Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[Loismustdie 0]

why? some non-christians here have a better grasp of the bible and tenets of christianity than some christians do.

That is to true.

[Loismustdie 0]

Nh

Occasionally, I am actually not just blabbering.

[Loismustdie 0]

Hmmm...My thoughts: - It's crazy for non-christians and christians to be debating this in the same thread. - Everyone sins so homosexual acts are not the reason one will or will not be saved - The debate in the Christian world should stop and start on whether Christian marriages should be performed for a couple of the same sex, and whether an active non-impulsive and self-promoting sinner should be ordained - The debate in the secular world is whether we're going to treat people differently based on religious beliefs- Homosexuals cannot pro-create, so we heteros need not worry about gay world domination

Gay world domination. That's funny. Do people really think like that? That's so, well, gay.

[aadams_22 3]

I agree with that- however judge not lest ye be judged means just that- you better be able to take that same judgement. I don't need to be standing in judgement to know that the bible frowns upon homsexuality- it comes right out and says it. That's not judgement, that's just simple reading.

you must realize that the bible isn't the verbatim word of God...it's a collection of stories and nothing more

[Wizzywig 0]

you must realize that the bible isn't the verbatim word of God...it's a collection of stories and nothing more

eh.. no, its the word of God(New Testament anyway).Just because you heard that line said on South Park doesn't make it true.

[Loismustdie 0]

you must realize that the bible isn't the verbatim word of God...it's a collection of stories and nothing more

Lol. Good one. You were adding what to the conversation again? No to mention, I didn't take it verbatim. You did. I am the one that took it for what it was actually saying.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

And which ones are those? Just for future reference, so I know which parts of the bible you're going to say, "Doesn't count. Not God's word." This argument gets difficult when the target shifts like this.

what are you talking about?? nothing has shifted. this is where donknslayer speaks the truth, it is impossible for christians and non-christians to argue nicley, if you dont understand the biblt or have never read it, then there is no way that this arguement can ever make any sence to you.

[Loismustdie 0]

what are you talking about?? nothing has shifted. this is where donknslayer speaks the truth, it is impossible for christians and non-christians to argue nicley, if you dont understand the biblt or have never read it, then there is no way that this arguement can ever make any sence to you.

I see, Donkslayers point, but I don't think he is right. It's discussable by both sides, in this forum. Wang's problem is that alot of what you say makes no sense- frankly, some of the stuff you have said today I just let go, because it's apparent that somehing is missing on your end. Much of it is just nonsense, that I have never heard, from any religous source. That's o.k., we all learn at different speeds, but believe me when I tell you that you need to look at some of this stuff your buying into and figure out if you can base it on something substantial, because it's most definitely not biblical. I would love to know what it is, that way I could give it a name, but for now we will just call it the CUIN4YEARSDAN religion.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I think we can have a reasonable debate IF we decide on a particular premise. Two philosophers can debate all they want to on a subject, but if they don't set some ground rules, ex. "Assuming God exists" or "Assuming no God exists" before the debate, it's pointless.I.e., you get comments like "Well the whole bible is fake anyway so being gay must be natural."

[crowTrobot 2]

I.e., you get comments like "Well the whole bible is fake anyway so being gay must be natural."

you have that backwards. *christians* are saying being gay can't be a sin because it's natural based on non-biblical evidence, indicating parts of the bible must be non-inspired, non-literal, not meant for us, or whatever. i'm just taking the next step and pointing out that the same standard of non-biblical evidence they are using to judge homosexuality should be applied in the same way to the whole bible. otherwise they are using an illogical double standard for the sake of convenience.

[crowTrobot 2]

it is impossible for christians and non-christians to argue nicley, if you dont understand the biblt or have never read it, then there is no way that this arguement can ever make any sence to you.

i was a christian for 17 years

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I see, Donkslayers point, but I don't think he is right. It's discussable by both sides, in this forum. Wang's problem is that alot of what you say makes no sense- frankly, some of the stuff you have said today I just let go, because it's apparent that somehing is missing on your end. Much of it is just nonsense, that I have never heard, from any religous source. That's o.k., we all learn at different speeds, but believe me when I tell you that you need to look at some of this stuff your buying into and figure out if you can base it on something substantial, because it's most definitely not biblical. I would love to know what it is, that way I could give it a name, but for now we will just call it the CUIN4YEARSDAN religion.

My respect for you has gone from 0/100 all the way up to 50/100. You may have some crazy opiniosn sometimes which I'll never in a million years be able to get behind or see the rationale of, but at least you can express yourself like a human being. Unlike CUIN4YEARSDAN, who might be developmentally disabled. Wang

[Loismustdie 0]

you have that backwards. *christians* are saying being gay can't be a sin because it's natural based on non-biblical evidence, indicating parts of the bible must be non-inspired, non-literal, not meant for us, or whatever. i'm just taking the next step and pointing out that the same standard of non-biblical evidence they are using to judge homosexuality should be applied in the same way to the whole bible. otherwise they are using an illogical double standard for the sake of convenience.

I would challenge the non-biblical "evidence." We are largely basing that on a persons word. Meaning, a gay guy says" I was always gay" and we take his word for it. His mom and sisters say" Now that I look back, gee, I think he was always gay as well". Whether or not they really think that is irrelevant, because I don't see that as scientific at all. It's just taking ones word for it. I have always thought that anything could be taken as"He was always that way." A klepto,a obsessive-complusive,a mathemetician,a heterosexual- these are all learned behaviors that develop over time, and we just go- well, he always just was that way. I know for me, nothing has just been automatic- I didn't wake up one day addicted to poker, or women. It was a learned behavior, accelerated by outside influences. I personally think this is closer to the truth. Of course, I cannot prove it, but let's face it, you can't prove your position either. I probably just dropped to 0/100 on the Wang scale, but that's alright.

[Loismustdie 0]

I think we can have a reasonable debate IF we decide on a particular premise. Two philosophers can debate all they want to on a subject, but if they don't set some ground rules, ex. "Assuming God exists" or "Assuming no God exists" before the debate, it's pointless.I.e., you get comments like "Well the whole bible is fake anyway so being gay must be natural."

I wouldn't mind setting ground rules like that for every thread.

[crowTrobot 2]

I would challenge the non-biblical "evidence." We are largely basing that on a persons word. Meaning, a gay guy says" I was always gay" and we take his word for it. His mom and sisters say" Now that I look back, gee, I think he was always gay as well". Whether or not they really think that is irrelevant, because I don't see that as scientific at all. It's just taking ones word for it.

it has nothing to do with a person's word. homosexual tendencies (as well as compulsive or addictive behavior) have been linked at least partially by scientific studies to genetics. that's the whole point of this thread.

[Flack_attack 0]

it has nothing to do with a person's word. homosexual tendencies (as well as compulsive or addictive behavior) have been linked at least partially by scientific studies to genetics. that's the whole point of this thread.

Bingo.And if homosexuality is innate, why would God allow people to be condemned for just acting how they naturally are? Are some people just destined to be condemned?

[Loismustdie 0]

it has nothing to do with a person's word. homosexual tendencies (as well as compulsive or addictive behavior) have been linked at least partially by scientific studies to genetics. that's the whole point of this thread.

Not concluseively. This is what bugs me about science- partial is largely excepted as fact on a regular basis. A paranoid schizophrenic has something wrong with his brain- how did it get that way? Nobody knows, except to say that a chemical imbalance has definitely occured. There are many things that science can't explain, but tries to anyway and in doing so create a sort of sense of false facts. Nothing you said in your paragraph is proven fact, yet you damned near quoted it as such. Doesn't that ever bother you?

[Loismustdie 0]

Bingo.And if homosexuality is innate, why would God allow people to be condemned for just acting how they naturally are? Are some people just destined to be condemned?

How is bingo your response. That's like saying," You were 1 number off on the lottery" and I shout "Bingo, I won! Hell, yeah!!" Except I didn't win anything- and one number away is as good as all of them. Now, Crows response is going to be that actual concluseive proof isn't needed, because this is how science thinks it's going to end up, the results as of now, inconcluseive though they are, are irrelevant.

[Loismustdie 0]

Now I want to say this- my issue is strictly this- the bible clearly says that people that commit gay acts will be judged for them, and there is no way around that. I personally have a few gay friends and love them very much, but it is what it is and really it's no different then any other sin. Any sin will keep you out of heaven,so we could/should judge a habitual liar or a whoremonger just the same, in that we don't judge at all. That is, as always, up to God. I think that an argument could be made by science for all kinds of things- why a person who has multiple personalities who doesn't realize what each one is doing should be exempt from the rules for example, but all we can do is go by whats given to us, and it's clear as gay, so to speak.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

How is bingo your response. That's like saying," You were 1 number off on the lottery" and I shout "Bingo, I won! Hell, yeah!!" Except I didn't win anything- and one number away is as good as all of them. Now, Crows response is going to be that actual concluseive proof isn't needed, because this is how science thinks it's going to end up, the results as of now, inconcluseive though they are, are irrelevant.

"1 number off on the lottery" still wins a bunch of $$$$$$.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Here's a bit from Soulforce:

I'm convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here's why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:"He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10).For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

And here's the scriptural context:

6: And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. 7: But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8: Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9: But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10: And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

I'll agree with Soulforce that these verses condemn neither masturbation nor birth control in general. In fact, I find it completely absurd that a rational person would look at those words and come to that conclusion. I'm confident that people took preconceived notions of the sinfulness of masturbation and birth control and rationalized them with the scripture.Compare this with the passage from Leviticus:

1: And the LORD said to Moses, 2: "Say to the people of Israel, I am the LORD your God. 3: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. 4: You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. 5: You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the LORD. 6: "None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD. 7: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 9: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad. 10: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's near kinswoman. 13: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near kinswoman. 14: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; she is your brother's nakedness. 17: You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness. 18: And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive. 19: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20: And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her. 21: You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23: And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion. 24: "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; 25: and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

First, (unlike the story of Onan) this is a message meant for all of the people of Israel. We're not talking about instructions to a specific person.So we could try to "interpret" this scripture the same way that people "interpreted" the story of Onan to be consistent with their beliefs. But if the Bible is the word of God, we should come with a clear mind and attempt to find the meaning. I think if we do that, we come to the conclusion that the bible says homosexuality if wrong.Now, there's other stuff in the bible (and particularly Leviticus) that Christians generally just tacitly dismiss as kooky. Why are there not campaigns against ordaining pastors who wear cotton/polyester shirts? I'm fairly certain it's because people run the bible teachings through their own moral and logical filters. A lot of people will tell you they don't, but they're being intellectually dishonest. So here's a test. If the Bible just said, "Be good", in what ways would your behavior change? If there aren't any, then the Bible is irrelevent to you.

[Loismustdie 0]

Here's a bit from Soulforce:And here's the scriptural context:I'll agree with Soulforce that these verses condemn neither masturbation nor birth control in general. In fact, I find it completely absurd that a rational person would look at those words and come to that conclusion. I'm confident that people took preconceived notions of the sinfulness of masturbation and birth control and rationalized them with the scripture.Compare this with the passage from Leviticus:First, (unlike the story of Onan) this is a message meant for all of the people of Israel. We're not talking about instructions to a specific person.So we could try to "interpret" this scripture the same way that people "interpreted" the story of Onan to be consistent with their beliefs. But if the Bible is the word of God, we should come with a clear mind and attempt to find the meaning. I think if we do that, we come to the conclusion that the bible says homosexuality if wrong.Now, there's other stuff in the bible (and particularly Leviticus) that Christians generally just tacitly dismiss as kooky. Why are there not campaigns against ordaining pastors who wear cotton/polyester shirts? I'm fairly certain it's because people run the bible teachings through their own moral and logical filters. A lot of people will tell you they don't, but they're being intellectually dishonest. So here's a test. If the Bible just said, "Be good", in what ways would your behavior change? If there aren't any, then the Bible is irrelevent to you.

O.k. Then explain away what Paul meant when he said "Men with men, working that which is unseemly in the eyes of God." I mean, seriously, give it a shot. what the heck else does it mean, The thing is this- the bible doesn't just say be good. It's quite a bit more involved than that. Thats why he says many will claim to know him and he will say depart from me, ye that work iniquity. So, really, the Bible is "relevant" to anyone who has sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. And, in his own words, if you say you are not a sinner you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

[Loismustdie 0]

"1 number off on the lottery" still wins a bunch of $$$$$$.

Way to completely miss the point. Bravo.

[BWToth 0]

Wait you missed this part lois..."Now, there's other stuff in the bible (and particularly Leviticus) that Christians generally just tacitly dismiss as kooky. Why are there not campaigns against ordaining pastors who wear cotton/polyester shirts? I'm fairly certain it's because people run the bible teachings through their own moral and logical filters. A lot of people will tell you they don't, but they're being intellectually dishonest."

[Mattnxtc 0]

Wait you missed this part lois..."Now, there's other stuff in the bible (and particularly Leviticus) that Christians generally just tacitly dismiss as kooky. Why are there not campaigns against ordaining pastors who wear cotton/polyester shirts? I'm fairly certain it's because people run the bible teachings through their own moral and logical filters. A lot of people will tell you they don't, but they're being intellectually dishonest."

or maybe b/c what was important in the historical context of that time is no longer a similar problem...but hey i just used my brain on that one