Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't see any substantive difference between discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation or their skin colour. In both cases it's arbitrary bigotry.

There really isn't any. Both forms of discrimination have had a Biblical basis for those who think it their "right" to discriminate, and both have no place in any society that wants to claim to be advanced and civilized.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why wouldn't I call a man a man? What else would I call him?

There was zero bias in that post. I requested you to flesh out your response, rather than just say it's not credible. And I didn't say I bought into Frank's post, I was merely pointing out that your rebuttal should more resemble his post in that it's fleshed out, outside sources used, and it makes a claim and provides evidence to support the claim. Your post stopped at making a claim.

But the thread title is called ...."is being gay a sin..."....it just wouldn't make sense calling it...."is being a man a sin..."

Did you go to the links? ...it is all unambiguously pro-homo propaganda.... Our friend St Frank has drank their kool aid...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you go to the links? ...it is all unambiguously pro-homo propaganda....

That's still not a fleshed out response. You aren't even trying to support your claims.

 

[MountainPine]

Your Jesus wouldn't stand for it anyways.

He most definitely would! Have you read Matthew 23 where he judged the Pharisees? Pharisaical Judaism was the social norm of his time. He, in fact, discriminated against all unrighteousness. He commanded his followers to "judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Paul would have stood for intolerance for sinners too:

[Romans 1:26-32]
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's still not a fleshed out response. You aren't even trying to support your claims.

I do not need to...I have well honed B/S detector when it comes to apostate religious claims...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He most definitely would!

Then why did he come to the aid of a woman about to be stoned? Why did he not shun prostitutes? Why did he associate with "lesser" types? Why did he even forgive the thieves on the cross?

Paul would have stood for intolerance for sinners too:

I didn't mention Paul, and Paul was very much the opposite of Jesus.

I do not need to...

For a proper debate, it is needed. It's really not good to say "This is not credible" and then offer not a single point to support your claim - actually, it makes you look really weak when you won't even try to offer points to support your claim.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For a proper debate, it is needed. It's really not good to say "This is not credible" and then offer not a single point to support your claim - actually, it makes you look really weak when you won't even try to offer points to support your claim.

Read the thread title....the answer from my position is yes and I have provided the evidence in the way of relevant Bible passages and links..that is my claim.. That pro-homo activist propaganda is not a refutation....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then why did he come to the aid of a woman about to be stoned? Why did he not shun prostitutes? Why did he associate with "lesser" types? Why did he even forgive the thieves on the cross?

Indeed, unconditional love and acceptance. The opposite of discrimination and bigotry.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....apostate religious claims...

Which is code for "views which are different from mine".

 

[MountainPine]

Then why did he come to the aid of a woman about to be stoned? Why did he not shun prostitutes?

Indeed, unconditional love and acceptance. The opposite of discrimination and bigotry.

The passage from John 8 is not what you think it means. It tells of a woman who was accused of committing adultery. Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Pharisees intended to uphold the Law by tricking him into condemning her to death, or else into condemning himself for going against the mandate of the Law. According to the Law, there must be at least two witnesses to a crime in order for a sentence to be executed (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15). In this case there was not even one witness to her alleged crime, therefore no one had the authority to pronounce her guilty of breaking the Law. So in the context of the Law, and of the narrative, Jesus was actually telling them, “Let the first witness come forward so that we can execute justice according to the Law.” Because he was called to judge the matter, and because no witnesses came forward, he was obligated to pronounce her innocent according to the Law. This was certainly not an instance of Jesus going against the Law to show compassion, but actually an instance of him upholding the Law to save a woman from being stoned for a crime which was only alleged and not witnessed. So this passage cannot be invoked to say that Jesus taught that it is wrong to judge, but only that it is wrong to be a hypocrite, or to judge by any standard other than the one God gave through Moses and his other prophets.

Why did he associate with "lesser" types? Why did he even forgive the thieves on the cross?

He associated with those whom heard his message and repented, meaning they didn't continue in their sins. He didn't hang out with sinners. As for the thieves, that account is only found in Luke's gospel (which I don't accept as canon, and he only forgave one of them, BTW). Even if I considered the Gospel of Luke to be legit, the account of the thief is completely irrelevant to Jesus having tolerance for sin.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”
.....Jesus was actually telling them, “Let the first witness come forward so that we can execute justice according to the Law.”

I disagree. "He who is without sin cast the first stone" sounds much more like an appeal to the better side of human nature, a challenge to vindictive and judgemental attitudes.

 

[MountainPine]

I disagree. "He who is without sin cast the first stone" sounds much more like an appeal to the better side of human nature, a challenge to vindictive and judgemental attitudes.

Then your interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of scripture (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then your interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of scripture (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15).

I don't see how this is relevant here, it's a red herring.

"He who is without sin cast the first stone" isn't asking for witnesses, it's telling people to be more tolerant and forgiving.

 

[MountainPine]

I don't agree that this legalistic approach is valid here. Look at the spirit of Jesus's words, the feeling and intention behind them.

I've already explained the spirit of Jesus' words. If the passage means what you say it means, then Jesus contradicted himself when he said "judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24), and was a hypocrite for judging the Pharisees, and toppling the marketplace in the temple.

There is nothing "legalistic" about the Torah. Legalism is to find loopholes to avoid following the law, or to find a way around the real meaning of the passage (like what you're doing) by brushing off the source that gives the passage it's proper context.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done." Matthew 5:17-18

 

[JoStories]

Jo...spirit is on other side of any and all definitions...how many times have I explained this? That mere mortals claim themselves to be spiritual is the height of arrogance and ignorance... This is not meant to be a definition...just a plain statement of fact...

Ben, do you not see how you telling me that my claim to be spiritual is arrogant and ignorant is not also the height of arrogance and frankly, rude. Spirituality is a nebulous concept that cannot possibly be stated as being 'a plain statement of fact'. You can have your opinion and that is fine. I respect and admire that. But you don't get to set the idea for each of us. That is simply hubris.

 

[JoStories]

You have not kept up with the thread....we've gone way past that....I was at the time trying to get Spiny to confirm whether he has a spirit....which you and I agree he had.. I am now persuaded by you and Draka that he agreed with you...

I have read every post and every page. There were times when your remarks were rude. That was all I was saying.

 

[JoStories]

Coming back to the topic, I really struggle to see how a mature spiritual path can involve discrimination based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Discrimination and bigotry are among the more unpleasant aspects of human nature, so condoning or encouraging such attitudes seems very strange.

Bravo. Deserves a repeat.

 

[JoStories]

Hi dgirl1986, the language is what it is...

But there are pro-active LGBT who step over the line, rather than just do their own thing...imho...

What is it that you think I am I doing that you want me to stop?

Pardon me but the language is not what it is. Would you like to be called a N****r if you were Black? The word amounts to the same thing for those of us who are either gay or TG or Bi. Please try to remember that.

 

[JoStories]

So long as the language is still in common use....it is not archaic..

I do not support the LGBT activist's campaign against traditional western culture's moral code according to the biblical moral code..those who try to change it imho are stepping over the line.. I am not against LGBT individuals per se, and wish them all the best in general matters as I do for everyone else..

So I gather just my having this opinion is what you call trying to control others' rights?

Ben, all anyone is saying is that calling gay people 'homo' is the height of being rude. It amounts to the same as calling a Black man a N*gger. If you find calling a Black person that name is perfectly acceptable in today's society, I don't know what to think about you anymore.

 

[JoStories]

A eunuch is actually a castrated male.

And without the testosterone that the testicles provide to the man, the man becomes effeminate. This was done to many children in Italy to give them the chance to be opera singers. Maybe look up what testosterone does to men. Might help your understanding.