• 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?

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Hmm. Maybe you can answer my repeated question to Jo and Isl. Does it make it right given it is not mentione? If so, what is that based on?
If it isn't mentioned, it should be judged on its own merits. Same-sex marriages are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. Many heterosexual couples are unable or unwilling to have children, so that's a non issue. And, studies show that same sex parents are just as good as heterosexual couples. Hardships might be caused by prejudice from external sources, but that would be misguided and wrong ... not worth bowing down to. And, legally, there is no valid argument based on verifiable evidence that same sex marriage is detrimental to society (beyond mere speculation, which should be ignored outright as prejudicial).

So, seeing how it isn't mentioned, it seems reasonable to assume it's just as valid.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What does pedophilia or beastiality (both absent of consent) have to do with same-sex (consentual) marriage?
They are all alleged to be absent from Scripture. So, if omission is permission, they must all be permitted. What difference does it make that they are absent of consent ? It says nothing about that either. Or, are you saying that the absence of anything can be qualified by the absence of something else ?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
They are all alleged to be absent from Scripture. So, if omission is permission, they must all be permitted. What difference does it make that they are absent of consent ? It says nothing about that either. Or, are you saying that the absence of anything can be qualified by the absence of something else ?
I never claimed that. If something is absent, it should be judged on its own merits, right? Pedophilia and beastiality both involve victims, and, as such, are demonstrably detrimental to society. The same cannot be said and verified with same sex marriage. Arguments against it are based on nothing more than speculation.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
If it isn't mentioned, it should be judged on its own merits. Same-sex marriages are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. Many heterosexual couples are unable or unwilling to have children, so that's a non issue. And, studies show that same sex parents are just as good as heterosexual couples. Hardships might be caused by prejudice from external sources, but that would be misguided and wrong ... not worth bowing down to. And, legally, there is no valid argument based on verifiable evidence that same sex marriage is detrimental to society (beyond mere speculation, which should be ignored outright as prejudicial).

So, seeing how it isn't mentioned, it seems reasonable to assume it's just as valid.
No, homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Christian community, therefore a de facto condemnation of homosexual marriage is obvious. Duh
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If it isn't mentioned, it should be judged on its own merits. Same-sex marriages are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. Many heterosexual couples are unable or unwilling to have children, so that's a non issue. And, studies show that same sex parents are just as good as heterosexual couples. Hardships might be caused by prejudice from external sources, but that would be misguided and wrong ... not worth bowing down to. And, legally, there is no valid argument based on verifiable evidence that same sex marriage is detrimental to society (beyond mere speculation, which should be ignored outright as prejudicial).

So, seeing how it isn't mentioned, it seems reasonable to assume it's just as valid.


Its valid outside of scripture. I agree with you. Can you validate that same-sex marriage is valid based on scripture?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I never claimed that. If something is absent, it should be judged on its own merits, right? Pedophilia and beastiality both involve victims, and, as such, are demonstrably detrimental to society. The same cannot be said and verified with same sex marriage. Arguments against it are based on nothing more than speculation.
We are talking about the absence of condemnation in the Bible. Who are you to judge what isn't in the Bible ? If omission is permission, then, everything omitted is permitted, society's norms are not at play here. Your logic makes it perfectly clear. You can't begin judging what isn't there by other criteria. Omission is permission for whatever isn't mentioned, if it is permission for one thing that isn't meantioned
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Its valid outside of scripture. I agree with you. Can you validate that same-sex marriage is valid based on scripture?
As I said, it isn't mentioned, along with many other things that are obviously fine. So it should be judged on its own merits.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I never said it was right according to scripture.

I said there are no verses against in the Bible, - thus one can't claim it is wrong, - or that it is a teaching of the Bible.

*

True. I was looking at context. A christian can claim it wrong based on context not content (since there are none).
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
We are talking about the absence of condemnation in the Bible. Who are you to judge what isn't in the Bible ? If omission is permission, then, everything omitted is permitted, society's norms are not at play here. Your logic makes it perfectly clear. You can't begin judging what isn't there by other criteria. Omission is permission for whatever isn't mentioned, if it is permission for one thing that isn't meantioned
No, omission is not permission. As I said, omission means that the practice in question should be judged on its own merits. Can you refute my arguments on the merits of same sex marriage?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Btw, this is patently false. There are many Christians who are for same sex marriage.
They are not following the Scriptures. A person can call themselves a fence post, that doesn't make them one. The Bible is the guide, not what others do or don't do
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
True. I was looking at context. A christian can claim it wrong based on context not content (since there are none).
If homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, how can the absence of any reference to homosexual marriage be taken as permission for it ?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
As I said, it isn't mentioned, along with many other things that are obviously fine. So it should be judged on its own merits.

Still being a devils advocate. I understand where you come from. Many christians find context to be evidence that it can be judged by god. They see this because any marriage outside male and female is something worth their time to speak against. Its more "X not there. God says Y. X is wrong since Y is correct." They figure it cant be both because god doesnt mention X only Y.

Thats why its wrong according to scripture. Its by context and culture.

Anyway, it just seems so simple. Of course I disagree, but I understand biblical perspective of it. Its logical and wrong.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
As I said, it isn't mentioned, along with many other things that are obviously fine. So it should be judged on its own merits.
If homosexuality is condemned, how warped do you have to be to believe no mention of homosexual marriage means it is acceptable ? That is the most illogical, bizarre, mental concoction I have ever come across. You can't possibly be serious, are you ? I knew things down the rabbit hole were strange, but this defies credulity
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, how can the absence of any reference to homosexual marriage be taken as permission for it ?

Hm??

Homosexual acts are prehibited in the Bible

Same-sex marriage is not.

Homosexual acts are wrong in the bible because it is based on lust.

Same-sex marriage is wrong "according to the bible" based on context:

1. The Bible does not mention it
2. It says marriage is between male and female.

Homosexuality is Not about actions nor lust. It is not mentioned by This definition in the bible. The bible has a totally different definition...

And my assumption is its based on translation bias. Id have to ask a native hebrew speaker whether homosexuality is the right word for promiscuous sex which has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Dont understand why many christians cant tell the difference between what the bible says and means and what the homosexual says it means.

Im sure they would know more about themselves than the translators and native speakers themselves assuming they are all straight.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No, omission is not permission. As I said, omission means that the practice in question should be judged on its own merits. Can you refute my arguments on the merits of same sex marriage?
The merits of same sex marriage are of no importance to me. People do it, I couldn't care less. What is important to me is what the Bible clearly states as a Christians relationship to homosexuality in the church, and all that implies. I won't even try to refute your arguments, I am sure they are spot on for non Christians. They cannot be for Christians, at least the ones who accept the authority of Gods word.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Hm??

Homosexual acts are prehibited in the Bible

Same-sex marriage is not.

Homosexual acts are wrong in the bible because it is based on lust.

Same-sex marriage is wrong "according to the bible" based on context:

1. The Bible does not mention it
2. It says marriage is between male and female.

Homosexuality is Not about actions nor lust. It is not mentioned by This definition in the bible. The bible has a totally different definition...

And my assumption is its based on translation bias. Id have to ask a native hebrew speaker whether homosexuality is the right word for promiscuous sex which has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Dont understand why many christians cant tell the difference between what the bible says and means and what the homosexual says it means.

Im sure they would know more about themselves than the translators and native speakers themselves assuming they are all straight.
No, homosexuality is condemned both in the NT and OT period. There is no qualifier about "lust". "lust" is condemned separately and always in the context of male female interaction, never same sex. As to your question about promiscuous sex, any sex outside of marriage is condemned as either adultery or fornication. There is no translation bias, both the Greek and Hebrew words are clear
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I have watched your nonsense here with the bold and colored type, and haven't responded because it was nonsense. I have the time now so I will expose your nonsense, as nonsense. Lets begin with your favorite word, arsenkoites. This is a very rare word in the earliest ancient Greek texts. Paul was comfortable with both Hebrew and Greek. Go to Leviticus 18: 22 It says "you shall not lie with a male as like a woman it is an abomination " Now Paul would have used the Septuigant version of the OT, translated in Greek, because he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and most civilized society's used Greek. Here is the Septuigant literal translation in Greek." meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos" Lev 18;22 Now look at Leviticus 20:13. " If a man lies with a man as like a woman, it is an abomination. They shall be put to death. The Septuigant Greek translation is " hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynikos" Lev 20:13 See anything interesting ? I sure do. Arsen means in the Greek male, koites means a bed or couch with a sexual connotation. Paul created around thirty Greek terms, usually combining words to convey his thinking. He used two words in the Septuigant verses to condemn homosexuality in a single word, "arsenkoites" It has nothing to do with prostitution. Literally manbed with a sexual connotation. In the ancient texts, man can mean mankind or humanity so it can mean that he was speaking of female homosexuality as well. Since it is an inference, I won;t insist on it., The point is that Paul's readers knew exactly what he was talking about, as did the many learned scholars who have translated the Bible. The revisionist view, based upon a homosexual political agenda, is held by few respected linguists, translators, and scholars. The overwhelming majority hold to the correct translation. Another of your bizarre positions is idea that Christ didn';t say anything about homosexual marriage, so it must be A OK. He spoke of marriage between a man and woman a number of times. Your contention that he didn't condemn homosexual marriage is wrong, everything he said is not recorded in the Gospels. Since the Gospel writers were Jews, they knew what the OT said about homosexuality, a discussion about it or homosexual marriage wasn't required, it was unimaginable for them to even think about. Omission is not permission. Omission is omission for a reason. In John 16; 12-13 Christ says " I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now., However; when He, the Spirit of truth has come He will guide you in all truth". He was speaking to his Apostles, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and because, unlike Jewish culture, the Gentiles practiced homosexuality, Paul spoke by the Spirit with the authority of Christ, to condemn it in the Christian community.

LOL! This exposes nothing. - Later church groups changing the meaning does not make it actually mean that.

And if you noted - in my earlier post with, - The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, - with the stem and words they do have, - it was used with rape of WOMEN.

The text I highlighted in purple, is a hilarious jump to a erroneous conclusion. Man as mankind is English. In Biblical Greek ánthrōpos would be used for mankind.

And there is a BIG glaring error in your source! Paul did NOT give a meaning for arsenokoites!!!!!!!

It is quite interesting - the Christian reference sources trying to cover their behinds. For instance Strong's definition of arsenokoites has "sodomite" first. If you look up "sodomite" in your Strong's you will find that a Sodomite was a Temple Prostitute. Only LATER - as usual - does the church alter these words.

WHO IS THE SODOMITE??? by Rev. Marj Creech

"This is tricky, so I want to give you some background info on the word Sodomite, as used in the King James Version of the Bible. This applies to the original KJV; I don't have a New KJV handy to see if it is also true there. The King James translators don't use the word Sodomite to refer to people who live/lived in Sodom! Instead they use the word Sodomite later on in the Bible, in several places, to translate the Hebrew word "Kadesh," which means "male temple prostitute" or "shrine prostitute" (plural Kedeshim)."

"Arsenokoites" John Boswell states that it "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers", and that in later Christian literature the word is used, for instance, by Aristides of Athens(c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution, Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women,



*
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, how can the absence of any reference to homosexual marriage be taken as permission for it ?

Huh?

Homosexulity in the bible is permiscuous sex between same sex partners straight/gay/bi/trans doesnt matter.

Homosexuality as we Know it today is a biological to some like myself spiritual, and mental attraction to those of the same sexm No Action is required. No lust needed.

The Bible condemns the former. It does not the latter.

:leafwind:

The second part you are talking to the wrong person. According to the bible in context same-sex marriage is wrong not because it isnt mentioned is because it says marriage is between male and female.

As a christian, I am sure you know the latter half of my post. The former part youd have to know, really know, a homosexual or be one to understand it is not based on lust and not an action.
 
Top