Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[MountainPine]

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.

Wait what? I know that "f*ggot" and "dyke" are derogatory, but since when is "homo" is derogatory? I've heard some people say that "gay" is derogatory now. That's ridiculous.

 

[JoStories]

Well I believe hermaphrodites should lead chaste lives and deny themselves any sexual pleasure with any partner, otherwise they are sinning. Being a hermaphrodite is not a justification for being gay.

I see. So you get to decide what a person can and cannot do based on your limited understanding of what the Bible says? And that, trying for a life of normalcy and pleasure, for you would amount to sinning? Wow.

 

[MountainPine]

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.

They may become effeminate, but their sex drive is shut off, meaning they can't get turned on by either sex.

 

[JoStories]

Just like it's "cruel" for Christians and other religions to expect homosexuals to repent? I'll tell you what, it's cruel to expect someone to sacrifice their moral code in order to have tolerance for people who disrupt their world view.

No one is asking you to sacrifice a thing, particularly your moral code. What I am asking is that you not try to enforce YOUR moral code on ME. I would never expect you to give up what you believe in. But neither would I expect that you would ask me to give up what I believe in.

 

[JoStories]

Nah...I see you and St Frank as having confirmation bias on the issue...if you can't see with clarity what the bible has to say on the matter....my words will never persuade you otherwise....

Ben, Frank laid out some excellent points that he backed up with Biblical passages. Can you refute his points or not? Resorting to insults does not win the debate. Were you in one of my classes, you would be given an F for your responses. Christ NEVER spoke about homosexuality. And btw, continually calling gay people 'h*mo" is against the rules of this forum. Please stop it.

 

[MountainPine]

No one is asking you to sacrifice a thing, particularly your moral code. What I am asking is that you not try to enforce YOUR moral code on ME. I would never expect you to give up what you believe in. But neither would I expect that you would ask me to give up what I believe in.

What if one believes they shouldn't associate with homosexuals? Are you going to call them a "homophobe" and expect them to accept them?

 

[MountainPine]

Can you refute his points or not?

I certainly did, with three posts.

 

[MountainPine]

I see. So you get to decide what a person can and cannot do based on your limited understanding of what the Bible says? And that, trying for a life of normalcy and pleasure, for you would amount to sinning? Wow.

Certainly not. I don't rule the world. I can't decide anything for what people do. However, I can have my own beliefs and world view and live/act according to it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

The biblical view is my view...

 

[JoStories]

They may become effeminate, but their sex drive is shut off, meaning they can't get turned on by either sex.

Wrong. Maybe you should look this up.

 

[MountainPine]

Christ NEVER spoke about homosexuality.

He did, however, come to fulfill or complete the Torah, which does speak of homosexuality. Christ never did away with the Law.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Jo...I know that according to the present day dictionary's definition, everyone can claim to be spiritual.....such that it loses its original meaning. But for those of us who want to find out what spirit really is....we must establish contact with spirit itself... The reality of spirit is not the concept, it is not in words....it must be to some extent realized to be considered spiritual....but it seemed you were implying that this realization is not a prerequisite to be spiritual...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

We've been through this....how would you word the thread title?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben, Frank laid out some excellent points that he backed up with Biblical passages. Can you refute his points or not? Resorting to insults does not win the debate. Were you in one of my classes, you would be given an F for your responses. Christ NEVER spoke about homosexuality. And btw, continually calling gay people 'h*mo" is against the rules of this forum. Please stop it.

Jo....I do not visit homosexual web sites for bible interpretation....simple as that...

Btw, I find it hard to believe that using the word 'h*mo' is against the rules when using it as an abbreviation for homosexual in the context of a general discussion on homosexuality....are you sure?

 

[Draka]

Well I believe hermaphrodites should lead chaste lives and deny themselves any sexual pleasure with any partner, otherwise they are sinning. Being a hermaphrodite is not a justification for being gay.

You do realize that, while born with both male and female sexual organs, most hermaphrodites identify with one gender only (I know a couple myself, one I went to high school with, and she's been married, has children, about to be a grandmother). That is, the sexual organs of the other gender are considered a birth defect, just like any other birth defect (also keep in mind it is rare that both sets fully function anyway). So, that said, it would be unreasonable to expect them to not have normal relations with others merely due to a birth defect.

How so? I'm still a virgin and by choice, and I'm 28. It's not harsh at all. You say that as if sex is all what life is about.

That is, by your own admission, your own choice. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect someone else to experience the full array of love just due to the fact that they have a birth defect you don't understand.

Just like it's "cruel" for Christians and other religions to expect homosexuals to repent? I'll tell you what, it's cruel to expect someone to sacrifice their moral code in order to have tolerance for people who disrupt their world view.

It is cruel to expect that of homosexuals, especially when the repenting only comes into play if you actually have that as part of your belief system. It is also not cruel to expect tolerance. If your "worldview" is so fragile that merely accepting, or just seeing, people who do not adhere to it disrupts it then it is an issue with your "worldview" not an issue with them. Your "worldview" is apparently not in conjunction with reality and is something that you need to ponder on as to why that is and how to go about bringing yourself to terms with it. No one else is responsible for maintaining your "worldview" or your belief system. That is on you. If you have problems maintaining it then perhaps you should rethink it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Congratulations...
Yes, using that definition.....everyone is spiritual... and therefore it becomes meaningless in a discussion about matters of spirit itself.

Not everybody.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

The language is not common use. Unless it's meant to be insulting, that is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How so? I'm still a virgin and by choice, and I'm 28. It's not harsh at all. You say that as if sex is all what life is about.

Sex is indeed a very natural and normal part of life.

You made a CHOICE. Why not allow others to make their own CHOICE?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just like it's "cruel" for Christians and other religions to expect homosexuals to repent? I'll tell you what, it's cruel to expect someone to sacrifice their moral code in order to have tolerance for people who disrupt their world view.

How are you sacrificing your moral code by allowing some other person to go about their life?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@MountainPine

Holy copy and paste, Batman! I'll look at that site's arguments. However, my estimation of that site is not very high already since it's a rather wacky fundamentalist site.

Edit: I really think that site is trying way too hard to explain away the rather romantic overtones of both of those stories. You could de-sexualize the Song of Songs in the same way. They also seem not to realize that terms can be used in more than one way, as with their fervent nit-picking over the use of the word "dabaq" ("cleave") in reference to Ruth and Naomi.

http://gaychristiansurvivors.tripod.com/id11.html

I mean, if a man says to you "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women", exactly how would you interpret that? You would seriously just think "oh, we're just best buds"? Why is he comparing his love for Jonathan to the love a man has for a woman? That comparison doesn't make much sense if it were solely a platonic affection. Either way you cut it, it definitely sounds like romantic poetry and there's many examples of this between men in history. It doesn't mean that they were "gay", since that's a modern socio-cultural construct and the ancients didn't view sexuality as we do now, but I would call it homoerotic for sure.