Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Omtita]

I don't have a religion and being gay is fine by me. What about you guys??

I have never and will never belong to an organized religion but I think that everyone is religious in the very basic sense of the word, namely that we all have a strict set of beliefs we adhere to.

I don't fully understand why homosexuality seems the predominant issue with unbelievers. I guess it's a social thing having to do with timing. If we were discussing the issue about the time and place I was born, in 1966 Midwestern U.S. we wouldn't find many people in support of that lifestyle. If we go back further to the time of the Native Americans, many of them wouldn't find fault with that or with homosexual pedophilia either, the same with most of the societies surrounding the Bible writers in the time, from Moses to Jesus. Pedophilia was common and accepted.

Out of political correctness such comparisons are frowned upon but comparing any and all sexuality is a valid exercise.

Me personally, I have no problem with homosexuality but I do have a problem with the modern day apostate Christian self appointed police state. Christians should only be concerned with the issue of homosexuality and abortion within the congregation, not the world they are supposed not to be a part of. At the same time it is just as offensive to me for those outside the Christian congregation to judge or insist upon politically correct acceptance simply because it is popular.

I happen to be a homosexual who no longer lives that lifestyle because of my Bible beliefs.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

LOL! No one has shown how one mistranslated sentence turns a story into homosexual sex! The cry of the people doesn't mention Gay sex, YHVH doesn't mention Gay sex, the whole rest of the story says nothing about gay sex! One mistranslated line is used to turn the whole story into what it is - NOT - about!

When you say that "no one has shown"... have you included yourself?
It's also not about one mistranslated sentence, it's also about the context. Furthermore, the very word that you are hinging on, "yada", can refer to sex and as of now you have not given me a logical reason of why to accept ONE of the definition over the other ones, in light of my COMMENTS to you.

You said the "cry of the people" doesn't mention gay sex. But how does wanting to "judge" someone (as you claim the Sodomites wanted to do with the angels) a sin and I ask this because it was this encounter that the sealed the deal for the angels to determine that Sodom was an immoral place. The angels did not have to go out into the city as they had originally planned because all the immorality they needed to see was right on their (or Lot's) door step. While Genesis 19 doesn't mention sexual immorality but Jude chapter 1 mentions that being one of the reasons for the destruction of Sodom so it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.

Jesus does not define marriage in Matthew 19.
He was asked a SPECIFIC question concerning HUSBANDS and WIVES, - ONLY.

He did explain what SOME aspects of marriage involved, which goes along with explaining what marriage is (the definition in other words). So although it wasn't a full definition but he did get into some of the components, like marriage being a LIFELONG relationship, contains a man and a woman, etc.

What is said there has nothing to do with homosexuals - nor are they condemned there, or banned from marriage, etc!

Yes, it had nothing to do with homosexuals since homosexuals wouldn't have been allowed to marry if you understand what the function of marriage in theoe societies were. It involved ensuring paternity (can't be done same-sex), inheritance, and property rights, etc. Hek, for some of those same reasons, God would've wanted a widow to marry her brother-in-law (Levirate Law) instead of marrying a man who was single.

 

[sojourner]

I have never and will never belong to an organized religion but I think that everyone is religious in the very basic sense of the word, namely that we all have a strict set of beliefs we adhere to.

I don't fully understand why homosexuality seems the predominant issue with unbelievers. I guess it's a social thing having to do with timing. If we were discussing the issue about the time and place I was born, in 1966 Midwestern U.S. we wouldn't find many people in support of that lifestyle. If we go back further to the time of the Native Americans, many of them wouldn't find fault with that or with homosexual pedophilia either, the same with most of the societies surrounding the Bible writers in the time, from Moses to Jesus. Pedophilia was common and accepted.

Out of political correctness such comparisons are frowned upon but comparing any and all sexuality is a valid exercise.

Me personally, I have no problem with homosexuality but I do have a problem with the modern day apostate Christian self appointed police state. Christians should only be concerned with the issue of homosexuality and abortion within the congregation, not the world they are supposed not to be a part of. At the same time it is just as offensive to me for those outside the Christian congregation to judge or insist upon politically correct acceptance simply because it is popular.

I happen to be a homosexual who no longer lives that lifestyle because of my Bible beliefs.

Something seems... off... here. If you don't have a problem with homosexuality, and you believe in the bible, why are you no longer living that lifestyle because of your bible beliefs? That doesn't make sense. If your beliefs cause you to have a problem living the lifestyle, how can you "not have a problem" with homosexuality? Can you clarify that? I must be missing something.

 

[Ingledsva]

if God in your religion Prohibits an action then it is a sin if you do it,you would be disobeying your God. God prohibits such action in my religion.

What religion do you belong to - whose Holy Book says such?




*

 

[sojourner]

What religion do you belong to - whose Holy Book says such?




*

I think he's Muslim.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have never and will never belong to an organized religion but I think that everyone is religious in the very basic sense of the word, namely that we all have a strict set of beliefs we adhere to.

I don't fully understand why homosexuality seems the predominant issue with unbelievers. I guess it's a social thing having to do with timing. If we were discussing the issue about the time and place I was born, in 1966 Midwestern U.S. we wouldn't find many people in support of that lifestyle. If we go back further to the time of the Native Americans, many of them wouldn't find fault with that or with homosexual pedophilia either, the same with most of the societies surrounding the Bible writers in the time, from Moses to Jesus. Pedophilia was common and accepted.

Out of political correctness such comparisons are frowned upon but comparing any and all sexuality is a valid exercise.

Me personally, I have no problem with homosexuality but I do have a problem with the modern day apostate Christian self appointed police state. Christians should only be concerned with the issue of homosexuality and abortion within the congregation, not the world they are supposed not to be a part of. At the same time it is just as offensive to me for those outside the Christian congregation to judge or insist upon politically correct acceptance simply because it is popular.

I happen to be a homosexual who no longer lives that lifestyle because of my Bible beliefs.

Just a note about pedophilia - The Hebrew, and Christians, and Islam, allowed marriage of extremely young girls. We are told by several sources, including Josephus, that a little child - three years and one day old - could be taken in marriage by intercourse.

In reality - All of the religions of Abraham - practiced pedophilia, and some still do!


"A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years." - Age of Consent Laws - Stephen Robertson, University of Sydney, Australia




*

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! No one has shown how one mistranslated sentence turns a story into homosexual sex! The cry of the people doesn't mention Gay sex, YHVH doesn't mention Gay sex, the whole rest of the story says nothing about gay sex! One mistranslated line is used to turn the whole story into what it is - NOT - about!

When you say that "no one has shown"... have you included yourself?
It's also not about one mistranslated sentence, it's also about the context. Furthermore, the very word that you are hinging on, "yada", can refer to sex and as of now you have not given me a logical reason of why to accept ONE of the definition over the other ones, in light of my COMMENTS to you.

ING - I have shown a logical alternative to a ridiculous one, - using the Hebrew language.

It is indeed about context - which is why I know ONE sentence is mistranslated!

I told you "yada" also can mean sex - however it does NOT mean such in this story - where both YHVH and the men use it!

If you go back - you will see that I also discussed the other verse - almost exactly the same story - using YADA - where he tells us what they wanted to DO to him - to KILL him - not have sex with him!

*

You said the "cry of the people" doesn't mention gay sex. But how does wanting to "judge" someone (as you claim the Sodomites wanted to do with the angels) a sin and I ask this because it was this encounter that the sealed the deal for the angels to determine that Sodom was an immoral place. The angels did not have to go out into the city as they had originally planned because all the immorality they needed to see was right on their (or Lot's) door step. While Genesis 19 doesn't mention sexual immorality but Jude chapter 1 mentions that being one of the reasons for the destruction of Sodom so it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.

ING - The people whom cry to YHVH don't mention homosexuals. YHVH when he says he is going down to - YADA - doesn't mention homosexuality. And again - YHVH wasn't saying he was going down for some Gay sex!

It is Illogical for ALL the people of a city to angrily surround a house with two strangers inside - because they want to have sex with them! That is just ludicrous! Would make more sense - don't you think - to show up with gifts including perhaps, some pomegranate hibiscus lube, - and invite them to your private party? LOL!


It becomes a logical story when the translation for - YADA - is the same for both YHVH and the men!


It is logical for a whole city of angry people to surround a house with two strangers - if they have found out the strangers have come to - YADA - ascertain/judge and pass judgment (which they did - BOOM) - and so tell him to send them out so they can - YADA - judge and pass judgment on them first!

ANY sex outside of marriage, including Sacred Sex, was considered "immorality!"


*

Jesus does not define marriage in Matthew 19.
He was asked a SPECIFIC question concerning HUSBANDS and WIVES, - ONLY.

He did explain what SOME aspects of marriage involved, which goes along with explaining what marriage is (the definition in other words). So although it wasn't a full definition but he did get into some of the components, like marriage being a LIFELONG relationship, contains a man and a woman, etc.

ING - AGAIN - A SPECIFIC question - concerning - ONLY - husbands and wives.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Mat 19:11 "BUT" this information of mine is not for everyone to entertain/incorporate/use; this topic, contrariwise, is for the others given.

KJV - Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

*

What is said there has nothing to do with homosexuals - nor are they condemned there, or banned from marriage, etc!

Yes, it had nothing to do with homosexuals since homosexuals wouldn't have been allowed to marry if you understand what the function of marriage in theoe societies were. It involved ensuring paternity (can't be done same-sex), inheritance, and property rights, etc. Hek, for some of those same reasons, God would've wanted a widow to marry her brother-in-law (Levirate Law) instead of marrying a man who was single.

See above!

Ancient societies across the world, allowed homosexuals to marry.

The "sleep with a Husband's brother law" is only for husband/wife couples where the husband had died - leaving no direct "blood" heir to inherit his stuff. If no heir, then the goods would pass to one of his male relatives.

Has nothing to do with homosexuals.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

I think he's Muslim.

Then he should understand that the Tanakh does not actually condemn homosexuals, later Christianity misunderstood/mistranslated it, and the Qur'an included that Christian error.



*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

See above!

Ancient societies across the world, allowed homosexuals to marry.

The "sleep with a Husband's brother law" is only for husband/wife couples where the husband had died - leaving no direct "blood" heir to inherit his stuff. If no heir, then the goods would pass to one of his male relatives.

Has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Really now?! Using the same logic you used for gay marriages then the Bible does not mention man and robot marriages either. Do you think that's okay to do? Or can there be a one person marriage like me marrying myself?

I'm beginning to miss your boyfriend's liberal theology.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Agnostic boy is correct here on your argument hinging on Yada. It already has it been demonstrated to you that it’s been used before to mean sex or relations. Yahweh coming down to “judge” is your red herring and not relevant at all. He came to down to know not to judge for he already judged S & G as wicked back in 18:20.

Did you bother to scroll on down when you used Strong’s Concordance? They translate it for you based on its usage since Yada does not have a static meaning.

Genesis 18:21
HEB: וְאִם־ לֹ֖א אֵדָֽעָה׃
NAS: to Me; and if not, I will know.
KJV: of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
INT: and if not will know

Genesis 19:5
HEB: הוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינוּ וְנֵדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃
NAS: Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.
KJV: bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
INT: out to may have
Genesis 19:8

HEB: אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־ יָדְעוּ֙ אִ֔ישׁ אוֹצִֽיאָה־
NAS: who have not had relations with man;
KJV: daughters which have not known man;
INT: who have not had man bring



You have not shown a logical meaning.


The angels came to get Lot (family) outa dodge before Yaweh torched the place, not judge the mob.

You think a mob of heterosexual men would turn down a blank-check offer of two young supple virgin girls? Ha!

How would the mob know the angels were there to judge them which they weren’t?

Poor hospitality couldn’t have been Sodoms sin since Yaweh “yada” them as wicked before he sent those angels (18:20)

What religion do you belong to - whose Holy Book says such?
*

Yeah, hand over your holy texts to Ingledsva, She'll interpret them for you and let you know how your predeccesors had it all wrong all these thousands of years.......

No one is gonna stop being gay on this watch!

:jester3:

 

[sojourner]

I agree to a point. The meaning of the term "to know" is more congruent with the theological teaching of the story, than is "to judge."

 

[Omtita]

Something seems... off... here. If you don't have a problem with homosexuality, and you believe in the bible, why are you no longer living that lifestyle because of your bible beliefs? That doesn't make sense. If your beliefs cause you to have a problem living the lifestyle, how can you "not have a problem" with homosexuality? Can you clarify that? I must be missing something.

Apologies, I should have clarified that from the start. I have no problem with homosexuality in that accept what I am. I have no self loathing due to my sexual preference, which I can't do anything about. I often get attacked by advocates of homosexuality, claiming am a coward full of self loathing. In fact, I simply made a choice.

That doesn't mean that I judge anyone harshly for making a different choice, or that I condone the modern day Christian policy of meddling and judging.

That's what I mean by that.

 

[Omtita]

Just a note about pedophilia - The Hebrew, and Christians, and Islam, allowed marriage of extremely young girls. We are told by several sources, including Josephus, that a little child - three years and one day old - could be taken in marriage by intercourse.

In reality - All of the religions of Abraham - practiced pedophilia, and some still do!


"A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years." - Age of Consent Laws - Stephen Robertson, University of Sydney, Australia




*

Hmm. By our modern day standards an arrangement like that of Joseph (30+ years old) and Mary's (14 or 15 years old) would have been pedophilia, but Mary was sexually mature. While I don't have any doubt that there were, again, by our standards, sexual deviant behavior throughout the history of the religions of Abraham, that much is obvious to this day, I have no reason to believe that those living in Bible times went to the extent that you seem to suggest. I would like to see some support from Joseph.

Is it possible that you are talking about prearranged marriages where intercourse wouldn't occur until after sexual maturity but the arrangement made much earlier?

 

[sojourner]

Apologies, I should have clarified that from the start. I have no problem with homosexuality in that accept what I am. I have no self loathing due to my sexual preference, which I can't do anything about. I often get attacked by advocates of homosexuality, claiming am a coward full of self loathing. In fact, I simply made a choice.

That doesn't mean that I judge anyone harshly for making a different choice, or that I condone the modern day Christian policy of meddling and judging.

That's what I mean by that.

Ok. It's a little clearer. Can you expound a little as to what it is about your belief in the bible that keeps you from "living the lifestyle?" I find that sort of confusing, too.

 

[Ingledsva]

Really now?! Using the same logic you used for gay marriages then the Bible does not mention man and robot marriages either. Do you think that's okay to do? Or can there be a one person marriage like me marrying myself?

I'm beginning to miss your boyfriend's liberal theology.

I love it when people lose a debate and start attacking the messenger! LOL!

Shows their character to all.

Retain logic! Bible can't talk about "robots," as they didn't exist at that time.


You are trying to muddy the waters now with RED HERRINGS!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Agnostic boy is correct here on your argument hinging on Yada. It already has it been demonstrated to you that it’s been used before to mean sex or relations. Yahweh coming down to “judge” is your red herring and not relevant at all. He came to down to know not to judge for he already judged S & G as wicked back in 18:20.


ING LOL! You left off the continuation of the sentence which says to ASCERTAIN whether they have done it!

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

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



Did you bother to scroll on down when you used Strong’s Concordance? They translate it for you based on its usage since Yada does not have a static meaning.

Genesis 18:21
HEB: וְאִם־ לֹ֖א אֵדָֽעָה׃
NAS: to Me; and if not, I will know.
KJV: of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
INT: and if not will know

Genesis 19:5
HEB: הוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינוּ וְנֵדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃
NAS: Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.
KJV: bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
INT: out to may have
Genesis 19:8

HEB: אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־ יָדְעוּ֙ אִ֔ישׁ אוֹצִֽיאָה־
NAS: who have not had relations with man;
KJV: daughters which have not known man;
INT: who have not had man bring



You have not shown a logical meaning.


The angels came to get Lot (family) outa dodge before Yaweh torched the place, not judge the mob.

You think a mob of heterosexual men would turn down a blank-check offer of two young supple virgin girls? Ha!

How would the mob know the angels were there to judge them which they weren’t?


ING - LOL! Yes they were - and did.



Poor hospitality couldn’t have been Sodoms sin since Yaweh “yada” them as wicked before he sent those angels (18:20)


Yeah, hand over your holy texts to Ingledsva, She'll interpret them for you and let you know how your predeccesors had it all wrong all these thousands of years.......

No one is gonna stop being gay on this watch!

:jester3:

LOL! Dude! You guys keep repeating - and saying nothing new.


You have not proved your points.


Yada - does not just mean "to know" as in sex.


You keep repeating a translation as if that will make it correct.

I obviously am challenging the translation.

Did you even bother to read the first "main usage" part of that Strong's?

"A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively instruction, designation, punishment, etc.):


In other words - EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THE MEANING WAS IN THIS USAGE!

The first word "yarad" is to descend, I will descend.

Asah - is also to OBSERVE/make observation.


Last word "yada" to ascertain - make judgment - punish.


Very obviously - this can be read as I said!


Also as I said - there is a second story - almost exactly the same - with the people saying send him out - and using YADA.


Fortunately - in the second story they give us a meaning for YADA - To SLAY HIM - in other words the - judge and PUNISH, translation.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Originally Posted by Ingledsva View Post
Just a note about pedophilia - The Hebrew, and Christians, and Islam, allowed marriage of extremely young girls. We are told by several sources, including Josephus, that a little child - three years and one day old - could be taken in marriage by intercourse.

In reality - All of the religions of Abraham - practiced pedophilia, and some still do!


"A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years." - Age of Consent Laws - Stephen Robertson, University of Sydney, Australia

Hmm. By our modern day standards an arrangement like that of Joseph (30+ years old) and Mary's (14 or 15 years old) would have been pedophilia, but Mary was sexually mature. While I don't have any doubt that there were, again, by our standards, sexual deviant behavior throughout the history of the religions of Abraham, that much is obvious to this day, I have no reason to believe that those living in Bible times went to the extent that you seem to suggest. I would like to see some support from Joseph.

Is it possible that you are talking about prearranged marriages where intercourse wouldn't occur until after sexual maturity but the arrangement made much earlier?

They specifically say THROUGH INTERCOURSE. And these texts are very well known.


Babylonian Talmud. "Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

MISHNAH: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse. ..

.GEMARA: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "

Historian Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354
It is even stated that - "A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired
in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husbands brother cohabited with
her, she becomes his." - 80


We still have 7, 8, 9 year olds, being married off in the Middle East. There have been several articles about this, - even showing pictures of the Old farts with their 8-9 year old wives.


*

 

[Omtita]

They specifically say THROUGH INTERCOURSE. And these texts are very well known.


Babylonian Talmud. "Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

MISHNAH: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse. ..

.GEMARA: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "

Historian Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354
It is even stated that - "A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired
in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husbands brother cohabited with
her, she becomes his." - 80


We still have 7, 8, 9 year olds, being married off in the Middle East. There have been several articles about this, - even showing pictures of the Old farts with their 8-9 year old wives.
*

That's disgusting. Wow. I've never heard any of that before. Thanks.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's disgusting. Wow. I've never heard any of that before. Thanks.

Yep! Good thing that for "most" - it is in the past.



*

 

[Omtita]

Ok. It's a little clearer. Can you expound a little as to what it is about your belief in the bible that keeps you from "living the lifestyle?" I find that sort of confusing, too.

When, as an unbeliever of 27 years who had picked up a Bible for the first time to debunk Christianity, I eventually came to the point where I made the conscious decision that I believed the Body of work to be what it claimed to be. The word of our creator, Jehovah God. In doing so I had to admit that as our creator he knew what was best for us and then I had to decide whether or not I wanted to abide by his wisdom, guidance and sovereignty or not. I decided I would do my best, and though not surprisingly having been born in a sinful system I would fail miserably at it, I would nevertheless do my best.