Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Okay context then, Jack & Jill not wearing wedding rings?

If Jack & Jill were presented as obvious fornicators (I think that's what you're getting at, although an innocent puppy-love of 5-year olds certainly doesn't measure up to "fornication"), then yes, I would think that Brvheart should have a problem with that, and to the level he would have a problem with having a homosexual couple being presented as normal life option. What do you all think Christianity's response to a movement of anti-family sentiment would be? Something like how it is in the book "The Giver", where there is no lust, no fornication, no sex, but minus the "family-unit" it promotes.

[renaedawn 1]

God may or may not exist This is the only point that matters. If we disagree here, it will obviously render all of your other 'points' moot.

Not exactly. I have no problem with you or anyone else believing in God. I don't currently believe but I'm not so strongly entrenched that I couldn't be persuaded if something completely logical and proveable comes along.However, to point to the Bible and use it as an indicator that God says it's okay to treat my fellow human as less than I is not something I can wrap my mind around.

[renaedawn 1]

I point out that the basis of this argument was that the bible was the word of God in the first place and you say that I am being the lord of the religous forum? That's priceless- I guess maybe if I just posted a bad beat forum is down the street or some b.s. that would have made more sense to you. Incidentally, other than the fact that you don't believe in the bible- and this goes for pretty much all of you that haven't had the courage to actually put a thought out there- you haven't actually offered any type of belief. Plenty of reasons why I am wrong, but nothing that says why you are right. Nothing that says where you stand, what you feel. To me, that's a shame. I put myself out there daily, right or wrong. I think that you should do the same. It's not good enough to come in here and say," The opposite of what you said."

I said that you're being the Lord of the Religion Forum because of the way in which you are insinuating that people who don't agree with you are not welcome to enter into this discussion. Quit being an ass and you might actually get something out of this conversation. As long as you choose to defend instead of discuss, you're not going to see anyone's points.

[Canada 0]

If Jack & Jill were presented as obvious fornicators (I think that's what you're getting at, although an innocent puppy-love of 5-year olds certainly doesn't measure up to "fornication"), then yes, I would think that Brvheart should have a problem with that, and to the level he would have a problem with having a homosexual couple being presented as normal life option. What do you all think Christianity's response to a movement of anti-family sentiment would be? Something like how it is in the book "The Giver", where there is no lust, no fornication, no sex, but minus the "family-unit" it promotes.

Okay, so now lets reapply context. What goes around comes aroundIt was LMD that brought up the original objection. Do you think a picture of 2 men holding hands looking for an apartment is promoting homosexual sex any more than the Jack & Jill scenario? Promoting it enough to warrant home-schooling?My guess is you don't and therefore you might just agree that the whole home-schooling thing is a bit of an over reaction. He try's to divert the issue by throwing in the 'protecting my family card' but anyone that takes a moment to actually think about it knows it's a front.His post was that of a homophobe and a biggot.He even follows it with the biggot's catchphrase a few posts later

I agree with that. I was drawing up an example to Canada when it comes to how I view my role when it comes to protecting my family. I had said that if schoolbooks started showing David and David holding hands looking for an Apartment then I would homeschool her. Read my post where I just said what most are afraid to.

[renaedawn 1]

You're not using common sense. While according to God if I go 60 mph instead of 55 I have sinned, that does NOT mean that the impact of my sin is the same as if I murder someone or become addicted to pornography, etc etc. Isn't this obvious? That's not being selective about what will separate us from God, but instead what will have a bigger impact on us or our families.

Now you're not making sense. Several times in this thread the phrase "the wages of sin is death" has been bandied about. I've also read "sin is sin" in this very thread.You are being selective.

[brvheart 1,752]

Canada said:

So, tell me then how does a picture of 2 men holding hands looking for an apartment cause a bigger impact on anyones family than Romeo & Juliet which describes lust, revenge, murder and suicide?

Ask Lois, I didn't take up this particular fight.

Canada said:

Okay context then, Jack & Jill not wearing wedding rings?

In either case, I would show my kids how both couples were sinning against God. But as with my lengthy post on the last page, I would simply inform them that those people have no reason to not live that way. I don't know at which point I would pull my kids out of school, but I'm sure there is a point at which I would feel that there was too much to explain and it wouldn't be worth it.

renaedawn said:

Did you seriously just quote the movie Rudy to back up your claims about theology?

Did that blow your mind, because that just happened!

renaedawn said:

Not exactly. I have no problem with you or anyone else believing in God. I don't currently believe but I'm not so strongly entrenched that I couldn't be persuaded if something completely logical and proveable comes along.However, to point to the Bible and use it as an indicator that God says it's okay to treat my fellow human as less than I is not something I can wrap my mind around.

I can accept this. I will just pray that you will soften your heart to God.

renaedawn said:

Now you're not making sense. Several times in this thread the phrase "the wages of sin is death" has been bandied about. I've also read "sin is sin" in this very thread.You are being selective.

My entire point of making that post was to make it clear how they are not mutually exclusive. I obviously failed. I'll try again.

From God's perspective: No sin can enter heaven.  Everyone has sinned.  So no one can enter heaven on their own merits. It doesn't matter if Mother Theresa was jealous of her neighbor, or if Ted Bundy raped and killed women. Both have sinned and cannot enter heaven. So in that aspect sin is sin... it doesn't matter to what degree it affected other people.

From my perspective (as a parent): I will tell my kids not to be jealous, but if they are the impact on me or others will be minimal at best. On the other hand, if my boys turn into rapist murderers, I would be devastated... not because they now deserve 'more hell'... but because they will have affected my life, their life, the victims life, the victims families lives, etc etc. The 'wages of sin' is still death, but as a parent I will definitely put more focus on sins that will impact others when teaching my children right and wrong.

I hope I explained this better... but I'm not holding out much hope.

[BWToth 0]

So would you be more 'devastated' if you're child grew up to be a jealous person, or a homosexual?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Now you're not making sense. Several times in this thread the phrase "the wages of sin is death" has been bandied about. I've also read "sin is sin" in this very thread.You are being selective.

No, he meant impact and, what I brought up earlier, "impressionability". Reverse the situation, your kid is being taught in school that homosexuals are not equal under the law, and you can see where he's coming from as far as his feelings go.

So would you be more 'devastated' if you're child grew up to be a jealous person, or a homosexual?

I would pick homosexual, because I don't think life is easy for homosexuals in America and many other places.That probably wasn't the answer you were looking for, though. Why did you ask it? To pick a fight?

[BWToth 0]

To illustrate a point.I don't think impressionability is a word. And frankly I don't know what it means.

[DonkSlayer 1]

To illustrate a point.I don't think impressionability is a word. And frankly I don't know what it means.

It is a word, and it means the level at which one will receive an action and then integrate into one's thinking.For instance, it is likely worse to scream at a child than scream at an adult (assuming the adult had not yet been screamed at), as the impressionability of the child is deep and the scream will likely affect them worse.

[brvheart 1,752]

So would you be more 'devastated' if you're child grew up to be a jealous person, or a homosexual?

If by 'jealous person' you mean someone that is constantly dwelling on jealousy, then both would be bad. If my child was jealous about something and then overcame that, I think it would be better and not have as long lasting issues than if my child had a homosexual fling and then overcame that. The reason is because later if that same child got married, the spouse of said child would certainly be emotionally damaged by the situation. Have you seen Kinsey?

[DOG 0]

I have a headache.Carry on .

[BWToth 0]

If by 'jealous person' you mean someone that is constantly dwelling on jealousy, then both would be bad. If my child was jealous about something and then overcame that, I think it would be better and not have as long lasting issues than if my child had a homosexual fling and then overcame that. The reason is because later if that same child got married, the spouse of said child would certainly be emotionally damaged by the situation. Have you seen Kinsey?

no one said anything about overcoming it. option a: you're child grows up and forever becomes jealous of his best friend's wifeoption b: you're child grows up and marries another individual of the same sex and they live happily ever after.Which one is more 'devastating'?You don't have to answer, Its just a test to get you to think about statements you make, and how you think you would feel, and how you might actually feel in a given circumstance

[Shimmering Wang 1]

So would you be more 'devastated' if you're child grew up to be a jealous person, or a homosexual?

I hate to do this, but the KrazyKristians are ACTUALLY seeming like the more rational people over the last few pages I skimmed...First off, even as a man who claims to have no problem with homosexuality, I'm pretty sure if my son ended up being gay I'd be disappointed. And I don't think that makes me a bad person. And I don't think it would necessarily make a Christian a bad person if he were more unhappy that his sone were gay than if he were lustful or slothy or prideful or whatever. You guys are setting up straw man arguments so you can say "SEE!" but that's just about as intellectually dishonest as the behavior you're decrying in your counterparts...If my son's school decided to broach the subject of homosexuality with my 3rd grade son, I'd be furious, as should anyone else. NOT because of my particular views on homosexuality, BUT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE SCHOOL'S JOB. It's not Mrs. Johnson's job to educate my son on issues of complexy morality, religion, and social tolerance in the third grade. Teach him math and how to spell. I'll take care of the rest.As for the Civil Unions thing:YOU can personally marginalize whomever you want. I have no problem with that. But to do so systematically and instituionally via the government is unacceptable, and completely contrary to the spirit our nation was built upon. YOU can be racist. That's okay. But if you work for Congress, or the supreme court, or the police, you can't behave in a racist manner (especially if you have input on major policy agendas, etc.). That's the difference. Tolerance is a PERSONAL issue. Government is not- and should not be- personal. Merely tolerating black people is not enough. Their rights MUST be vigorously defended by the highest powers in the nation, and not systematically separated from and marginalized by the government.Think about this... Is the Constitution supposed to be a document that takes rights AWAY from people? Think about that. Think about a possible amendment to the Constitution that says "Gay people can't marry." How disturbing is that? Doesn't that make your SKIN craw? Using our nation's highest laws to strip a group of people of the rights afforded to others because people think it's icky, and others think it's a sin? Ewww. What's next? "Not believing in Jesus is a sin. Therefore, expression of the Jewish faith should NOT be allowed." ???Wang

[DonkSlayer 1]

Think about this... Is the Constitution supposed to be a document that takes rights AWAY from people? Think about that. Think about a possible amendment to the Constitution that says "Gay people can't marry." How disturbing is that? Doesn't that make your SKIN craw? Using our nation's highest laws to strip a group of people of the rights afforded to others because people think it's icky, and others think it's a sin? Ewww. What's next? "Not believing in Jesus is a sin. Therefore, expression of the Jewish faith should NOT be allowed." ???Wang

This is an excellent point, and part of my endless rant manifesto on American Constitutionalism and how much better it is than anybody's elses ideas.While I don't think a Marriage Amendment would lead to your analogy becoming true, I again agree with your point. Government should be unbiased and secular. The government CHOSE to endorse and incorporate a religious institution "MARRIAGE" and now everyone has to deal with it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

This is an excellent point, and part of my endless rant manifesto on American Constitutionalism and how much better it is than anybody's elses ideas.While I don't think a Marriage Amendment would lead to your analogy becoming true, I again agree with your point. Government should be unbiased and secular. The government CHOSE to endorse and incorporate a religious institution "MARRIAGE" and now everyone has to deal with it.

Yeah, but pretty much by default. And that doesn't change the fact that if that IS the system and it's a mistake, it needs to be addressed and fixed. It's not okay to say "This is the Status Quo. So fucking deal with it."

[DonkSlayer 1]

Yeah, but pretty much by default. And that doesn't change the fact that if that IS the system and it's a mistake, it needs to be addressed and fixed. It's not okay to say "This is the Status Quo. So fucking deal with it."

You misunderstood me.I'm saying that to people who want "marriage" as endorsed by the government to be between only a hetero man and woman.

[brvheart 1,752]

no one said anything about overcoming it. option a: you're child grows up and forever becomes jealous of his best friend's wifeoption b: you're child grows up and marries another individual of the same sex and they live happily ever after.Which one is more 'devastating'?You don't have to answer, Its just a test to get you to think about statements you make, and how you think you would feel, and how you might actually feel in a given circumstance

I think you need to reread my post again... focus on the first sentence:

If by 'jealous person' you mean someone that is constantly dwelling on jealousy, then both would be bad. If my child was jealous about something and then overcame that, I think it would be better and not have as long lasting issues than if my child had a homosexual fling and then overcame that. The reason is because later if that same child got married, the spouse of said child would certainly be emotionally damaged by the situation. Have you seen Kinsey?

[Shimmering Wang 1]

You misunderstood me.I'm saying that to people who want "marriage" as endorsed by the government to be between only a hetero man and woman.

Yup, sorry. I was pretty sure you were at least mostly agreeing with me. Buds!

[DonkSlayer 1]

Yup, sorry. I was pretty sure you were at least mostly agreeing with me. Buds!

HIGH FIVE!

[renaedawn 1]

So would someone tell me what we decided?If we decided homosexuality is a sin, I still have a problem with the documents we probably used to make that conclusion.

[DonkSlayer 1]

So would someone tell me what we decided?If we decided homosexuality is a sin, I still have a problem with the documents we probably used to make that conclusion.

Well, Wang and I agreed that regardless of whether it is a sin or not, government should not get into the business of what is/isn't a sin...so it's not Constitutional to deny a homosexual couple the right to marry. A marriage amendment would affect the 14th amendment, which would then be subject to be called into question every time some lawyer felt like it. If you don't believe in God, why do you have a problem with something being labled a "sin" or not? This is a very absurd concept to me.

[renaedawn 1]

Well, Wang and I agreed that regardless of whether it is a sin or not, government should not get into the business of what is/isn't a sin...so it's not Constitutional to deny a homosexual couple the right to marry. A marriage amendment would affect the 14th amendment, which would then be subject to be called into question every time some lawyer felt like it. If you don't believe in God, why do you have a problem with something being labled a "sin" or not? This is a very absurd concept to me.

I guess my issue isn't so much about what is labeled a sin. I figure you can have a whole room full of pages and pages of sin if you want. The issue that gives me heartburn is that so many people say "God says" and I think it's #1 human arrogance to believe that we can ever know the mind of God if he is truly a God and #2 that so many people point to the Bible as what "God says" and it's a tragedy of common sense and understanding of human nature to think that the Bible is not tainted with human bias.I think if more Christians and non-Christians alike would analyze why something is right or wrong instead of just pointing to the Bible and saying "God says" then we might come a little closer to actually understanding what we can of God.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I guess my issue isn't so much about what is labeled a sin. I figure you can have a whole room full of pages and pages of sin if you want. The issue that gives me heartburn is that so many people say "God says" and I think it's #1 human arrogance to believe that we can ever know the mind of God if he is truly a God and #2 that so many people point to the Bible as what "God says" and it's a tragedy of common sense and understanding of human nature to think that the Bible is not tainted with human bias.I think if more Christians and non-Christians alike would analyze why something is right or wrong instead of just pointing to the Bible and saying "God says" then we might come a little closer to actually understanding what we can of God.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you said. I think Christians and non-religious non-Christians would come to a different conclusion on "right" and "wrong" on some things, because non-Christians rely on human discernment only. While some Christians are literalists, many others are much like me, seeing the Bible as a compass, as inspiration that we can only hope to slightly conceive and try to do our best with. I don't believe it's the only source of religious inspiration, nor do I believe a human can ever fully conceive the true nature of God. We can only do our best, and encourage the same in others. Homosexuals being endorsed by a Church is a tough one for me because a lot of signs point to "no" while few point to "yes." You'll never find me voting for a Marriage Amendment though, and you'd be very surprised at how many others like me wouldn't either.

[renaedawn 1]

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you said. I think Christians and non-religious non-Christians would come to a different conclusion on "right" and "wrong" on some things, because non-Christians rely on human discernment only. While some Christians are literalists, many others are much like me, seeing the Bible as a compass, as inspiration that we can only hope to slightly conceive and try to do our best with. I don't believe it's the only source of religious inspiration, nor do I believe a human can ever fully conceive the true nature of God. We can only do our best, and encourage the same in others. Homosexuals being endorsed by a Church is a tough one for me because a lot of signs point to "no" while few point to "yes." You'll never find me voting for a Marriage Amendment though, and you'd be very surprised at how many others like me wouldn't either.

Yeah, those guys! Let's burn them at the stake. :PI've enjoyed this discussion and it's been one of the few that I've had regarding this topic that hasn't ended in stupid petty bickering and name calling.