• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

JMorris

JMorris

Democratic Socialist
Storm said:
Oh, really?

From the Letter to Dr. Laura:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?

9. I know from (Lev.11:6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
​
The morality of the Bible is badly outdated.
Click to expand...

thats not fair. your being rational and logical. you have an unfair advantage
 
HouseofIsrael

HouseofIsrael

Member
Storm said:
Oh, really?

From the Letter to Dr. Laura:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?

9. I know from (Lev.11:6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
​
The morality of the Bible is badly outdated.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's your understanding of it -with respect. Many things of the bible had changed as different era come and go -same goes with presidents and policies. But the governance of the laws and doctrine of God remains.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Or maybe you cherry-pick the instructions you like while ignoring the ones you find inconvenient.
 
S

strange

Member
Zebulun said:
Well then if you believe the books of the new testament to be the teachings of Christ then the first chapter of Romans makes it clear that homosexuality is still detestable to God: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27). Notice that these verses equate homosexuality with "shameful lusts", "unnatural [relations]", "indecent acts", and "perversion".
Click to expand...

[SIZE=-1]Back.[/SIZE]
​
Romans 1:24-27 Concerning Dishonourable Passions. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to he degrading of
their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse
with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts
with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
(Rom. 1:24-27 NRSV)
Rom.1:26-27, Paul gives an account of homoeroticism in same-sex behaviour, of both men and women. The context is in regard to idolatry, in which worship of the true god is exchanged untrue worship. As a result, their sexual conduct changes from 'natural' to ‘unnatural'. In fact, Paul uses Jewish prejudices concerning the Gentiles rhetorically, to ensnare his readers into engaging judgmental views in order to turn those views against them. In short, he pulls a literary sting! Paul does not engage a discussion of same-sex practices with the intent of sustaining that judgement. His rhetoric was the means by which he highlights God's role as judge. Paul teaches that, by putting yourself in the role of judge, you usurp God's role and function and engage the root of all sin which is idolatry. (44)
In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that "the righteousness of God" is needed because of the unrighteousness of all human beings. All people have sinned, Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul gives reference to the Gentiles first. They have had a prior knowledge of God, he claims, through God's revelation through nature and his will in the created world. Paul says that Pagan worship and philosophy have not seen this revelation clearly and Paul criticises pagan idolatry and culture for abandoning the truth. More than this, he is reflecting theological attitudes and beliefs that derive not only from his Jewish background regarding the kadeshim, but also from differing attitudes in the pagan world, towards pederasty. Paul's concern is with wider issues of unrighteousness. Significantly, Paul does not discuss gay or lesbian persons, in Romans 1. The persons whom Paul condemns are not homosexual, for it is clear that they are 'heterosexual' persons who have turned from their "natural" ways. As Boswell writes:
"The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally" inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally" inclined to monotheism." (45) ​
To have the text refer to homosexual persons, one has to argue that homosexuality is a "deviation" from the normative "heterosexual" orientation or what is perceived as "natural". Thus homosexuality is "normalised" in reference to "heterosexuality" and is labelled "unnatural". Arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" are very problematic. Apart from being based on a misunderstanding of Paul's argument in Romans 1, they risk the naturalistic fallacy in trying to argue a moral precept from an empirical state (arguing from ‘is’ to ‘ought’). They impose a normative standard that recognises only one "natural" sexual orientation and denies the experience of homosexual persons who regard their sexual orientation as "natural" to themselves. To counter this, a secondary argument is often adopted with the view that homosexuality is a "chosen" state, an act of choice and not of "nature". In this there is often a link to arguments based on Genesis 1:27-31 that assume a totally heterosexual Creation. Thus arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" apply a restrictive viewpoint, that of heterosexism, in which heterosexual experience not only dominates but is imposed as the delimiting case. Such interpretation stands contrary to the experience of homosexual persons and modern understandings of human sexuality. To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s rhetorical trap. To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16). Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others.


http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#romans
http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#romans
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Zebulun said:
Men lead by the spirit to write God's word. God is all powerful, I don't think it would be much of a feat to have a few men write what he wants them to write.

The beautiful thing about the bible is that it was written over a couple thousand years by many different authors and yet the exact same theme of God's love flows beautifully throughout the whole book.
Click to expand...

What book are you reading? I must have a different version because I certainly don't see a whole lot of God's love in the Old Testament. In fact, I see a huge difference between the god of the OT and the God of the NT. I just chalk that up to the fact that the OT was written by a tribe not much different from the other tribes of the day that all had their god or gods who led them in their wars with other tribes. And the NT was written by people going for a completely different message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top