Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

If the same couple is same-sex, but recognized under law, you would not consider that real marriage? Since they aren't believers and aren't asking for approval from God, you must have reasoning external to scripture, right? What is that reasoning?

The civil law rules the land, and although I supported civil unions, and I believe the supremes had no business getting involved in a Constitutionally defined state right, it is what it is. Therefore as a good citizen I will follow the law. However, when it comes to religious liberty, and the right to practice of my faith, there is a higher law, and if the government attempted to compromise that right, I and millions and millions of others will not comply

 

[viole]

Of course not. If homosexual sexual acts are condemned, then how can homosexual marriage be acceptable ? Heterosexual acts are not condemned at all, they are identified as adultery or fornication outside of marriage. If there was a verse that said " if a man lies with a woman he shall be killed"and there was not another statement to be found, how illogical is it to assume that since marriage between a man and woman isn't discussed, it must be acceptable ? It is a straw man, an argument based on vapor, 0+0=0. Just be honest and say I will do what I want, don't go to the absurd level that this argument sinks to

So, do you agree that rapists should marry their victims? Because this is what the Bible commands, too.

Or is that another piece of morality that can be superseded?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

May I ask why the commandment "do not kill" has not been issued more precisely with "do not kill, unless I tell you to"?

By the way. Do you really believe that God sanctioned the indiscriminate massacre of men, women and children (and pets)? Isn't that maybe more likely that the perps, of what today will put them behind bars forever or getting killed by a drone, did not make up a divinity that sanctioned their crimes?

Historically, classifying a certain human race as subhuman or irreversibly evil works wonder in overcoming human's natural empathy. We do not need to go too far in the past to see that. Add God sanction to the mix and there you have it.
A free moral pass to extermination.

And you worry about harmless gays just because the source of such "moral values" told you so?

Ciao

- viole

The commandment in Hebrew is actually " do not murder " not the same thing at all. As to the slaughter of the cannanites, it is a tough thing to accept. Apparently they were so contaminated with evil, they were to be eradicated completely, anything living associated with them was to be destroyed. I don't spend a lot of time in the OT, perhaps I should, but I don't think they were considered sub human, just totally depraved humans. That was then, this is now, for 2,000 years Christianity has been under a different dispensation, a different approach, a different law. Of course people alleging themselves to be Christians have abused it, but you cannot judge principles based on others not keeping them. I don't worry at all about harmless homosexuals, why should I

 

[shmogie]

So, do you agree that rapists should marry their victims? Because this is what the Bible commands, too.

Or is that another piece of morality that can be superseded?

Ciao

- viole

I have never come across that command, perhaps it is in the OT. It certainly is not a command under the Christian dispensation by the NT

 

[viole]

The commandment in Hebrew is actually " do not murder " not the same thing at all. As to the slaughter of the cannanites, it is a tough thing to accept. Apparently they were so contaminated with evil, they were to be eradicated completely, anything living associated with them was to be destroyed. I don't spend a lot of time in the OT, perhaps I should, but I don't think they were considered sub human, just totally depraved humans. That was then, this is now, for 2,000 years Christianity has been under a different dispensation, a different approach, a different law. Of course people alleging themselves to be Christians have abused it, but you cannot judge principles based on others not keeping them. I don't worry at all about harmless homosexuals, why should I

Would you consider a one year old human depraved?

You seem to indicate that depravation is genetically inherited. Is that so?

By the way, what do you mean with different law? Is morality relative? Does it depend on what God says and when He says it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

If I may ask...curious of your opinion on this is all

When you say sex outside of marriage is a sin, do you consider that homosexuals could be married within Christianity, or do you think that contrary to the belief system? There are of course churches that marry gay couples.

Other denominations may do what they choose, that is between they and God

 

[viole]

I have never come across that command, perhaps it is in the OT. It certainly is not a command under the Christian dispensation by the NT

Well, you never read the OT. Apparently. I hope we agree we are talking about the same God.

I did not see any explicit dispensantion for Christians against eating shrimps, either. Also an OT commandment.

Do you think it is valid? If not, do you have a clear-cut dispensation appearing somewhere in the NT?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Was Mary in her 40s or something? No?

What ?

 

[shmogie]

Well, you never read the OT. Apparently. I hope we agree we are talking about the same God.

I did not see any explicit dispensantion for Christians against eating shrimps, either. Also an OT commandment.

Do you think it is valid? If not, do you have a clear-cut dispensation appearing somewhere in the NT?

Ciao

- viole

I don't read the OT often, not never. Do I think what what is valid ? A prohibition about eating shrimp ? Christ said that nothing a person takes in by mouth can defile. Right after that the writer says, "thus he declared all food to be clean".

 

[shmogie]

Think about this; though youd disagree.

Homosexual acts in itself has no intent. Its just an action like my picking up a pen.

All of these are defined by their intent:

Lying (Intent to avoid the truth)
Swearing (intent to insult someone)
Committing adultery (intent to have sex outside of marriage for whatever reason)

You cant lie if there is no truth to tell
You cant swear if its not a word said in a deflamatory way
Its not cheating if the wive aproves of the other woman
Its not abuse if there is concent

And so forth.

My point is because it is defined by intent, it is wrong.

Homosexual and heterosexual acts are not defined by intent. I can roll in bed the same as my picking up this phone. Reason? No. Just because.

THAT (emphasis) type of homosexual act is not in the bible. Why? Because there is no intention.

The acts are Only wrong and wrong (as with lying, cheating etc)

When done out of promiscuity and lustful actions. No where in the Bible are homosexual acts condemned without it being backed up by the intent tht condemns it.

On the other hand

While you cant lie if there is no truth and you cant abuse if there is concent, you can have sex without motive: that isnt in the bible, sex without motive.

A lot of gay, lesbian, and bi people have sex without the motives defined in the bible. It is based on matrimony, commitment, spiritual bonding, and unconditional love. It is not separate from the actions and it is not in the bible.

Homosexual actions + intent to lust is condemned in scripture

Homosexual acts + intent to love in holy matrimony is not condemned in scripture.

The latter is just not mentioned.

Find a scripture on homosexual sex that is isolated from being defined and condemned for its motive and intent.

Sigh, I have posted them. You are right, I disagree

 

[shmogie]

If that is true, that its of no concern to you, why have you been carrying on for who knows how many pages now that it is wrong, no matter what? I mean, if you don't care, simply stop saying that you do.

I respond to questions, day after day, I won't back down, not in my nature. I care only in the context of full church membership, in my denomination. I don't care about all this stuff in any other context. If you don't want to hear (see) me defending my position, don't ask questions that compel me to do so

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sigh, I have posted them. You are right, I disagree

I just dont think you understand the difference between what homosexuality is and what it is not especially when it pertains to sin in scripture. I (and a few others bere) notice you focus on content. Focus on co text. Ask homosexuals how they see themselves. As christian homosexuals how they see themselves. We cant ask Paul, Mark, John, and Mathew of how Jesus felt about the issue. Nor can we ask Moses when he scribed part of the OT.

All we can do is assume what god says based on culture and upbringing, experiences and what we adopt is true.

I can give you many scriptures if not all that talks about homosexuality and its relations to lust. Likewise, I can do with heterosexual sexual interactions but that would take forever.

I can give you the context. If two people hide themselves and talked through curtains not knowing each others voices..if they came to love each other to the point of marriage. They pray and ask god for blessings.

And god looks down.

No. I cant marry you.

Mind you they have not seen each other yet.

"Why not?"

"Because you two are men"

They take off the veils and look at each other with new found awe. They see the person they fell in love with up to the point of matrimony. Neither of them knew they were naked

Until god said they were.

What is the reason they cannot marry?

They knew nothing about each others bodies.

They did not cheat, lie, steal, abuse, or murdered

Both of them walk from each other. Years later they find the one they like to please god.

Do they love them? Probably not. Love has nothing to do with gender. Only god seems to think otherwise.

 

[viole]

Christ said that nothing a person takes in by mouth can defile..

I make the assumption He only referred to food, here

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

The civil law rules the land, and although I supported civil unions, and I believe the supremes had no business getting involved in a Constitutionally defined state right, it is what it is. Therefore as a good citizen I will follow the law. However, when it comes to religious liberty, and the right to practice of my faith, there is a higher law, and if the government attempted to compromise that right, I and millions and millions of others will not comply

I actually wholeheartedly agree with this. Common ground I guess. No church should ever be forced to acknowledge anything they don't want to. Membership, IMHO, is a different issue, but we can't force any religious group to recognize a marriage they feel is, according to their own beliefs about God's will, is iligitimate.

 

[shmogie]

I make the assumption He only referred to food, here

Ciao

- viole

Well, you do have to swallow as well

 

[shmogie]

I just dont think you understand the difference between what homosexuality is and what it is not especially when it pertains to sin in scripture. I (and a few others bere) notice you focus on content. Focus on co text. Ask homosexuals how they see themselves. As christian homosexuals how they see themselves. We cant ask Paul, Mark, John, and Mathew of how Jesus felt about the issue. Nor can we ask Moses when he scribed part of the OT.

All we can do is assume what god says based on culture and upbringing, experiences and what we adopt is true.

I can give you many scriptures if not all that talks about homosexuality and its relations to lust. Likewise, I can do with heterosexual sexual interactions but that would take forever.

I can give you the context. If two people hide themselves and talked through curtains not knowing each others voices..if they came to love each other to the point of marriage. They pray and ask god for blessings.

And god looks down.

No. I cant marry you.

Mind you they have not seen each other yet.

"Why not?"

"Because you two are men"

They take off the veils and look at each other with new found awe. They see the person they fell in love with up to the point of matrimony. Neither of them knew they were naked

Until god said they were.

What is the reason they cannot marry?

They knew nothing about each others bodies.

They did not cheat, lie, steal, abuse, or murdered

Both of them walk from each other. Years later they find the one they like to please god.

Do they love them? Probably not. Love has nothing to do with gender. Only god seems to think otherwise.

You can ask Paul.

 

[Ingledsva]

***

Are you planning on attempting actual rebuttal on posts # 4361 and # 4375, - without "argumentum ad lapidem?"

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You can ask Paul.

Paul wrote about Sacred prostitute IDOLATRY, not homosexuals.

*

 

[viole]

Well, you do have to swallow as well

So, if we swallow (whatever), that is ok?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course not. If homosexual sexual acts are condemned, then how can homosexual marriage be acceptable ? Heterosexual acts are not condemned at all, they are identified as adultery or fornication outside of marriage. If there was a verse that said " if a man lies with a woman he shall be killed"and there was not another statement to be found, how illogical is it to assume that since marriage between a man and woman isn't discussed, it must be acceptable ? It is a straw man, an argument based on vapor, 0+0=0. Just be honest and say I will do what I want, don't go to the absurd level that this argument sinks to

Only one problem with this.

We have shown that EVERY so-called against homosexuality verse, - actually has words meaning a Sacred Prostitute, or in two cases, are mentioned in connection to MOLECH worship which would be Sacred Sex, = NOT about homosexuals!

*