Experts and users discuss christianity, gay issues, religion in society: Is Homosexuality a Sin?
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Is Homosexuality a Sin?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's a sin only if you define it as one
I'm sorry that Rick Brentlinger has chosen to reject an important aspect of his own humanity (his sexual orientation) because of what it says in a dusty old book.
There is no way to argue this point rationally, because "sin" is a completely non-objective term based on no evidence whatsoever except what it says in the bible. If you believe that the bible is god's literal word (also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence) then nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. That's the nature of faith; that's its immune from reason, exists in its own isolated world, and cannot be touched by rational debate or discussion.
But if the bible is the literal work of god, I wonder what believers think about the two examples below. There are many others. Should we take them literally?
Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Exodus 22:3
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
- SidAirfoil
September 8, 2008 8:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not isolated
You're not precise when you say sin is isolated from a rational world. Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions. If you're interested you can check out that book. Also your quotes are out of the context (bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically). If you analize New Testament the circumstance may continue as a sin, but Jesus payed for those sins.
- oveja September 10, 2008 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Transcendent" moral law
I'm not sure what you mean by "Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions". To me religious moral laws already inappropriately "transcend" the secular human realm. I haven't read the book you mention, but what can possibly transcend the law of god as interpreted by those charged to do so?
In any case, my major concern is that the source of religious moral laws (in this case, the law against homosexuality) is god and not man. Proper moral law must be based on the nature of humans, not on the nature of god. "Do what god says" is not a moral law, because it does not ask what behaviors are good or bad for people AS people. It simplistically says that being good consists of obeying the rules (as defined by the bible). By this improper "moral law" homosexuality is a sin because, as I said, it violates the arbitrary law set down in a dusty old book.
In contrast "Live and let live" (for example) IS a proper moral law because it respects the nature of humans as individual moral beings with independent minds who live and relate to one another through mutual recognition, respect, and consent. By this proper moral law homosexuality is NOT a "sin" because it does not violate the rights or fundamental humanity of anyone else.
You also say the "...bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically". This is a contradiction. It can be taken literally or NOT literally. It either IS the literal word of god, or its open to interpretation. If it IS the literal word of god, then you cannot re-interpret any part of it to your liking. And if its NOT the literal word of god, then it is not the authoritative law for human behavior or anything else, for that matter. It is hypocrisy to take parts of the bible literally while "interpreting" other parts. And once you "interpret" it, either symbolically or historically or in any other way, you have put your judgement (or the judgement of other humans) above the word of god.
- SidAirfoil
September 11, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who was God talking to all these years?
I really want to know what "Law" was passed down since the 10 Commandments? I will not dispute Moses account, but there were no other witnesses. Not a single commandment about homosexuals.
Seems a sin of omission on Gods part? Even the churches and religious organizations, dispute any contemporary claims for "hearing" from God.
Those people you claim are "charged" to do so, are none the less just other people. They are all there because they choose to be. No more than you or me to interpret anything. God has also seen fit not to drop a list of people from heaven, charging anyone to do anything.
Like any corporation, the religious organizations all get some good people and some bad people. Like any good employee they also protect their jobs. Where you get this fantasy about God and people is well beyond any sane comprehension. If it werwe a bad thing, God would not have allowed animals to "suffer" the same malady.
I once knew a farmer. He had a prize bull that was a flaming homosexual. They had to "milk" the bull to impregnate the cows. It isn't all that uncommon on the farm. Why should it be so in the cities?
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 1:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Law of Moses and the dignity of man
Tomcat2200,
The 10 commandments you reference are actually a part of the Hebrew Torah, meaning Law that was give to Moses from God. The 10 commandments are as significant part of the Mosaic Law. Two clear prohibitions against homosexuality are made by God through Moses in the Law.
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22, NIV)
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
You compare the act of animals to the acts of humans. Animals indulges in all kinds of beastly behavior but to compare this to human homosexuality is actually out of place. For one humans are created above animals and we know right from wrong in a general sense which animals cannot. Furthermore animals have know self identity and are entirely incapable of rational thought, a bull cannot think itself homosexual anymore then it can think itself a bull, it just is a bull. Animals have instincts that they act on and when taken out of nature, eg. a farm, they are more inclined to all kinds of more unnatural behaviors including apparently homosexual acts.
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Christ... fully reveals man to himself"
The late Pope John Paul II was noted for quoting often the phrase "Christ...fully reveals man to himself." from "Gaudium et Spes." In the Christian tradition God and his commands are not "up there" far away in some Platonic other but right here, now in the present among us. God came to Abram, his glory dwelt on Mt. Sinai with Moses, John the Baptist preached "the Kingdom of God is at hand," Jesus, "it is among us" and Jesus the Christ himself is the incarnation of God. God's Word came present not "up there" but in time, in history, in the lives and languages of a real culture of and society amongst real individuals.
Universal moral law is only true in so much as it is indeed universal and based in the common good. Not the good of an individual or a group but as it is the good for all. In order for this to be so it must somehow exist ontologically in its own right, objectively and not in the will of man for the will of man is not only corrupt but subjective. In this case the only moral law that can actually be true and universal is that law which is given from God. Any other attempt for man to construct there own law, there own morals, there own understanding of right and wrong, good and evil is in fact from the evil one. To do so would nuance the falsity that we are god, or anyway like God. (see Genesis 3). Rather God calls us into relationship with him not only because it is the good for us to do but because it is the purpose for which we are created. God not only calls us to himself as an action of doing but as an action of being because it is who we are, after all God calls us into being.
How is it reconciled then, that we as humans need a morality that is actually attainable that isn't beyond our reach that is as you said "for people." God knows that his law is to high for people to achieve (see Romans 7). This is precisely why he came not as other but as man and in doing so made the way for man to experience not only holiness and righteousness (as accorded by his law) but true peace with God and right relationship with him. Jesus' humanity is evidence that it is possible and he is the way to our eternal Father, our divine Creator. Jesus affords the way we must choose weather one will take that, accept God's offer of freedom and redemption or continue to neglect him and his holiness by living in sin. Societies likewise, can compromise the truth and go on living "as every man sees fit" with the illusion of justice by "living and letting live." But dies this "live and let live" really provide true justice? What about the injustice of psychological distress within a man, is this accounted for? Not because "live and let live" only accounts for interpersonal relationship not the inner justice of man. Or how about acts of "so called freedom" that actually bring further bondage? Are they ok if only consent is given? Prostitution, fornication, drunkenness, consumerism? All of these things go on under the guise of false justice, ie. live and let live, but in reality they continue to demean the integrity and intrinsic value of the human person. The justice based in the reality that all men are created equal is the justice of God for he has endowed men with such unalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each human person, all men, all women, those who believe they are homosexual and those who do not, those born, those unborn, those dying they are all worth so much to God that he he gave his only begotten son to die that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting, full, life. Christ speaks the freeing word, the word of liberty over all those who call on his name as they become who they truly are before sin and bondage and oppression came to foul our fallen race. Jesus saves. Jesus calls us to our original purpose, he is the fulfillment of our happiness. True morality and justice accounts to the full truth of the human being and human experiance accroding to him who knows all things and all things about us, according to him who walked among us and made a way for real people, and who calls us into realtionship with him and gives us to the power to live holy, lives of right action and right being by putting His Spirit in those who believe in him. This Spirit is the Lord the giver of life, who reigns with the Father and the Son, One God overall, for all, in love with all.
including you friend,
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
I agree with SidAirfoil, that the bible is filled with immoral acts that are no longer considered immoral. They were made by man and they have been changed by man.
But the passages of the Bible that deserve the most question include Genesis itself, within the chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah. When two male angels come to Lot's house the night before God is to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot protects them from the (homosexual male) crowd by what moral act? By offering up his two virgin daughters so that the crowd will leave his honored guests alone.
And if that were not enough morality with which we would ALL DISAGREE, and see as reprehensible child abandonment or worse...the chapter ends with both of Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they can have incestuous sex with him.
So our source of morality has homosexuality as sinful, but child endangerment as virtuous, and incest as perfectly okay.
The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
What else do you have to show that homosexuality is "immoral?"
What harm is it to "moral"people, if otherwise moral homosexuals do their own thing in private?
- bmkmd
October 4, 2008 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3
You should take them literally, because that's how it used to be back then, now those laws don't apply because of Jesus' death on the cross . Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3 talks about laws from the old testament. Because of Jesus' death on the cross, we can say that these laws don't have an effect on us.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 9:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh?
I'm confused.
Jesus died for our sins, so now adultery and theft aren't sins anymore?
Or if they are still sins, they require less severe punishment today than in the past because Jesus paid-it-forward for us?
Either I'm missing an important theological point, or this is just a rationalization to reject the literal word of god (the bible) in favor of modern, humanistic moral standards.
- SidAirfoil
September 11, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not really
It's not saying they aren't since anymore, but sin is not dealt in the same way as in the old testament. This doesn't mean that the condition of sin is lightened, it is the same, but Jesus sacrifice plays a huge role when it comes to forgiveness.
Now because of Jesus we can be saved, we are able to be forgiven and called righteous as long as we repent from our sins (meaning turning away from our sinful nature) and chose to live for Jesus.
Isaiah 53 talks about Jesus death on the cross. These are just parts of it.
5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the Lord laid on him
the sins of us all.
This part talks about How He became an offering for sin on the cross.
10 But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
he will be satisfied.
And because of his experience,
my righteous servant will make it possible
for many to be counted righteous,
for he will bear all their sins.
Notice how it talks about many because not everyone will turn to Jesus for salvation.
So just to make sure I answer your questions
1) Adultery, theft as well as homosexuality and other sins are still sins. And I believe they aren't any less of sins.
2) Basically the there is judgement, however Jesus did pay for our sins so repentance plays a huge role. He can take away judgement from us if we turn away from our ways and surrender to Him.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Christians NOT under law - Romans 6:14
The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God.
That is not a license to sin. It simply acknowledges that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."
To get saved and to go to heaven, we need the righteousness of Christ.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time, HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS..." - Romans 3:25
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and sanctification, and redemption." - I Corinthians 1:30
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Christians-Under-Law.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 11, 2008 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm getting it, but still don't like it
Thanks for the reply, Rick.
You said "The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God."
In other words, Jesus died not only so that we could be forgiven for all the sins committed BEFORE he died, but also so that we had a path to be forgiven for the one's committed AFTER his death (i.e. today). Right?
But forgiveness still requires not only that we repent, but also that we accept Jesus as the only path to penitence. And that's the part I don't like. It's off the current topic, but to me forgiveness has to come only from the person I've wronged, and not from Jesus or god, or any other supernatural being. That's because my secular morality is based on respect for HUMANS, not respect for god. To me it's offensive that hurting another person is considered "sinful" because it violates the law of god, rather than because it violates of rights of a person. It's offensive that repentant murderers ask for god's forgiveness, rather than the forgiveness of their victims and their families, and find peace through god without regard to the person they've killed.
But all this is for another discussion. Since homosexuality hurts no PERSON, it is not immoral, although I acknowledge that it is "sinful" according to your arbitrary religious dogma.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 14, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I believe homosexuality is NOT a sin.
Sid-
You make a very good point about forgiveness being multi-faceted.
Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
As human beings, we need forgiveness from God - that forgiveness is available because Jesus' blood paid our sin debt (past, present and future sins) and because Jesus' physical resurrection demonstrated that God the Father has accepted Jesus' payment for our sins.
But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness.
I agree with you that homosexuality in general hurts no PERSON.
Rick
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Moses-Law.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 14, 2008 3:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Being gay vs. acting gay
Rick said "But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness."
I'm glad to hear that. It just seems to me that the forgiveness of one's victim much too often takes a distant back seat to the forgiveness of god. And that is consistent with my morality having a different source (respect for human rights) than religious morality (obedience to god's law).
Also you said "Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership. "
I realize that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I think you're on the right side of this debate (overall!).
But I do have a point to make and a question to ask you or anyone else who is reading this. I have met many Christians who also say that they do not think BEING gay is a sin, only that ACTING gay is a sin. This presumably acknowledges (correctly) that sexual orientation is NOT a choice people make. You're either gay or you're straight. And just as I did not choose to be straight, homosexuals don't choose to be gay. Sexual orientation is simply one aspect of yourself that you discover as you mature. This is another reason why I don't believe that BEING gay is immoral. Where there is no choice morality does not attach. Being gay (or straight) is neither moral not immoral. Sexual orientation, like height or hair color, is simply not a moral issue.
This being said, regardless of your orientation, whom you have sex with and what kind of sex you have ARE choices that we make. And so my question is; Is it reasonable for a Christian to accept that a person IS homosexual, while condemning them for ACTING in a homosexual fashion? Obviously I don't think it is reasonable. But I'd like to hear from anyone who does, since this is not an uncommon attitude in my experience.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 16, 2008 8:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who's Word?
Neither God or Jesus wrote the Bible.
- JNGII September 17, 2008 8:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible claims to be God's word
The Bible claims to be the word of God. Thousands of times we read, "Thus saith the LORD" or "The word of the LORD came unto him, saying..."
Exodus 31:18 and 32:15-16, Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:22, 9:10-11 are crystal clear that God did indeed write some of the Bible - the Ten Commandments - with His own finger, with His own hand.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 18, 2008 10:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Symantics
According to the bible, God wrote the commandments on stone tablets with his own hand yet the bible was printed on paper. The Ten Commandments were written thousands of years before the bible was written. That answers that question.
Many people believe the bible should be taken literally. Please then explain the following:
In Numbers 31:1-18, God commands Moses to kill all the adult male Midianites and kidnap all the women and children. The the Lord commanded Moses to kill all the male children and kill all the non-virgin females. Moses then said that the remaining female children could be taken as sexual slaves.
And people think Islam is a religion of violence? So, explain this passage but here is the catch: you cannot say every word in the bible must be taken literally but then write off passages like this as "parables" meant to teach us some other lesson.
I will never try to tell someone that there is or isn't a God or tell them what to believe, that is a personal choice and I respect those who make that choice. But why not respect others for making their own choices? When one sect of Christianity tells me that members of other Christian sects cannot enter heaven, it is clear that many Christians do not espouse the principles of their own faith. When one sees a person treat their fellow humans like dirt six days a week but go to church on Sunday and have a "What Would Jesus Do" license plate frame, I have nothing but disgust.
And do not forget that the text of the ten commandments are also found, almost word for word, in the Qur'an. ("or come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful" 017:032)
And further more, the first five books of the old testament of the bible is also known as the Torrah from Judaism, written well before the bible.
I think like Sid, I treat people as a result of human rights, not because of God's promise of heaven because the wrong motivation is a factor. If you are good to people only so you can go to heaven then you really are doing it for you, not your fellow human being.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply
both of those verses are in the Old Testament... Jesus came and gave His life for us so that we no longer have to live under the old law. Now we live by Faith in Christ Jesus.
Each one of us will give account to Jesus Christ for how we lived our life. I sure want to make sure that I am on the right side so I read his word to see how HE wants me to live.
- crash
September 15, 2008 7:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What did Jesus say?
Crash makes an interesting point.
What did Jesus say about all of this?
Many non-gay and gay people insist Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality. I believe Jesus did address the gay issue when He pointed out in Matthew 19:3-12 that all men cannot receive His teaching about Adam and Eve style marriage.
Jesus taught that "born eunuchs" were a separate group, distinct from eunuchs who had been castrated and distinct from eunuchs who voluntarily abstained from Adam and Eve style marriage in order to serve God without distraction.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
Because Jesus intentionally differentiated between born eunuchs and metaphysical eunuchs who voluntarily decide not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage, it makes sense to conclude that born eunuchs are:
a. not required to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage (since Jesus intentionally opts them out)
b. not required to abstain from marrying an orientation compatible partner (since Jesus intentionally differentiates them from metaphysical eunuchs who make a personal decision not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage).
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 16, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why do you care?
Why does anyone care that much about what goes on in someone else's bedroom? Is it hurting your life? No. If homosecuality is a sin, then let God deal with it. Your job as a human is to love thy neighbor and notice that there are no disclaimers in that passage.
The other thing is that, and I don't care who you are, what is considered 'moral' in the bedroom is not something you want to start judging because odds are near 100% what ever you are doing, even with your wife, is considered immoral by someone else.
For example, oral sex is illegal and immoral in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
In fact, the bible is very clear that sex should only be performed for procreation and I am 100% sure that these morality police are not living up to that part of the bible.
It astounds me how the far right of religon can throw out bible quotes to support thier opinions yet choose to overlook other passages.
Hey Rick, try reading the whole bible some time.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 10:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apologies to Rick
My last sentence was meant towards the other side of this argument, not you.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 11:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
Pliskin (Snake?),
Of course you're right that sex is a personal matter that is no one else's concern because it harms no one else. "Live and let live" is a pretty good basis for morality, in my view, precisely because its basis is respect for other humans,and not obedience to god's law. Clearly theists don't see it that way. To them "good" is doing what god says, "evil" is not doing what god says. How an act affects (or doesn't affect) other people is irrelevant to them. "Live and let live" is NOT the basis of religionist morality.
I believe that most people choose religionist morality 1) because it requires less thought, responsibility and effort to do what your told than it does to decide right and wrong for yourself, and to live with the consequences, and 2) because it can be used to justify personal prejudices (i.e. homophobia) and give them divine support. Hence people cite bible passages that support their views, while ignoring (or "interpreting" others that don't. Often, people don't form beliefs because of what the bible says, they interpret the bible to support their preconceived beliefs. And the bible lends itself well to this kind of rationalization by being vague and downright self-contradictory on most issues.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 3, 2008 7:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Snake
Ha! You have figured out my cheesy 70's movie nickname. What a great post and I agree with you 110% but I am going to add a couple of things. Hypothetically speaking, what if homosexuality IS evil? So what? I don't believe that myself but if you do, how does it really affect you? (not you Sid)
My personal opinion is that so many things like this, both religious in nature and not, is really fueled by fear of the unknown and a lack of confidence.
For example, if you are strong in your Christian faith, what do you have to lose by gaining a better understating of Islam or Buddhism? I have traveled extensively all over the world and with each journey, I gain a greater understanding of the world and it's people but traveling abroad only enhances my love for my country. It doesn't make me want to move there.
I believe there is fear behind homophobia for most people. If you are secure in who you are, what does it matter?
Fear may be the most crippling disease in the world: fear of homosexuals, fear of other cultures, fear of other races, fear of other religions and most of all, fear of change. Fear robs people of the most wonderful parts of the human experience.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Live and let live?
Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. It is the opposite of respect, sympathy and solidarity.
But on the question of gay sex. It is real simple, if you are a religious person, most likely your religion speaks against sin and cherry picking passages from ancient texts won't change that.
Since I am non religious and don't have to worry about "sins" I can base my moral decisions on the questions and values I have about respect, sympathy and solidarity. In that sense, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals they feel love, attraction, loneliness, despair of rejection and all the other things that come with passion and love, whether good or bad.
Do what your heart tells you to do in questions of love; did no one learn anything from Shakespeare?
- mangueken
November 22, 2008 4:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Live and Let Live
Mangueken,
I'm glad we agree on the non-sinfulness of homosexuality.
But you also said "Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. ".
I disagree. "Live and Let Live" does not preclude stopping one person from hurting another. There is no moral law that says one must tolerate gross immorality. "Live and Let Live" is a universal principle, not just my personal one. It applies not just to myself, but to other as well. When I accept it as my principle, I acknowledge that EVERYONE has the right to "Live", as well as the responsibility to "Let Live". If someone harms another without justification, then they violate the social contract and may be stopped/punished.
Granted, on an individual level, one is not morally REQUIRED to intervene (If one fears for one's own safety, for example), but one is morally PERMITTED to do so. But on a social level, a civil society is both permitted and required to intervene. It is for this reason that invading Iraq was a moral thing to do (although not handled particularly well). But that's another topic.
I reiterate. If everyone swore the following oath, we would need no other moral law. "Everyone has the right to do whatever they want." This oath demands that my rights be respected, and also demands that I respect the same rights of others. In a free society nothing else is necessary. To call homosexuality a sin, and to try and stop it, violates this simple idea.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 24, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Judgement
The law of the old testament is not valid anymore. No longer is it to be part of society to kill homosexuals, kill adulterers, kill children for dishonoring parents. We have found that Libery best reflects the life given to us, to live in that. Judgement is for observing life to make decisions on survival, pleasure, happiness. Each is to make these decisions upon the reflection of his own concience, and living true to that.
Thank you for your thoughts.
- Andante931
November 19, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Rationalistic assumption
You assume several things in your post. You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not, that rational truth is higher then spiritual or religious truth and thus that those who believe that Bible is the literal word of God are then irrational with the implications that such people are wrong and absurd. I would ask you why is so called rational truth higher then religious truth? How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective? What objective exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? I don't bring up these questions to spite you, and though I may be coming off sarcastic I want to make it clearly known that I am not I am just trying to respond to your argument.
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 10:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rationalism vs. religionism
Periannath said:
"You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not..."
Yes I do. Rational truth, as you call it, is based on sensory-perceptual evidence that can be observed, analyzed, discussed, and debated. Those are things that the human mind is excellent at doing. Rational moral truth is based on the observation that people are all basically the same, that they have the same fundamental physical, psychological, and spiritual needs (by "spiritual" I do NOT mean, religious or supernatural. I merely mean needs that are not physical). "A rational "Live-and-Let-Live" morality is based on the observation that people thrive when left to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else. Hence homosexuality is NOT immoral. These observations can be made by anyone, and are clearly demonstrable whether we consider them on an individual level or on a societal level.
In contrast, Religious truth is based on faith (i.e. belief WITHOUT evidence). I do think that people who believe that the bible is the literal word of god ARE irrational (at least in that one aspect of their lives). One can only believe the literalness of the bible by ignoring the immense body of historical and scientific evidence that utterly contradicts that assertion. It's not enough to believe something very strongly. Your belief must be plausible, supported by the evidence, and not explicable by a simpler, more plausible explanation. I would think that the existence of so many faiths in the world each claiming mutually contradictory moralities would give pause to theists who think that their particular moral biases are the "right" ones. Do you think you were just lucky to be born into a Christian society while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., were unluckily born into the "wrong" ones?
You ask "How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective?" Well, how is religious truth objective when it is ALSO the product of the human mind? The fact that you deny that your beliefs are the product of human minds doesn't change the fact that they are. The bible was written, rewritten, altered, edited, interpreted, reinterpreted by PEOPLE. How many different versions of the Christian bible exist today? Why were some gospels removed by the Council of Nicea? What about the 80% of the human race that don't believe in the new testament? And I haven't even begun to list the myriad scientific proofs against literalism. The only way you can believe in the literalness of the bible in the face overwhelming evidence that it's not literally true is if you are willfully blind. And I believe that willful blindness is irrational and dangerous. Men of faith flew planes into skyscrapers on 9/11. Faith scares me.
Lastly you ask "What objective [evidence] exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? " I just barely started to list the evidence above. There is much more. But it doesn't matter. You are the one making the claim that the bible is literally true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Given the thousands of different creation myths, moral systems and "bibles" that have existed since the beginning of the human race, it is incumbent upon you to prove that yours is fact while all others are/were fiction. Of course, since your beliefs are faith-based not evidence-based, I'm not sure why you would even want to "prove" the validity of yours by presenting evidence. Proving it with objective evidence, even if you could do so, would turn your faith into science.
Sorry to be so wordy. But I'm as passionate about my beliefs as I assume you are about yours.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
December 29, 2008 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Begging the Question
"'You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not...' Yes I do."
You never came to respond to my critique; your concept that rational truth is objective and spiritual-religious truth is not and that thus rational truth is more correct is an assumption. You even concur that it is subjective but respond not by defending its objectivity but continuing to reinforce the idea of the apparent subjectivity of spiritual truth. In this case, for the purposes of argument, it can be said that both rational and spiritual truth are subjective and there is not basis to argue that rational truth is higher or more true because it also falls to the realm of subjectivity.
You cannot argue...
1.) Rational objective and spiritual truth is subjective
2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
when you concur that rational truth is not objective, the logic fails.
Essentially when you answer "Yes I do" assume, you are begging the question. You are assuming the thing to which you are trying to prove.
Furthermore, you assume that human beings are excellent rational beings. A capacity for rationality does not guarantee rational excellency. In reality most people are irrational and base choices off of not what one would could call rational and logical reasoning but on emotive persuasions and fanciful constructions that care less with the matter of fact, as is, and more with the matter of desire, what is wanted from their self. The idea then, that people are primarily rational is also unfounded.
Following, leaving morality to the tending of human rational thought alone is foolish. It lacks good sense and sound judgment. It is of no coincidence that the founders of our nation invoked divine aid in much of the process of the framing of the constitution among a great many things. Congress opens in prayer with purpose. Even many of the central principles of American constitutional government are founded in Judeo-Christian principles because these principles were thought of as special revelation, truth give to man from God that is superior to any form of truth gained through rational thought. Even the Enlightenment thought of Descartes only justified the veracity of sensory evidence from which rational thought can deduct from because God guarantees the truthfulness of certain perceptions. Without this guarantee there is not trust that anything we perceive has any basis in actual, objective reality. The wise choice is not to leave moral truth to the realm of human rational alone.
More on this but I have to go now.
Peace Sid,
Spencer
- Periannath January 1, 2009 4:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finger. Pie. Stir.
Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying.
...The Catholic church recognizes that homosexuality is not a sin... it is only a sin to act out the homosexuality...ness.
If you say you believe in "God", and then call what "God" made imperfect, don't you think that's defeating the purpose? Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made? If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen.
So, by you saying that homosexuality is a sin, you're completely destroying the very "God" you claim to believe in.
Which doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Especially since you're the one who believes in him.
Last, but not least, that wasn't a case of "begging the question".
- SocialistBetty
January 1, 2009 11:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"by nature objects of wrath" part 1
"Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying."
Actually, I am not saying this. Nothing I said should have given this conclusion however I apologize if it did. Realativly speaking, all people are capable of morality. However, we are only capable in as much as we respond to the Good given to us, not out of our own selves since man is by nature sinful (Romans 5). Though I understand you may not agree with the Scriptures totally pherhaps we can share the common ground that no person is perfect, people are selfish and are not 100% good. This is comparable to what the Scriptures talk about that people have a sin nature that we have inherited through Adam by which we have an innate tendency to bend toward sin, e.g. selfishness, unloving heart and behavior etc. Since the Scriptures teach that God is reaching out to all people everywhere I actually believe that people may be able to act morally good in the true sense if they are responding out of grace given them and by the activity of the Holy Spirit in their soul whether they are Christian or not. There is even the posiblity of man acting morally good out of an original goodness of man that has not been totaly corrupted by the marr of sin. Even beside this sinful people may act morally good at a civil level, though not neccsarily in accordance with absolute good. That is why I say realativly speaking there is moral good that people who are not believrs can do. Even the good that Christians do, that nonbelievers supposdly cannot due, is the result of the goodness of God at work in them and not any more claimable by that person then any other. If it wasn't for God they wouldn't be any different. I hope that wasn't too confusing.
In your second argument you assume many things. You assume that homosexuals are a class of people that have biological cause to their homosexuality. In other words, they are "born with it." Not only is this unverifiable it is not were good science is pointing. Obviously it is not a choice. As I have wresteled with my own homosexuality I will be the first to say "I did not choose this." But there is not way I was born this way.
You say: "Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made?"
Can't we I ask you the same question? How do you know someone living a homosexual lifestyle is living according to God's design? We know that it is not so because God has told us so through his Word. (1 Timothy 3:16, Leviticus 18:22)
You say: "If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen."
First off, God created sex and that "mix of chemicals" that all are a part of our sexuality are not sinful. God created sex and he created it good. The falleness of human nature lends what was originally good to all sorts of deviations. The Catholic church (although I am not Roman Catholic) does not teach that a homosexual orientation is sinful but acting on it is, you are correct. But, they do teach that it is an "intrinsic disorder" even an evil. Not that the person is responsible to that sin or evil but that the homosexual orientation is a manifestation of human falleness just like all sin is including deviations such as alcholisim and sexual addicition. The homosexul is a victim to sin like all of us are. Thanks be to God that he has provided a way out of this and brought life to us anew (Romans 5). The Scriptures teach:
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Ephesians 2:1-5, NIV)
We were by natures objects of wrath but God still loved and loves us. This is preciesly why he gave his son to us that if we believe in him we shall not perish but have everlasting, full life now and later. The fact that all people are imperfect and have inclinations to sin is not a product of God's creative work but of Satan's twisting of the good creation through sin. God did not sin in making any of us but all of us have falleness. Homosexuality is just one of many manifestations of this falleness and like all mankind homosexuals are in need of a savior.
- Pe