Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[ShivaFan]

Actually, excessive lust brings bad karma and unstable mind from my Hindu perspective. Generally the word "sin" isn't translated very well in Hindu terms but I will use the term only because I am lazy and do not feel like getting into symantecs right now.

In addition, from my Hindu perspective, you should be married first.

Thus there is the question, are you married (or else it is a "sin")? I mean a religious marriage, not some government license to procreate. So-called marriage today has gotten mixed up with meaning the samething as a license of some sort from the government to have children.

These sort of "licenses" have existed for several thousands of years in one form or another and have nothing to do with love nor religious marriage but simply regulating who can procreate children and protecting children. Society also cannot afford to allow humans to breed like rabbits with bad characters who simply abandon the child to the heavy cost to society for a safety net or the cost to raising the child by the rest of society and also the cost of crime.

So the license is an attempt to regulate this and throw offenders in the gowl. It is not the marriage itself.

Even if you have a religious marriage, you still cannot procreate children in a civilized society without this government license regulating children and protecting children. But it seems this is being forgotten, and there will be consequences. This license has zero to do with love or marriage but procreation.

So if two gays get married, they can live together. A license to procreate is not needed, since they csnnot do so. But if they live together with out religious marriage, this is a "sin" and a danger to society in terms of jealous murder rates, disease etc.. and is a "sin". Adopting has nothing to do with procreating, and is a totally different license.

So in my opinion, both hetero and homo must marry to live together or it is a "sin". Only heteros need the license to procreate, and this license should only have bearing to visitation rights etc if the child is impacted. Benefit rights should not ever be tied to the government license to procreate, but adjuncts independent of the license may apply in relation to a child and benefits independent of the license.

Actually, I may be wrong since I do not know a lot about Christian, but I think even there the "laying with another man" stuff I have heard about has to do with outside marriage. Just things got confused with government licenses. This is a typical problem with the expansion of government power, regulation and the never ending lust of government for more taxes and more "revenue".

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Jesus refuted the Law and moved us beyond it.

Jesus refuted the religious leaders of the time. He did not say the moral laws were bad otherwise he'd be refuting the lawgiver, his Father God.

Even in the OT, God was angry at the Jews for being legalistic instead of being compassionate and merciful, which is what He wanted most of all. The Pharisees are the sect that took this legalism to an extreme and they were the sect that was most in conflict with Christ. (Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisee movement and so you have the lives of Ultra-Orthodox Jews micro-managed by rules every second of the day.)

You're painting a rosey fairy tale picture of god which is biased. Being compassionate and merciful by committing genocide including slaughtering babies? God wasn't killing people for breaking 'strict' temple rules (Leviticus 10:1-2; 15:32-35, etc.)?

Telling someone not to sin is not being legalistic unless telling someone not to murder is also legalistic.

The Law of Grace is what Christ came to proclaim.

Grace does not give you a free pass to sin or to ignore Gods moral instruction. If someone asks you if rape is moral you're okay informing them on that matter, right?

God did nothing of the sort.

That was ONE of his reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah. He also put same sex male intercourse acts being punishable by death.

We don't follow the Mosaic Law. We are to pursue justice, love and compassion.

...and to not sin and repent if we do (Luke 5:33, 1 John 3:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Seems Jesus's message involved telling people not to sin as well.

[Science and religion are two different fields that tell us about two different levels of realido.

Not always but I can agree for the most part. My point is that your standard of basing Christian morals on scientific facts is not biblical. Biblical morals come from the all-knowing God. You have not shown logically that scientific facts are a basis for Christian morals.

The Resurrection is a miracle. God is not bound to scientific law.

And God doesnt have to go by science just because science tells us sexuality cant be changed. He can miraculously change someone's sexuality since he has a problem with it.

 

[Ingledsva]

...


That was ONE of his reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah. He also put same sex male intercourse acts being punishable by death.


...

Again - There is NO mention of homosexuality in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.


*

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Even if the sexual laws were still in force, they weren't talking about homosexuality as we understand it today.



Christ fulfilled the Spirit of the Law and the prophecies. That's all that's saying.

Certainly, but I don't think it's a good interpretation of that to render them useless.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus refuted the religious leaders of the time. He did not say the moral laws were bad otherwise he'd be refuting the lawgiver, his Father God.

Christians do not stone people to death, we don't refrain from eating pork and shellfish, we don't refrain from having sex during menstruation (which is included in the same category as the "man shall not lie with man as with women" verse), we work on the Sabbath, we wear clothes made out of mixed materials, etc. But you're saying that we should follow one law in particular, when we threw the whole thing out centuries ago? In order to be consistent, we'd have to follow the entire Law. Then we'd be Jews.

You're painting a rosey fairy tale picture of god which is biased. Being compassionate and merciful by committing genocide including slaughtering babies? God wasn't killing people for breaking 'strict' temple rules (Leviticus 10:1-2; 15:32-35, etc.)?

Not all Christians believe that God really did that. Same with Onan, the young people taunting Elisha and Jonah. Many of those are morality tales trying to drive home that there's a proper way to act. Doesn't mean they literally happened.

Telling someone not to sin is not being legalistic unless telling someone not to murder is also legalistic.

Legalism is taking a law-based approach to salvation and not a spirit-based approach.

Grace does not give you a free pass to sin or to ignore Gods moral instruction. If someone asks you if rape is moral you're okay informing them on that matter, right?

So now you're comparing homosexuality to rape?

That was ONE of his reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah. He also put same sex male intercourse acts being punishable by death.

No, it isn't. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitality, greed and failing to pursue justice.

...and to not sin and repent if we do (Luke 5:33, 1 John 3:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Seems Jesus's message involved telling people not to sin as well.

Duh.

Not always but I can agree for the most part. My point is that your standard of basing Christian morals on scientific facts is not biblical. Biblical morals come from the all-knowing God. You have not shown logically that scientific facts are a basis for Christian morals.

I didn't say our morals are just based on science. What I am saying is that those verses that seem to speak on homosexuality are actually talking about specific things and must be examined in their cultural context. They did not have the knowledge we now have about human sexuality and did not have the view we now have. The idea that someone could be naturally oriented towards homosexuality and could be in committed, lifelong gay relationships was something foreign to them. Their ideas about sex were tied up in the cultural mores of the era as well as the gender roles.

And God doesnt have to go by science just because science tells us sexuality cant be changed. He can miraculously change someone's sexuality since he has a problem with it.

He doesn't have a problem with it and so He's not going to change it. Homosexuality is a natural variation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Certainly, but I don't think it's a good interpretation of that to render them useless.

The Law is pretty much useless when it comes to salvation: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 3&version=RSV

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Christians do not stone people to death, we don't refrain from eating pork and shellfish, we don't refrain from having sex during menstruation (which is included in the same category as the "man shall not lie with man as with women" verse), we work on the Sabbath, we wear clothes made out of mixed materials, etc. But you're saying that we should follow one law in particular, when we threw the whole thing out centuries ago? In order to be consistent, we'd have to follow the entire Law. Then we'd be Jews.

Just because Christians no longer follow the penalties and punishments for violating moral laws does not mean that moral behavioral laws can't still be in place. After all, adultery is still a sin and hopefully bestiality as well. Christians don't apply the penalties because all would have to kill themselves since all humans have sin and fall short. Jesus said let the man without sin throw the first stone when an adulterer was brought to him.

Same with Onan, the young people taunting Elisha and Jonah. Many of those are morality tales trying to drive home that there's a proper way to act. Doesn't mean they literally happened.

If God is going to make moral rules that are punishable by death when violated then its only reasonable to expect him to carry out those punishments at some point. If all the stories of punishments never happened in real life then what was the purpose of bringing up the punishments? Where is the accountability? Besides your arbitrary and/or selective classification of what's not literal, I see no evidence to believe that Onan and Elisha weren't literal people and that the punishment was not literal. I see nothing in the context neither to support your view.

Legalism is taking a law-based approach to salvation and not a spirit-based approach.

This doesn't conflict with my point that the Law details what a sinful behaviors are and that we are not to sin whether it's in the OT or NT.

So now you're comparing homosexuality to rape?

I apologize. The bible does not clearly say if rape is a sin when the woman was single.

No, it isn't. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitality, greed and failing to pursue justice.

Inhospitality is a sin? You have a bunch of gay men trying to ram through the door to gang rape two men and they even pass up on having Lot's daughters and all you see wrong here is "inhospitality"? I see absolutely NO logical thought from you here.

I didn't say our morals are just based on science. What I am saying is that those verses that seem to speak on homosexuality are actually talking about specific things and must be examined in their cultural context. They did not have the knowledge we now have about human sexuality and did not have the view we now have. The idea that someone could be naturally oriented towards homosexuality and could be in committed, lifelong gay relationships was something foreign to them. Their ideas about sex were tied up in the cultural mores of the era as well as the gender roles.

Who is the " they" that youre referring to as making the rules and lacking in knowledge? You don't believe your own Bible when it says God revealed the Law, esp. sexual sins? An All-knowing God would've certainly known what he was doing when or while he was giving the rules. I see no problem with him not caring about sexual orientation just as he didn't care for the babies that he ordered killed, or for all the women he puts in submission, or for all the people that castrate themselves for the kingdom. As far as I'm concerned God would let gay men marry women and it wouldn't be much different than ARRANGED marriage where the women may not even be sexually attracted to the man.

He doesn't have a problem with it and so He's not going to change it. Homosexuality is a natural variation.

I have no reason to believe that God is obligated to accept someone's sexual orientation. His rules aren't necessarily science-based.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The Law is pretty much useless when it comes to salvation: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 3&version=RSV

You can at least use the Law to know what God classifies as sinful behavior. So it is still useful for informational purposes even if that alone won't get you salvation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just because Christians no longer follow the penalties and punishments for violating moral laws does not mean that moral behavioral laws can't still be in place. After all, adultery is still a sin and hopefully bestiality as well. Christians don't apply the penalties because all would have to kill themselves since all humans have sin and fall short. Jesus said let the man without sin throw the first stone when an adulterer was brought to him.

You're missing the point. Are you or are you not saying that Christians should be following the Mosaic Law? I'm not just talking about the penalties. I'm saying that we don't follow it pretty much at all and I used examples. There are also Gnostic Christians who don't even accept the OT as scripture.

If God is going to make moral rules that are punishable by death when violated then its only reasonable to expect him to carry out those punishments at some point. If all the stories of punishments never happened in real life then what was the purpose of bringing up the punishments? Where is the accountability? Besides your arbitrary and/or selective classification of what's not literal, I see no evidence to believe that Onan and Elisha weren't literal people and that the punishment was not literal. I see nothing in the context neither to support your view.

You can believe what you want. To me, it's clear that those are morality stories or folktales meant to get a point across. Also, the concept of God evolves throughout the Bible. He goes from being viewed as a tribal deity and war god to being fully revealed as a universal savior deity in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is not a straight-forward, literal book.

This doesn't conflict with my point that the Law details what a sinful behaviors are and that we are not to sin whether it's in the OT or NT.

Again, Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law since we're not ancient Israelites!

I apologize. The bible does not clearly say if rape is a sin when the woman was single.

That's a different topic.

Inhospitality is a sin? You have a bunch of gay men trying to ram through the door to gang rape two men and they even pass up on having Lot's daughters and all you see wrong here is "inhospitality"? I see absolutely NO logical thought from you here.

49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Says nothing about sexual issues.

The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. 3
What was the sin or sins of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Who is the " they" that youre referring to as making the rules and lacking in knowledge? You don't believe your own Bible when it says God revealed the Law, esp. sexual sins? An All-knowing God would've certainly known what he was doing when or while he was giving the rules. I see no problem with him not caring about sexual orientation just as he didn't care for the babies that he ordered killed, or for all the women he puts in submission, or for all the people that castrate themselves for the kingdom. As far as I'm concerned God would let gay men marry women and it wouldn't be much different than ARRANGED marriage where the women may not even be sexually attracted to the man.

It was humans who wrote the Bible, not God. Humans are fallible and subject to outside influence. That's why there's a bunch of tribal rules thrown into the Mosaic Code.

I have no reason to believe that God is obligated to accept someone's sexual orientation. His rules aren't necessarily science-based.

Then He would've made it possible for a person to consciously change their orientation. Since you can't do that and homosexuality itself is not harmful in any way, it stands to reason that God created gay people that way.

You can at least use the Law to know what God classifies as sinful behavior. So it is still useful for informational purposes even if that alone won't get you salvation.

No, it isn't. There's many things that are proscribed in the Mosaic Law that Christians partake of.

You really just sound confused on what Christianity believes. We don't follow the Mosaic Law and that's the end of it. You're better off bringing this stuff up with a religious Jew.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You're missing the point. Are you or are you not saying that Christians should be following the Mosaic Law? I'm not just talking about the penalties. I'm saying that we don't follow it pretty much at all and I used examples. There are also Gnostic Christians who don't even accept the OT as scripture.

The Law is sometimes talked about as a system (the old covenant). That system composed of moral laws, ceremonial laws, penalties, punishments, etc. When I say that Christians follow the moral laws (dont lie, murder, etc.) that is only one aspect of the system. Following the old covenant would require following ALL of the Law which is not what I'm referring to.

As for Gnostic Christians, if thats their view the I would question what Paul meant when he said ALL Scripture is for teaching (2Timothtly 3:16). The NT was not compiled until after Paul wrote that statement to Timothy. Where did the Law come from if not in writings from the OT?

You can believe what you want. To me, it's clear that those are morality stories or folktales meant to get a point across.

Without evidence or logic to support your view you may as well pick- and-choose which parts you don't like and call that non-literal. Even if the stories in the Bible about god killing people were non-literal, that doesn't mean he didn't kill people and it wasn't reported by anyone.

Also, the concept of God evolves throughout the Bible. He goes from being viewed as a tribal deity and war god to being fully revealed as a universal savior deity in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is not a straight-forward, literal book.

All that means is that God changed or shifted to another plan unless the biblical writers were making up their own narrative about God as opposed to reporting their actual xperience of him. I'm sure the wrath part will return once we get the final total body count of those sent to Hell.

Again, Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law since we're not ancient Israelites!

As a system no...but there are moral codes that still apply like the 10 commandments, etc. I explained this earlier in this post.

49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Says nothing about sexual issues.

There are other passages that report on Sodom and Gomorrah starting with its first occurrence in Genesis. Here goes another passage:

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example,

This is why I said from the start that male same-sex acts was ONE reason that God destroyed those cities. The passage you quoted maybe been an additional reason.

It was humans who wrote the Bible, not God. Humans are fallible and subject to outside influence. That's why there's a bunch of tribal rules thrown into the Mosaic Code.

The only rule the bible mentions Moses threw in himself was divorce. Everything else you're saying contradicts the Bible since it says God revealed the Law to Moses. Its interesting that I'm an agnostic and I take the bible more serious than you.

Then He would've made it possible for a person to consciously change their orientation. Since you can't do that and homosexuality itself is not harmful in any way, it stands to reason that God created gay people that way.

I know its not reasonable but who says that this god is reasonable or that the bible is all true when you look at all of the other problems raised in the bible. Apparently we are all born with a sin nature so its natural for us to sin. I will say though that just because something is natural or genetic does not mean God created it. Did he create our sin nature? He wound things up at the beginning and let it go its own way and there are bound to be problems down the line like people born with missing limbs, inherited diseases, hermaphrodites, psychopaths (also rooted in genetics), etc.

To some atheists you are the unreasonable one for trying to rationalize for some god who may not even exist and to where there's no proof that he spoke to any of the bible writers. No different than the claims of any other religion.

t. There's many things that are proscribed in the Mosaic Law that Christians partake of.

That contradicts the moral laws? Then its a pick-and-choose of what to follow. The NT does not cover bestiality, incest, and nudity.

You really just sound confused on what Christianity believes. We don't follow the Mosaic Law and that's the end of it. You're better off bringing this stuff up with a religious Jew.

No.. I'm just tired of Christians who try to understand the Bible based on CURRENT cultural norms instead of going by how the biblical writers would have understood their own writings.

 

[sojourner]

No.. I'm just tired of Christians who try to understand the Bible based on CURRENT cultural norms instead of going by how the biblical writers would have understood their own writings.

Then understand this:
1) The biblical writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation. so the verses aren't condemning homosexuality. They're condemning acts that they (in their scientific ignorance) thought were "unnatural."
2) Our faith is a living faith -- not a faith in stasis. The texts are correctly understood in the context of how they apply to us in our time -- not how we conform to them in their time. Otherwise, we'd still be braying about a flat earth and a 6000 year old earth.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Then understand this:
1) The biblical writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation. so the verses aren't condemning homosexuality. They're condemning acts that they (in their scientific ignorance) thought were "unnatural."
2) Our faith is a living faith -- not a faith in stasis. The texts are correctly understood in the context of how they apply to us in our time -- not how we conform to them in their time. Otherwise, we'd still be braying about a flat earth and a 6000 year old earth.

The biblical writers did not define the rules - God did. An all-knowing God would know that homosexuality was an orientation. The Bible is in part inspired and revealed knowledge (prophecy, moral laws, etc.).

 

[Ingledsva]

The Law is sometimes talked about as a system (the old covenant). That system composed of moral laws, ceremonial laws, penalties, punishments, etc. When I say that Christians follow the moral laws (dont lie, murder, etc.) that is only one aspect of the system. Following the old covenant would require following ALL of the Law which is not what I'm referring to.

As for Gnostic Christians, if thats their view the I would question what Paul meant when he said ALL Scripture is for teaching (2Timothtly 3:16). The NT was not compiled until after Paul wrote that statement to Timothy. Where did the Law come from if not in writings from the OT?




Without evidence or logic to support your view you may as well pick- and-choose which parts you don't like and call that non-literal. Even if the stories in the Bible about god killing people were non-literal, that doesn't mean he didn't kill people and it wasn't reported by anyone.



All that means is that God changed or shifted to another plan unless the biblical writers were making up their own narrative about God as opposed to reporting their actual xperience of him. I'm sure the wrath part will return once we get the final total body count of those sent to Hell.



As a system no...but there are moral codes that still apply like the 10 commandments, etc. I explained this earlier in this post.



There are other passages that report on Sodom and Gomorrah starting with its first occurrence in Genesis. Here goes another passage:

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example,

This is why I said from the start that male same-sex acts was ONE reason that God destroyed those cities. The passage you quoted maybe been an additional reason.




The only rule the bible mentions Moses threw in himself was divorce. Everything else you're saying contradicts the Bible since it says God revealed the Law to Moses. Its interesting that I'm an agnostic and I take the bible more serious than you.



I know its not reasonable but who says that this god is reasonable or that the bible is all true when you look at all of the other problems raised in the bible. Apparently we are all born with a sin nature so its natural for us to sin. I will say though that just because something is natural or genetic does not mean God created it. Did he create our sin nature? He wound things up at the beginning and let it go its own way and there are bound to be problems down the line like people born with missing limbs, inherited diseases, hermaphrodites, psychopaths (also rooted in genetics), etc.

To some atheists you are the unreasonable one for trying to rationalize for some god who may not even exist and to where there's no proof that he spoke to any of the bible writers. No different than the claims of any other religion.



That contradicts the moral laws? Then its a pick-and-choose of what to follow. The NT does not cover bestiality, incest, and nudity.



No.. I'm just tired of Christians who try to understand the Bible based on CURRENT cultural norms instead of going by how the biblical writers would have understood their own writings.

And you don't know what you are talking about.


You have been shown where some of these are mistranslated.


It would be stupid of them to stay with incorrect translations, and added thoughts, by later Christians, - that the Bible doesn't actually say.


I suggest you go back and read post # 120.



*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Gen 18:21 Descend now to discern (if the) cry (that has) come before me is altogether of a truth or not, (and) if not (I will) yada/ascertain and Judge.

I see that the word 'yada' has several means and what you've highlighted so far is just one meaning. As mentioned before, to "know" is also a biblical idiom that refers to sex. That's the sense it's used in Genesis 4:1:
"Now Adam knew (Hebrew word is 'yada') Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

That “KNOW” in 18:21 is YADA – ascertain-judge-punish.

The purpose of the “angels” is to SEE and ASSERTAIN for the purpose of punishment.

This is emphasized in Gen 19:9

I agree that the angels did go to the city to know about the city of Sodom and apparently the Sodomites knew about their arrival to the city. I"m not sure how the Sodomites would've known about the purpose of the angels but Genesis 19:9 does indicate they may've known something about the angels' (although the Sodomites did not know they were angels) purposes.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Gen 19:4 Before bedtime the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded about the house, young and old together as a human wall.


"Enosh" is also PEOPLE - It uses "aner" when the people ask "where are the men..."

So it is males AND females, young and old!

What source are you using to define 'enosh'? So far, I found the 'enosh' only refers to men or mankind when used in a collective sense. There's no mention of females and all of the English translations that I've seen so far mention "men". Hypothetically-speaking, even if women were involved and sex was intended, then sex acts with either gender would've been a sin, i.e. fornication and same-sex sex between males and possibly rape.

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (yada - ascertain and judge) them.

So far I see your choice of definition for yada as an assumption. I see no reason why a mob of men would be forcing their way into someone's house just to get a chance to judge someone as opposed to wanting sex. And then the response of Lot is to offer his daughter and specifically specify that they have not known any man which is reference to virginity - an appeal to sex. Also, Lot called the Sodomites actions as being wicked and I don't see why wanting to judge someone would be wicked, otherwise, the angels would've been just as wicked for wanting to judge the Sodomites.

Then, in 19:8, Lot tries to give them his virgin (pure) sacrifice) daughters instead, but they DON”T ACCEPT THEM. Telling us why they are actually there in 19:9.

Genesis 19:9 does not say that the Sodomites were there to judge. They made reference to Lot's two houseguests as being the judges. And again, Lot bringing up his daughter's virginity would only appeal to men sexually, so by Lot's actions we know what the Sodomites were looking for. Also, Jude 1:7 indicates that the Sodomites were known for sexual immorality.

Gen19:9 (But) they said, "nagash" (Strong's - to adduce an argument, Dictionary - adduce - to cite an example or means of PROOF in an argument!) stand aback, and said, united/together they came here to JUDGE/punish; so (we) JUDGE/punish henceforth as wicked them. (Then) Pressed the people against Lot mightily to approach and break the door.

Genesis 19:9 does not even mention the Sodomites being there to judge anyone. Interestingly I found the 'nagash' can also refer to sexual intercourse or to commit other physical acts. Again, this also goes with Jude 1:7 where the Sodomites were known to engage in sexual immorality.

So it would appear, even though Lot offered his daughters, they where not there to have sex with the angels, or anyone else!

Only if we go by your ASSUMPTION as to which meaning for "yada" was being used. Your explanation about "nagash" makes no sense or you had so many words jumbled up I couldn't decipher what you were trying to say. I find it likely that people known for sexual immorality (Jude 1:7) would be there for sex.

It is also interesting that “asah” which also means sacrifice, is used in 19:8 where he tries to give his daughters.

I see that "asah" just means "to do", as in the men can do whatever they want to them and Lot specifically put it in their mind that his daughters were virgins.

So instead of the usual understanding of “sex with my daughters instead of the men,” he is saying “make a sacrifice of my pure daughters in place of these men you want to judge (and take vengeance on,) which are under my protection.”

I fail to see why a sacrifice would need to be made let alone where it says that the Sodomites just wanted to judge or for what reason they would need to judge or why would Lot call that judgement "wicked". Perhaps their verdict would involve rape and humiliation.

In all, you did not do anything significant to show why or how most of the Bible translations are wrong when it comes to Genesis 19. But we can also go by how Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19, and reference to same-sex acts in Leviticus or Numbers (can't remember at the moment), etc.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Then understand this:
1) The biblical writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation. so the verses aren't condemning homosexuality. They're condemning acts that they (in their scientific ignorance) thought were "unnatural."
2) Our faith is a living faith -- not a faith in stasis. The texts are correctly understood in the context of how they apply to us in our time -- not how we conform to them in their time. Otherwise, we'd still be braying about a flat earth and a 6000 year old earth.

I already responded to your #1 point in post #72 but for your #2 I would say understanding what the biblical writers meant in their writings doesn't take conforming to their culture. It takes study and understanding the theology, language along with the historical/cultural context. Comforming to it is a different matter when it comes to how we should live . If the bible writers said we should conform to their ancient morals, then so be it. If God made any changes, he should've made that clear to his Pope and Church who are supposed to be infallible when it comes to doctrine. And as it stands, traditional teachings shows that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[sojourner]

The biblical writers did not define the rules - God did. An all-knowing God would know that homosexuality was an orientation. The Bible is in part inspired and revealed knowledge (prophecy, moral laws, etc.).

Not true. Human beings established the parameters and wrote the rules. The bible is not "revealed knowledge." Even if it were, that revealed knowledge would still have been completely filtered through the lens of human understanding. Meaning that what God revealed might well be misunderstood by the ignorance of the writer.

 

[sojourner]

I already responded to your #1 point in post #72 but for your #2 I would say understanding what the biblical writers meant in their writings doesn't take conforming to their culture. It takes study and understanding the theology, language along with the historical/cultural context. Comforming to it is a different matter when it comes to how we should live . If the bible writers said we should conform to their ancient morals, then so be it. If God made any changes, he should've made that clear to his Pope and Church who are supposed to be infallible when it comes to doctrine. And as it stands, traditional teachings shows that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There are a couple of problems here. First, morals are imbedded in cultural understanding. We are a different culture from ancient Canaan, so our morals will be different. Second, It's not God who "makes the changes." it's us. We're given free will, remember? Third, neither the Pope nor the Church are "infallible" when it comes to doctrine. The Church has changed it position since the very beginning, when the Jerusalem Church decided that Gentile converts need not become Jewish in order to be Christian. And the concept of papal infallibility has only been defined since 1869. And the only "infallible" statements that have been made concern Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception. Fourth, "Traditional teachings" always yield to "contemporary understanding." Look what happened with slavery.

You're quite wrong here.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not true. Human beings established the parameters and wrote the rules. The bible is not "revealed knowledge." Even if it were, that revealed knowledge would still have been completely filtered through the lens of human understanding. Meaning that what God revealed might well be misunderstood by the ignorance of the writer.

You have not provided evidence to back up your claims. I would at least accept a Scriptural reference from you but seeing I see biblical references that contradict what you just claimed you'd already be illogical and inconsistent. I may as well say that the bible never said Jesus died.

 

[sojourner]

You have not provided evidence to back up your claims. I would at least accept a Scriptural reference from you but seeing I see biblical references that contradict what you just claimed you'd already be illogical and inconsistent. I may as well say that the bible never said Jesus died.

Jesus said, "God is a spirit." Spirits don't write. People write. In fact, we know that a man who refers to himself as Paul wrote part of the bible. To believe that God wrote the bible, or to assume that human beings are capable of understanding revelation outside their own lens of understanding is completely ludicrous. Why don't you prove otherwise, since both common sense and observable results are on my side.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There are a couple of problems here. First, morals are imbedded in cultural understanding.

True but that doesn't answer whose morals we ought to follow.

We are a different culture from ancient Canaan, so our morals will be different. Second, It's not God who "makes the changes." it's us.

Yes society has their own morals but that doesn't mean God doesn't have his own that can be different from ours. And how will we know whose morals to follow. The bible mentions Gods morals.

We're given free will, remember?

That's disputable by science. So that may be one more biblical concept you can throw out.

Third, neither the Pope nor the Church are "infallible" when it comes to . The Church has changed it position since the very beginning, when the Jerusalem Church decided that Gentile converts need not become Jewish in order to be Christian. And the concept of papal infallibility has only been defined since 1869. And the only "infallible" statements that have been made concern Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception. Fourth, "Traditional teachings" always yield to "contemporary understanding." Look what happened with slavery.

You're quite wrong here.

Defined in 1869 to clarify but was already in practice since the time of the apostle Peter. The teaching stems from the NT.