of homosexual individuals exhibit similar structure and functionality as that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite gender."

"According to the findings of the Savic-Lindström study, the number of neural connections also varied between hetero- and homosexual subjects. For instance, gay men and straight women showed greater neural connectivity in the cingulate cortex and contralateral amygdala regions than straight men and lesbians respectively. On the other hand, straight men and lesbian women exhibited significantly more neural connections in the frontal lobe cortex and the parietal cortex regions compared to gay men and straight women respectively."

http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homosexuality-in-the-brain/

This was interesting.

"Given the results regarding both INAH 3 and AC correlation to sexual orientation, the understanding that no single brain structure correlates to sexual orientation carries weight. The apparent interconnected nature of varying brain regions suggests that factors operating early in development differentiate on the basis of gender and sexual orientation within sexually dimorphic structures and brain function in a cumulative manner2. Exploring which specific factors influence which kind of development requires an endocrinologic approach alongside traditional neurobiological studies."

"By extension, this demonstration could also suggest that steroid hormones affect the human hypothalamus to influence sexual orientation. Studies investigating this effect would further emphasize the critical biology of sexual orientation and eliminate the social argument of “choosing” one’s sexuality."

http://www.bu.edu/thenerve/archives/spring-2010/reviews-spring-2010/homosexuality/

Some reading on the original research.

1. Morris, J. A., Gobrogge, K. L., Jordan, C. L. & Breedlove, S. M. 2004. Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality, Endocrinology 145:475–477.

2. Breedlove, SM. 1992. Sexually dimorphism in the vertebrate nervous system, The Journal of Neuroscience 12: 4133-4142.

3. Levay, S. 1991. A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men, Science 253:1034-1037.

4. Allen LS, Gorski RA. 1992. Sexual orientation and size of the anterior commissure in the human brain, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:7199–7202.

5. Roselli CE, Larkin K, Resko JA, Stellflug JN, Stormshak F. 2004. The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference. Endocrinology 145:478-483

6. James, W. H. 2005. Biological and psychological determinants of male and female human sexual orientation, Journal of Biosocial Science 37:555–567.

7. Savic, H. Berglund and P. Lindstrom. 2005. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:7356–7361.

*

Interesting ! When it is clearly proven that these factors in combination, not suggest. or imply, cause homosexuality I will have to reexamine my position

 

[shmogie]

How many times to I have to point out that there are many factors involved? (Just like there are many factors involved in the development of a heterosexual mind.) The above are some of them.

OK

 

[shmogie]

Oh gosh. There are too many quotes to list in addition to the common ones you heard already from believers. Why would you think according to the Bible that same-sex coupling is not lust?

Where in the Bible does it look kindly to same-sex relations?

Gosh, I should just stop here and have to think why youd ask this.

Anyway, my point:

Same-sex marriage is not in the Bible.
All scripture prooves otherwise
Why would you assume or claim that it is right or allowed?
What scripture are you basing this on?

Cant get more simplier than that.

0+0=0 the equation for acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage is lust. Homosexuals cannot marry ( Biblical perspective ), therefore any sexual activity between them is lust.

 

[shmogie]

You're the only one who has been going on about brain size.

No, it was brought up by someone else as a factor

 

[shmogie]

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.

It's been tried, and it doesn't work. All it will do is worsen psychological problems, and increase the chance of suicide.

Would that mean then that there is another causal factor(s) besides hormones and chemicals ?

 

[jeager106]

I'm straight.
I have a couple gay men friends. They are friends, period.
We don't broach the subject of sexual orientation. It's not an issue.
To me the idea of having sex with another man is beyond disgusting.
One wonders????? Does a gay man view sex with a female just as disgusting?
I don't know.
I don't loose sleep over this either.
It's a thought that just popped
into my head.

 

[jeager106]

I don't know about the "lust" issue.
I have a life partner (female) and we have sex but I don't see our sexual
appetite as lust.
Lust = Lust is an altered state of consciousness programmed by the primal urge to procreate. Studies suggest that the brain in this phase is much like a brain on drugs.

Lust isn't a normal sexual drive or attraction. Lust takes over the brain much like
the addicts desire for narcotic drugs.
I love sex but I am not lustful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are other worlds beside Academia, worlds where evidence must be impeached based on other evidence showing it is not valid. An artificial time line does not apply.

First, "impeached" is not a suitable word to use in this context, as it deals with laws and politicians. Second, the scientific method and academia are based on accepting evidence that has shown to be valid while rejecting hypotheses that are shown to be invalid.

Interesting ! When it is clearly proven that these factors in combination, not suggest. or imply, cause homosexuality I will have to reexamine my position

What is interesting is that you are shown evidence, yet keep asking for the evidence you are presented with.

0+0=0 the equation for acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage is lust. Homosexuals cannot marry ( Biblical perspective ), therefore any sexual activity between them is lust.

Lust is an emotion of sexual desire. Though having some of it is healthy in any romantic relationship, it is not necessary for sex.

Would that mean then that there is another causal factor(s) besides hormones and chemicals ?

It is possible, but the links with genetics and biochemistry have been firmly established.

Does a gay man view sex with a female just as disgusting?

Sometimes. Sometimes they just have no interests in it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

0+0=0 the equation for acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage is lust. Homosexuals cannot marry ( Biblical perspective ), therefore any sexual activity between them is lust.

Yes? I understand that.

I dont understand what you mean in reference to my post...are you agree? disagreeing?

 

[jeager106]

Well to me as a bottom line comment, I have no interest in homosexuals or activity.
I have friends that just happen to be gay men. Their sex life is not a subject
I want to broach.
Look at that statement like this:
I have friends, both male and female.
I do not discuss sex life with them. That seems to be a social taboo.
" Hi Linda. Did you get laid last night? Was it with another female?"
Really? We just don't talk that way when interacting socially with friends.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It actually is debatable in modern circles rather the Bible condemns homosexuality, or if it condemns something related to idolatrous practices. I've seen Christian scholars that do not think the Bible condemns homosexuality. They point to various things, such as the ancient Hebrews having no notion of human sexuality equatable to our modern one, and the fact that words like 'Arsenokoitai' in 1 Corinthians are vague, and their definition isn't agreed on.

 

[Shad]

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

Albright is outdated, his own students refuted a lot of his ideas decades ago