There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Taken from the Bible Romans 1 vs.26-31.
"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.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
The Bible said it not my words.
- Tamara
September 5, 2008 9:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
All scripture is given in a particular historical context. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. The particular historical context of Romans 1:26-27 is shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
In the first century AD, the Cybele cult was one of the most powerful in the Roman Empire. Cybele worship included orgiastic sexual rites and ritual bloodletting by priests and priestesses, similar to the practice of Baal worshipers in the Old Testament.
“And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.” I Kings 18:28.
In first century Rome, religious festivals honoring Cybele were celebrated in one of the five Cybele temples or in the streets. Castrated, long haired priests of Cybele preceded the image of the goddess, beating drums and cymbals, showing off their colorful clothing.
The priests of Cybele were called galli, referring to their castrated eunuch status. Female priestesses and castrated, male eunuch priests functioned as representatives of the goddess, offering themselves sexually to male worshipers. These religious practices flourished in first century Rome and this is what Paul prohibited in Romans 1:26-27.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 5, 2008 11:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
Though it is the Word of God is it not? Was it to just those people that God was speaking to? The act is pagan in nature. God created us to go forth and multiply. The only reason why we would be have a sexual relationship is to create that life. What about that life in the seed that you are wasting, do you want to be responsible for the killing of lives because your to selfish to think that God might have better things for you and that kid?! Think about it
- Timmy September 11, 2008 2:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
It is not clear your claim that the context in which Romans was written has to do exclusively with the Cybele cult. Paul wrote that letter to explain his view of the gospel to the romans, and not as a corrective to specific problems as he did on the epistles to the corinthians. He begins explaining how idolatry and pride, led humanity to other sins when their hearts separated from God, including homosexuality.
And I think you're being imprecise too in the other passages you quote in the arguments:
1. With respect to Adam and Eve, he created them as sexual beings who could fulfill his purpose of 'filling the earth and increase in number' (and the problem of over population doesn't invalidate the command, it was caused by not managing sexuality as God established it) And though later came poligamy, it occurred after fall, and then on the new testament is explicit that godly people should be married to one woman.
2. When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices (which, by the way, also violate the command to fill the earth and increase in number).
Is so clear that two chapters ahead he repeats the command in Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." and in this occasion there is no sign it is directly related to the cult of Molech.
I think the people at Exodus, as well as you, share the same general goal: to bring those with wanted or unwanted same sex attraction close to God. But in that path the means are as important as the ends. And sadly, one of both positions is wrong, and therefore is sinning (if it were Exodus, in not accepting that is God's will that people have same sex attraction; if it is you and the churches that accept homsexuality as normal, the sin will be of encouraging people to accept a sin as a way of life).
I stay with the side that it is a sin.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Oveja wrote:
"When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices"
As Christians, we focus on what the Bible actually says.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
God links the qedeshah, shrine prostitutes and zanah, street prostitutes because what they share in common is a type of prostitution.
“I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, zanah, prostitution, nor your brides, daughters in law when they commit adultery, naaph, idolatrous worship: for themselves are separated with whores, [zanah], female prostitutes, and they sacrifice with harlots, [qedeshah], female shrine prostitutes.” Hosea 4:14.
“And there were also sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes] in the land: and they did according to all the abominations, towebah..." I Kings 14:23.
The Holy Spirit links the abomination-towebah activity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and I Ki 14:23-24 to shrine prostitution.
The Holy Spirit, in I Kings 14:23-24 uses the Hebrew word towebah to describe the abominations of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 and I Kings 14:23-24.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
This Links the sexual activity to shrine prostitution, not homosexuality as we define it today (a committed, faithful, non-cultic relationship between two men or two women).
“And he took away the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes out of the land.” I Kings 15:12.
“And the remnant of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes...” I Kings 22:46.
“And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes], that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove, asherah, sacred poles set up to worship the goddess.” II Kings 23:7.
The Holy Spirit, in II Kings 23:5-10, links qadesh/sodomites with Molech worship
II KIngs 23:5-20 provides another undeniable Link between shrine prostitutes and Molech worship. Leviticus 20:5 also Links Molech worship to shrine prostitution, twice using the Hebrew word zanah (prostitute) to describe the illicit sexual worship of Molech.
The bottom line is this. No matter how you slice it, the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is pagan worship of the fertility goddess and same sex shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between same sex couples.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Abomination.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The context is important, I am not denying that, but we must ask ourselves what is actually condemned. The Leviticul condemnation is not of prostitution, although the Scripture also condemns that activity both in the context of idolatrous worship and street prostitution, but of any sexual actions between two people of the same sex. It is an abomination because it flies in the face of God's intention for sexuality. As previously stated this command is given in a list of commandments that condemn other sexual perversities, that distort the original intended in the sexual gift.
- Periannath September 14, 2008 5:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Probably what you say about the cults in and the way they worshipped is true (I haven't done research about that yet) However, there are things that stand out to me in Romans 1:24-26
"24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
One of them is that it says, God abandoned them. Even though He loved them, His prescence wasn't dwelling with them so there was no sense of truth or conviction.
Second it says that they were abandoned to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired and that because of that they did vile things regarding their bodies. Then it goes on to say that they exchanged the truth for a lie and so they started to worship idols rather than God. Now this is where he addresses homosexuality. Notice how it says that homosexuality is not normal in verse 26 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
By looking at the beginning of verse 24 and verse 26 we can see that before idolatry and homosexuality are addressed, both verses explain that God left them so that they would follow their own desires. I feel like this part is repeated to address separate(even though they could go together) issues.
verse 27 shows the following
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
This part directly addresses lust and homosexuality. ("And the men, INSTEAD OF HAVING NORMAL SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN, BURNED WITH LUST for each other ")
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I offer these helpful free resources which do a great job of explaining the cultural, historical and religious situation Paul addressed in first century Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
Remember that Romans addressed a real historical situation in the first century. Cybele, the fertility goddess, had five temples in her honor in first century Rome.
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
There is no logical or thoughtful way to divorce our modern understanding of Romans 1 from the cultural, historical and religious situation in the first century.
I know it goes against what you've been taught but facts are facts.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I understand your point. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem believing that Paul would address that particular issue(with the cybeles). However I also strongly believe that not only is Paul pointing out idol worship and homosexuality, he is also exposing homosexuality as another issue too.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The problems with your view are manifold.
1. Committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships are not prohibited in the Old Testament, in Sodom or anywhere else.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
What the OT prohibits is shrine prostitution. Therefore there is no prior scriptural basis for Paul to prohibit same sex relationships, except for prohibiting shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
2. Since lesbianism is never condemned in the OT, it is entirely out of context with Paul's argument about idolatry to suddenly inject a one verse condemnation of lesbianism (Romans 1:26) into his idolatry argument.
3. Early Christians understood Romans 1:26 as a reference to non-procreative sex as being unnatural. It was hundreds of years later (around AD 330), when John Chrysostom decided Paul might have been referring to lesbians.
4. If you'll take the time to read the information at the Links in my previous comment to you, you will discover that early Christians DID understand Romans 1:26-27 as referring to shrine prostitution instead of homosexuality.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexuality-Wrong.html
5. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
If Romans 1:26-27 was a reference to shrine prostitution then, its a reference to shrine prostitution now.
That doesn't change simply because someone in the twenty first century decides to take the verses out of their historical context.
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In the opening chapter of Romans the Apostle Paul is not listing a command of "do's and don'ts" but a listing of chronology of the falleness and depravity of mankind. St. Paul is going back to the early history of man's rebellion in turning a way from the true, one and only living God and to the worship of created things and other types of idolatry. Because of this God gave them over to a depraved mind. A chief sign of this rebellion is the inappropriate sexual actions between women and men. It is clear in this homosexual action a high abomination is occurring because it is going directly against the created design of God as revealed in Genesis. It is a rejection of God and his way and an embracing of a counterfeit. This is why prevalent homosexuality in a society is a sign that a society is moving away from God and his truth in open rebellion. It may seem extreme to the modern person but not anymore extreme than the call of all disciples to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. Jesus makes a way out. As someone who has and does struggle with homosexuality this is something I can attest to that the walk is not fun or easy but it is what is truth and what God calls all sinners too, repentance.
May God lead you by his grace to the freedom and changing power that grace brings,
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath September 14, 2008 4:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Spencer-
I appreciate your honesty. It speaks well of your character. That being said, the basis of your viewpoint is Complementarianism - that God intends everyone to be heterosexual, that God is adamantly opposed to every intimate human partnership except those which replicate the Adam and Eve model.
Of course, the Bible never takes that position. That is something which the scripture does not say but which Complementarians read into the Bible. In plainer words, it is a private interpretation.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Complementarity.html
By taking the clobber passages out of context and insisting they refer to homosexuality and lesbianism when no human author of the Bible ever linked Sodom and homosexuality (let alone lesbianism) in any of the 48 passages where Sodom is used, the Ex-Gay industry has convinced you to believe a lie.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 14, 2008 7:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
but we must be careful when we use the word love because as you and I know they mean very different things in different contexts. The Bible is full of examples where people love eachother and are not married. However, this love is not sexual. Do not then presume (please) that I mean that no intimate human partnerships or relationsihps should occur outside of marriage- that is simply not Biblical or true. In this case, according to definintion of complementarianisim you offered, I am not a complementarian. Beyond the possibility of marriage great emotional and social needs and longings are met through parents, siblings, family, best friends, friends, partners, groups, classmates, co-workers, the church, small groups and so forth. All kinds of human relationships can develop the capacity for intimaciy and in more extreme circumstances partnership. This is all good and decent granted the realtionships have a realtive level of health; i.e. not subject to co-dependency, violent, or otherwise harmful to the people invovled in those relationships. What is reserved for marriage though is the fullness of sexual union as embodied in sexual union. That is, although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage. There is a difference between what I am advocating, from the Bible, than what you are claiming I am saying. Unfortunatly I must make a leave now so I will not be able to give a more adequate response to your comment at this time although I did read the two articles you linked and will respond at a later time.
God's peace be upon you,
Spencer
- Periannath September 15, 2008 2:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Spencer-
I should have been more precise in my language. By intimate human partnership, I meant committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex marriages.
Dr. Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader, summarizes the Complementarian position in his 520 page, anti-gay book, The Bible And Homosexual Practice. He says that the creation story in Genesis authorizes only heterosexual union, but never homosexual union.
Gagnon asserts that the Genesis account of creation leaves no room for legitimizing same-sex unions. That is the classic statement of the odd hermeneutic Complementarians use to buttress their position.
Gagnon even insists that homosexual unions can never be legitimately described as loving. His remarks can be found on pages 194, 291, 297, 327, 339 of his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
I don't see any real difference between your position and Dr. Gagnon's position and the position of Joe Dallas and Exodus. All are anti-gay. Here are your words.
"although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/family-values.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 15, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
About complementarianisim:
Although there seems to be a simillarity between the Platonic account of origins and the account given in Scripture but when actually read in the context of the "Symposium" it is quickly realized that simillarities actually fall because the story is so grossly different from the acount given in Genesis. The accuasation that "anti-gay" thearpists are basing their "complementarity" views of of Plato and not Scripture is not substantiated. Those who affirm that homosexuality is sin would find Plato's story in disfavor because it seems to support homosexuality as a natural inclination of some humans. Those who disfavor a text because of its anthetical argument would not use that text to base their thesis unless they were attacking it. Therefore the therapits written about in this article are not basing their views off of Plato's "Symposium" but off of some other source, a source that would not affirm homosexuality is natural or permittable. Plato himself, however, reveals his own opinion about homosexuality later in life. He accounts that it is both against nature and originated when men, because of their lack of self-control, induldged in their passions. I have found this to be true in the experiances of some homosexualities and especially more common in bisexual men.
Only one section of the "clobber" passages are used to connect homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorah so your argument that they are not linked, even if true, does not account the vast majority of Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. Although traditinoally the story of Sodom and Gomorah has been attributed to the sin of homosexuality I wounldn't disagree that it is not the strongest arguments. Other Scriptures, however, are much more clear.
And at last, a response to the arguments of the final argument:
Argument 1: The Bible does not contain the teaching of complementarianisim and therefore that belief is unbiblical and therefore has no clout. It is not God's intention, then, that sexual union must occur in heterosexual, monogomaus relationships within the covenent of marriage.
This is false because in actuality the teaching is in the Bible. It is right in Genesis where this is truth is supressed in the wayward search for loophole for homosexual practice.
"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place." (Gensis 2:21, NASB)
The Hebrew word we get "deep sleep" from is tardemah and even suggests a trance and a type of ecstasy that Adam went under as God made woman from him. It is suggestive of the reality that whom God made for him would be as promised, a suitable helper for him (since none was found previous to that). It is of particular interest that God not,,, make another man but made a woman.
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:22-25, NASB)
Here we see that the one flesh union (which is sexual union, 1 Co 6:16) has an intrinsic desgin between the one man and one woman. This also is the design and beginning of marriage for we see that they are now husband and wife. No marriage in Scripture is never anything but heterosexual and although at times polegomy is practiced by peoople in the Bible that does not mean it is God's favor. We see here from the begining and from the teachings of Jesus and the church that clearly practices were tolerated because of hardness of heart, not because God favored them. As for complementarianism, it is supported by St. Paul- or should we accuse him of basing his view off of Plato too?
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9, NASB)
Also notice that prior to woman being taken from man man is always reffered to as Hb. Adam, man as in mankind, human kind. However, as the man declairs that woman is taken from man he no longer uses the word Adam, as Adam no longer sufices as a description of himself becasue he is no mankind in this sense without woman who is taken from him, he is (Hb.)'iysh, that is, man, male, husband, servant in contrast to the female.
Earlier in the first chapter we can also see that marraige is connected to procreation (which is obviosly not possible in a homosexual context). Plato and the Bible actually agree on one point, homosexuality is against nature as it is against God's created design both for marraige and for the nature of marraige which is built in the complentary aspects of the male and female, masculine and femminine.
argument 2: God doesn't mention in Scripture that he will only bless heterosexual marriages.
Actually it does. Since marriage by nature is heterosexual and God only blesses sexual union in the context of marriage this is taken for granted. In any case, where does it say he will bless a homosexual union? It doesn't, rather He calls it an abomination (not a blessing).
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
argument 3: Pologmy in the Bible proves that the complementary theory is not how God sees it.
There is murder in the Bible, there is rape, there is theft but does God look favorly on any of these things? No! Just like homosexuality all of these things are condemed as sinful. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean it is blessed by God or favored, that is terrible reasoning.
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
argument 4:Because the theory is not in the Bible it is based on what one wishes to see in the Bible, not a good foudation for belief.
What a case of projection. It is just flipping the reality, supressing the truth. The complementary nature of man and woman is clearly in the Scritpure just as it is that homosexuality is sinful. What is really happening is that men are suppressing the truth in their wickedness and gathering around them all kinds of teachers who will teach only what their itching ears want to hear, since they will no longer put up with sound doctrine. I have struggled wtih homosexuality since I hit puberty (6+years) and in the past identified as gay, homosexual, a Christian walking out of homosexuality, ex-gay and at last I can say that I am so glad I shed the false identities the world and the enemy of my soul wanted me to believe because he who is free in the Son of God is free indeed. Although I still struggle with homosexuality at some level it is nothing compared to what it used to be and I have developed attractions for woman (something I never, never in my wildest imaginatinos thought would be possible no matter how many times I quoted all things are possible with God). This article claims that homosexuals interperate the Bible differently because they approach it with their own suppositions (private interpretation) and then accuses those who actually believe what the text says of doing it. It is falid and a satanic deception to those struggling with their gender and sexual idnentity. I say satanic not just to bad mouth it but because satan is the father of lies and when he lies he speaks his native toung. This article and website is about lies and perverting the truth (though be it with whatever peceived good intentions).
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This passage, while it discusses homosexuality somewhat, does not actually say that homosexuality itself is wrong. "Men committed indecent acts with other men" does not specify what those indecent acts actually are. If myself and a male friend go out and destroy other peoples property, I would have committed an indecent act with another man. Also, lust is considered a sin, whether it be heterosexual or otherwise. This reference, while it may convince some that their beliefs are justified, doesn't explicitly make any statement about homosexuality in general.
- roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Tamara,
This scripture has been so misused over the centuries that it's not even funny.
If you read the context of what is being discussed here, it is about temple sexual rituals that were performed by mostly otherwise straight people who would have sex with anyone to please their foreign god. It doesn't even come close to speaking of a loving, committed, covenanted relationship between two people of the same sex.
Sharone
- mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Because of their blindness to God, He gave them over to shameful lusts. He gave them over to sin and sin they did, and in every way possible. Yes your right, it is a sin, but should we try and stop them doing it or should we be leading them out of sin by sharing our faith?
My pastor has a saying "They know what were against, but not what were for!"
Brian Greenaway was an Hell's Angel. He murdered, beat people up for fun, slept around and many other things, without caring about the sins he was doing. One day he turned to Christ with the help of caring christians. Is he more deserving then gays?
You can say "It says in the bible " that they are wrong, or you can support them and lead them to Christ and let them discover for themselves that they need turn their hearts around.
I'd like to add . I know a pair of male christians who love each other and live together, but they claim that they have been celibate since believing. I cannot know if they ever backslide, but who can say that they never slip back to their old ways once in a while.
Would you condemn them for still living together? All I know is that their faith is shown in their lives and that is all I care about as I know that I could have a long list of faults that I should look at in my life.
- mickeyb
June 30, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The list provided in this argument is quite blatantly padded, as the Genesis and Judges passages do not even approach the issue of homosexuality. Shame on you.
- roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
We need to also remember a couple of important things about passages from any Bible. First, even if they WERE Divinely inspired, they've been translated many times over thousands of years. So you have mistakes, misinterpretations, and even the infusion of personal opinion.
Think about this...1000 years from now if someone attempts to translate an English document, they may not realize that the words "man," "men," and even "mankind" have traditionally referred to all human beings regardless of gender. Think about the misinterpretations that would create in translation.
Second, and this is important... the Bible was written during times when human beings weren't as enlightened and educated as they are now. People didn't understand the underlying psychology and science of metaphysics. So Bibles were written to cater to those more ignorant times. They are full of allegories and simplistic rules and laws in order to control behavior during times when reason wasn't as evolved.
So anyone who still views these simplistic and modified writings as the ultimate law of human behavior, is still living in ignorance.
Two more comments:
1. If someone is going to quote the Bible as a guide to behavior, then they need to take heed of the entire teachings of the Bible, including the admonishment to NOT JUDGE others. If you're going to quote the Bible, you lose all credibility if you pass judgement on another person....you're immediately refuting yourself and you look ignorant and foolish. If you truly understand and adopt the teachings as a GUIDE to living, then you will never utter a word against another human being, but instead take care to treat others with compassion and respect. Those of you who quote portions of the Bible out of context of the entire missive (if you believe it to be such) are showing ignorance.
2. Any credible psychologist knows that people often speak up against and condemn things that they don't like within themselves. Almost all homophobic opinions and behavior stem from the speaker's difficulty accepting those feelings within themselves. Homophobic behavior simply reveals a lack of adjustment to homosexual inclinations.
- Lagschnapps September 6, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Quoting the passage that we can not judge is taking a text out of context. The Bible states that in order to judge you have to take the speck from your eye in order to judge correctly. And does not Paul state in his letter to corinthians: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"
I know many people that has changed his homosexual behaviour. Maybe they continue struggling with the attractions, but their acts state they want to change. Another one may be tempted to use drugs or abuse of alcohol. But if he doesn't use them, can we say he is an addict of a drunk? The same is for people with unwanted homosexual desires which live a heterosexual life. Encouraging those who live a homosexual lifestyle doesn't help them.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is another example of misinterpreting the scriptures. The "speck in the eye" is an allegorical reference to the fact that no human being is without fault, therefore not qualified to pass judgements. All human beings have specks in their eyes.
And since when is a saint considered to be a normal human being?
This forum is about homosexuality being a sin. If a homosexual cannot accept his or her feelings and wishes to suppress and ignore them, that is their choice. But that does not make it a sin. JUDGING homosexuality is a sin.
Also, comparing homosexuality to drugs or alcohol is ignorant. It's like comparing a fish to a bicycle.
Again, I point out that using the Bible as the basis for a viewpoint like this is unsound reasoning. It is an allegorical piece of literature, a text translated many times, colored by personal opinion, open to countless interpretations of the same passages depending on a person's viewpoint, and not shared by all humankind. Those who view homosexuality as a sin simply have no concrete basis for their viewpoint. In fact, the most enlightened spiritual teachings refute the concept of "sin" as presented by the christians.
- Lagschnapps September 11, 2008 9:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Homosexuality or any sort of human sexual expression is a "sin" only in a narrowly-focused set of values. The real question to ask is, assuming you love your own individual life, would homosexual behavior on your part be a "sin", "immoral" or "unethical" according to your own set of values?
Nothing genuinely factual and no consistently logical argument thus far leads to the conclusion that homosexual behavior among human beings is objectively and universally sinful, immoral, unethical. The question must always be, what does the individual value? Why? According to what factual information? According to what reason?
The Judeo-Christian philosophies and religions have a long tradition, however, and despite the claims of their adherents, they have never and never will reflect anything resembling authentically objective and universal values. They therefore cannot speak in universal terms in relation to their own group value sets, nor can they rationally compel their values on non-members of their respective groups.
Whatever rights one has derives from the fact of one's own life and from nowhere else. Your own right to your life cannot be factually and logically extended to justify any "right to the life of another". Due to circumstances, one may be a liberty to compel the life of another, however, one cannot have the right to do so. No such right exists. One's own values must reign supreme in one's own life - even if those values are in some way borrowed from the values of others, however, one's own values, again, cannot be factually and logically extended to become the involuntary values of another.
That homosexuality is universally a "sin" in the narrow view of Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs is debated even among members of those philosophies. Those beliefs, those values are not universal and cannot be argued as such. Yes, homosexuality is a sin ... to some. No, it isn't to others. If there is an ethical struggle on the issue, it is this - does one individual have any right to compel their values onto another, whether they be in support or against human homosexual behavior?
Facts and logic suggest the answer to that is - no.
- Naumadd September 6, 2008 3:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
The Bible says in Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9-10.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled) neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality.
Nor cheats ( swindlers and thieves,) nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners, and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God."
Corinthians Chapter 6 vs. 18
"Shun immorality and all sexual looseness (flee from impurity in thought, word, or deed). Any other sin which a man commits is one outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."
The Bible is not out dated and it always confirms itself it is the greatest predicter of human behavior.
Everything that a scientist or philosopher may be a fact or an opinion may last for a moment but the truth stands forever. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
If any who reads these words wants to continue to delude themselves or seer their conscience go ahead because you have been warned.
John 3 vs 16-17 says
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He (even) gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in ( trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish ( come to destruction be lost) but have eternal ( everlasting) life.
For God did not send the Son into the world in order to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him."
John 3 vs. 20
For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works ( his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.
- Tamara September 7, 2008 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι [malakoi] ουτε αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]- I Cor 6:9 in Greek, from the Textus Receptus.
The problem with saying arsenokoitai means homosexual is that, in ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
Conservative evangelical New Testament scholar, Dr. Gordon Fee (he's heterosexual) says that arsenokoitai is rarely used in Greek literature,
“especially when describing homosexual activity.”
The quote is from p. 244 of his commentary, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987, by Dr. Gordon D. Fee.
Dr. Fee still believes I Cor 6:9 refers to homosexual activity but he is honest enough to admit that his opinion is nothing more than "a best guess."
I am not willing to be silent when Christians attack gay or lesbian relationships with faulty "best guesses" while ignoring actual historical usage of arsenokoitai. When we factor in actual usage of the word, arsenokoitai, honesty compels the conclusion that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual.
Some Christians admit that the word arsenokoitai was never used to mean homosexual. Then they insist that arsenokoites means homosexual anyway, since arseno means man and koite is a euphemism for sex. Their reasoning is that when the two parts are combined into one word, it must mean homosexual.
Famous British scholar, Dr. James Barr, (he was heterosexual) 1924-2006, was called by the Times Online obituary,
“probably the most significant Hebrew and Old Testament scholar in Britain in the twentieth century.”
Here is what Dr. Barr said about the etymology of words.
“The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history...
...it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford University Press, New York, 1961, p. 109.
The way arsenokoites was actually used in the ancient Greek language must be our guide as to its meaning. In ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 8, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Sorry, Tamara, but you can't judge whether someone is a Christian or not by whether they are gay or not. Just like I can't judge if someone is a Christian or not by whether or not they are fat. God said gluttony was a sin too, didn't He?
Sharone
- mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
People who are gluttons are not necessarily fat (e.g., bulimia) and people who are fat are not necessarily gluttons (e.g., transplant recipients, people who don't exercise, etc.)
- Christian Mom September 10, 2008 7:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But it is impossible for us to determine who is a christian or not. There is a story that my pastor tells: "Two german missionaries weep on their beer glasses because they saw two fellow women american missionaries wearing jeans." For some drinking beer is a sin. For others women wearing pants are sinners.
I know homosexuality is not a cultural sin. But haven't God dealed with people that allow sins in their lives and still save them. The part of convincing them that is a sin lies on the Holy Spirit, not on us. But I agree church has the responsability to have a clear view of what is and what is not a sin.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.
Your right in that there is no such thing as a gay christian, there is only a christian. Jesus loves us for who we are, if we love him. It hurts Him if we swear, if we curse, if we sex out of marriage, if we murder , if we..... I could go on.
The thing is, He will always love us and forgive us. He will also lead us to walk a closer walk with Him. If a gay turns to Christ, Christ will lead him on his path. As fellow christians, it's not are job to condemn but to build up and love as Christ loves us.
If a prostitute with a habit handed their lives to Christ, I wouldn't expect them to stop earning a living in the only way they know how, even if it is sinning. They would need our support and understanding to help them move into a new and productive career over a period of time. They would also need to be taught (with love) the message of the bible and help to understand how to accept His unconditional forgiveness.
Why do you seem to have difficulty with showing His love to fellow christians on their path?
- mickeyb June 30, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is what Christ say about marriage relationships & sexual immorality.
Mark Chapter 10 vs. 6-9
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: So then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Romans 1 vs 25-32.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. A-men. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, maliciousness; full of envy murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This is how you know you belong to God.
I John 1 vs 8-10
If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]. If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just ( true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [ dismiss our lawlessness] and [ continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action]. If we say ( claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [ the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts].
1John Chapter 2 vs.3-4
And this is how we may discern [daily, by experience] that we are coming to know Him [ to perceive, recognize, understand, and become better acquainted with Him]: if we keep (bear in mind, observe, practice His teachings (precepts, commandments).
Whoever says, I know Him [ I perceive, recognize, understand, and am acquainted with Him] but fails to keep and obey His commandments (teachings) is a liar, and the Truth [ of the Gospel] is not in him.
- Tamara September 8, 2008 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Let's examine what the companion passage to Mark 10, says, since Matthew 19 is the major passage used to clobber gay people on the topic of marriage.
Matthew 19:3-12 deals with God’s view of heterosexual marriage and natural exceptions to heterosexual marriage as Jesus intended His followers to understand them. Jesus says some eunuchs are born that way, from their mother's womb. Jesus does not say born eunuchs enter the world with genital deformities.
Instead, He makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated (suffered genital deformity) by illness or by men. Jesus also makes a clear distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a choice to voluntarily abstain from marriage, for the kingdom of heaven.
In Matthew 19, Jesus cites Adam and Eve as the norm for marriage but carefully makes exception for people called eunuchs. According to Jesus, a eunuch is one who cannot receive His teaching about heterosexual marriage according to the Adam and Eve model.
Jesus informs us that of the three classes of eunuchs, the first class is born that way. In other words, born eunuchs are not physically castrated and born eunuchs are not required to abstain from marriage with an orientation compatible partner.
They are born eunuchs from their mother’s womb, unable to receive Jesus’ teaching about the Adam and Eve marriage model yet Jesus differentiates between them and castrated eunuchs and them and metaphysical eunuchs (eunuchs who make a personal decision not to marry).
History demonstrates that what we call gay men today, were called eunuchs by our spiritual ancestors. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus very clearly says born eunuchs, what today we call homosexuals, were born that way.
In case you doubt that born eunuchs were gay people, please note that Dr. Robert Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader of the twenty-first century, admits that:
"Probably 'born eunuchs' in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined..."
When even Dr. Robert Gagnon, our most vociferous opponent, admits this historical fact, our argument is largely won.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 9, 2008 11:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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 (8)
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 (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.
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.
not really.
Animals are indeed capable of rational thought, and tons of animals have self idenity complexes... where are you getting your info ?
Leviticus is Old Testement, ntm Lev is a set of rules for Hebrew Males... Are you Hebrew?
- zman676
April 16, 2009 12:12AM
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.
Beg to differ.
Lets first start with a working and shared definintion of "rational."
Rational: "Having or exercising the ability to reason. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." (American Heritage Dictionary)
You ask where I am getting my info; where are you getting yours? There is some controversy as to whether animals are capable of rational throught, however, the vast majority of people including scientists do accept an animal as a rational creature. For example, recently there was a women in CA who had a pet chimp. Without warning and without rational basis the chimp went "ape" on her girl friend and almost killed her. Professionals in the field, including zoologists, vets, other biologits etc. often reference that these types of things happen because they are "wild animals." To expect rational behavior from an animal is absurd.
Furthermore, from a Biblical point of view, regardless of how literaly one interpreates the creation accounts there is a clear distinction between man and the animals. Namely they alone were made in the image and likeness of God, recieved from a him a rational that is in likeness to him (which animals do not) and were given dominion over the earth (including the animal kingdomm).
Philosophically we can know that animals are not capable of considering sylogistic reasoning, understand logic. A dog does not think about where it would go to college or what it wants to do with its life. The earliest philosophers and through the present age have noticed a distinction from animals and humankind.
To argue that because an animal does something means it is ok for humans is ludicrist. Animals eat there own kind, commit acts of aggression including murder and many other atrocious behavior if we tried to understand this rationaly. However, we know that they are animals and they do that kind of thing based on instict and conditioning.
Yes Leviticus is Old Testements. Leviticus is not just a rule book for Hebrew males it was given to the whole people of Israel as with the rest of the Torah. No I am not ethnically Hebrew alhtough I do consider myself a "child of Abraham" through the promise, i.e. by faith .
Shalom,
Spencer
- Periannath April 16, 2009 5:37PM
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.
I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that . . .
SidAirfoil,
If you REALLY believe the bible is "God's Word" not man's and as you say "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",
then I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that I have assembled at http://WhatkindofGod.org/ and swear on the bible that you believe all of the horrible statements attributed to "God" in the bible! including for example:
"No one born of a forbidden marriage (no "bastard") nor any offspring from such a marriage may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."
If Deuteronomy 23:2 is taken seriously (which Conservatives must do, if they take the scriptures as seriously as they claim) , then these are the inevitable consequences :
Not only are all the "bastard" children of the faithful to be unjustly punished (for something they had no power over), but all of the following as well:
all of their children, (2nd generation)
their grand-children, (3rd generation)
their great-grand-children, (4th generation)
their great-great-grand-children, (5th generation)
their great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as well,
(which could number into the hundreds if not thousands of offspring).
This also has serious ramifications going BACKWARDS, i.e. ,
Can you be absolutely sure that you yourself aren't a bastard?
How can you be sure that neither of your two parents was?
What about your 4 grand-parents?
What about your 8 great-grand-parents?
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
- Rayosun
September 10, 2009 5:05PM
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.
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 (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.
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.
What's going on with the New Testament
Who, exactly, goes to heaven and who, exactly, goes to hell? There's a bunch of lists. Does being a Christian trump those lists, and if so, why would anyone even talk about the lists?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:57AM
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.
You tell me
According to the Christians I grew up around (Southern Baptists), yes, being a "born-again" Christian trumps all. But since I am an atheist, I consider such debates about equal to debating which color of unicorns is more "fair".
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:05PM
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'm Jewish
I have no earthly understanding as to why they act as they do. It's hard enough just figuring us out.
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 1:34PM
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.
It's even worse
I was at a "revival" where the guest speaker was what they called a "completed Jew"; he was a Jew who had become a "born-again Christian". The part that stuck with me was this man sobbing from the pulpit because of his parents. He said that they had loved each other dearly in life, but since they had died without being "saved", they were now both burning in Hell and hated one another (there being no love in Hell). I was almost made sick by this. Still am.
- KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:36PM
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.
Southern Baptists
No wonder you a atheist I was once a atheist and a southern baptist.They both are about equal in my book.They both deny the teachings in the bible .
- countryboy
June 9, 2009 6:29PM
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 is abominable
The Bible is fine with slavery. It only says how much you are allowed to beat your slaves; not that slavery is wrong, or that maybe your shouldn't beat them at all. It even says it is OK to sell your daughter into slavery. I'm not aware of any sect of Christians who don't deny that particular teaching. It also demands that a virgin marry her rapist in order to be made pure. Yes, I will continue to deny the Bible and its "teachings". I don't get my sense of morality from bronze-age shepherds who thought genocide, slavery, and treating women as property was peachy. http://www.godisimaginary.com /
- KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:41PM
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.
Hay quantummechanik
There's a bunch of list does being a christisn trumpm those list.
What list are yiu talking about?I for you would love to set any one straght on this.
- countryboy
June 8, 2009 10:18PM
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 hell lists
The lists of people who don't get into heaven. Whisperers, Back-Biters, Effeminate, etc.
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 1:35PM
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.
Lets some this up
Jesus saying on these two commandment hang all the law and the prophets
Matthew 23-37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOD with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind
Matthew 23-38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 23-39 And the second is love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matyhew 23-40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You see this is what a real christian is all about.Love,true love peace with god and others,
If you follow these 2 commandments you wont be a whisperer,back-biter etc.
And if we slip we are forgiven though the Blood of christ
- countryboy
June 9, 2009 6:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
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 (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.
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 (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.
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.
- Periannath January 8, 2009 1:00PM
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.
"by nature objects of wrath" part 2
By saying homosexuaity is a sin I am not destroying God because God did not create homosexuality. This is in part why homosexuality is a strong sign of rebellion against God in a society because it goes exactly against the created order and natural intention of the sexual gift.
Lastly, that was a case of begging the question because he was assuming the thing he was trying to prove, rational truth is higher than spiritual truth. He elaborates, I see, in the next post so I give him credit. Thanks for taking the time to read Betty.
Peace be with you,
Spencer
- Periannath January 8, 2009 1:06PM
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.
NOT begging the question
I most certainly can and do argue that...
1.) Rational [truth is] objective and spiritual truth is subjective
2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
A belief is objective if it conforms to the facts of reality independent of how anyone interprets it. Like it or not, reality is what it is regardless of what you and I and any one else thinks about it. The key for humans is to use our senses to gather evidence about reality, and to use our rational minds to interpret that evidence and act upon it. Francis Bacon said, "In order to control nature, you must first obey it" (That may be a paraphrase). This means, among other things, that you can't change the nature of reality simply by interpreting it to your liking, or denying the facts, or praying real hard for miracles. Reality is. Our minds simply do their best to understand it and act accordingly. In contrast, spiritual truth as you call it is entirely subjective and has no basis whatever in the real world. I don't see why you would argue with this assertion. As a man a faith you should agree that there is no proof for your belief in christ or even god. The nature of faith, of which I assume you are proud, is belief WITHOUT evidence.
The fact that we make mistakes doesn't change any of this. You are trying to argue that our fallibility as humans makes infallible faith necessary as a guard against our emotionalism, our occasional irrationality, and our inevitable errors. Wrong. Our numerous faiths are just as flawed as anything that humans do, you just deny it by claiming that god himself wrote your moral laws. He did not. Fallible people did, and fallible people like you interpret them and reinterpret them until they get the answers they want. Everything that humans do is flawed. But with my system, the flaws can be discovered and fixed through reason. With your system they are attributed to god and become the law for everyone no matter how ridiculous.
The problem is that belief-without-evidence leads to total subjectivity. If you reject reality and the human perception thereof as the final standard for truth, then anything goes. Everyone can believe anything they want regardless of its incompatibility with the facts of objective reality. And this is exactly what we see around the world. Different religious faiths clash violently because they can't clash rationally through discourse. When there is no objective evidence to present in support of your religious, faith-based views, all thats left to do with those who disagree is kill them. So it has been for 5000 years (more probably). The one truth is objective reality. If we all accepted that, it would go a long way towards ending hate an violence in the world. In contrast, purely subjective faith releases our worst demons (metaphorically) and gives them free reign.
You say "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." Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian morality is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the US Constitution. Christian morality is based on doing the will of god. Obeying god is good, disobeying is bad. The ten commandments are a list of things that we CANNOT do. The Constitution, in contrast, is based on respect for the rights of the individual human being, not on the will of any god. The Constitution is a list of things that CANNOT BE DONE TO US.
The Constitution has the Bill of Rights, the ten commandments are the Bill of Wrongs.
The fact that these two diametrically opposed moral systems frequently draw the same the conclusions (e.g. that murder is wrong) does not change the fact that they do so for entirely different reasons. To me murder is wrong because it violates the humanity of the victim. To you its wrong because it violates god regardless of the victim.
In short, you can't reject rationalism because humans make mistakes and then accept without question (i.e. on faith) whatever the bible says just because you believe that it's the infallible word of god. There is no rational basis for you to believe that. It's just your claim, and it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. And criticizing my system for being imperfect (which it is) doesn't make yours any better or more reasonable. It just makes it more dangerous.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
January 2, 2009 9:15AM
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.
faith and reason
Peace Sid,
You have changed your argument, I see, or perhaps more precisely clarified it from the apparent fallacies I lying there in. Now that we are on the same page we can move forward.
I want you to know before I continue that I have no desire to belittle you or make you feel inferior because of your lack of faith, or the faith that you do have in rationalism. Sometimes I find these forums and online means of communication tiresome. I don't really know you, and you don't really know me. This isn't the most conducive to honest communication and dialogue. My overarching aim is to wish you the best in all that life has for you. When I write peace I do not write it as a mere triviality but as sincere request for peace to come upon you and your life. With this I shall continue.
As arguments do often rest on premises so does yours. Your premise is "Rational truth is objective and spiritual truth is subjective." I beg to differ.
Rational truth can be objective and it can be subjective it is not more bound in objectivity or subjectivity than spiritual truth or faith faith, for that matter. Rational truth can be objective as you argue, when it bases itself self out of conclusions drawn from the real including that which is material is this world and in the whole universe. Even here though, there is a principle assumption that is "believed," that is faith is necessary for reason to be valid objectively because we must assume, or believe with faith, that the human senses are actually and able to perceive the real and that the human mind is able to make sense out what is perceived in a manner that is true. This basic premise must be believed for rational thought to have any air of possible objectivity. Rational thought, is therefore, always dependent on a certain amount of faith.
If faith is as you say, belief without evidence then it is a belief in something independent of any concept of the real, it is subjective and all rational truth is therefore subjective. This is a primary problem in metaphysics. The first philosophers to shed off the tradition Aristotelian scholasticism found it necessary to validate reality in faith. Descartes, for instance doubted that our perception of anything is guaranteed except that which is guaranteed by God. Later philosophers who "dumped" the idea that the real can be perceived because God guarantees it also dumped any notion of objective reality. Objective reality forever became something beyond human grasp nor could any such validation be made of whether there even was an objective reality. David Hume advanced this concept when he argued that humans merely receive impressions from the outside and makes sense of them internally through laws of association. This assemblage and putting together of external impressions is an entirely subjective feat. Immanuel Kant further advanced this when he said that our only understanding of reality is through our experiences. These experiences he called phenomenon and so humans a a phenomenological attempt at truth but had no access to what he called noumenal reality or what we know as objective reality. He said that it is the mind that shapes reality and not reality the mind since we put our thoughts together through our categories of understanding. Other philosophers and anthropologists have even yet further argued that these categories of understanding are primarily determined by our language, such as is argued in the sapir-whorf hypothesis. The point of my detour through some history of modern philosophy is to show that without God and without faith there is not real. If any of these Godless, worldviews are adopted then there is no objective reality metaphysically for there to be an objective truth let alone an objective truth that happens to be rational. Therefore, in either case, whether we can reach an objective reality guaranteed by God or cannot rational and reason is subjective or dependent on faith. Before I move on I would like to define more precisely what subjective and objective actually mean:
"Objective: Having actual existence or reality."
"Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world"
Both from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition
- Periannath January 15, 2009 5:17PM
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.
faith and reason part 2
If rational truth is not subjective and it can be validated by this faith, a faith which requires God, then it is dependent on a spiritual truth. If this spiritual truth is merely subjective than anything built on its foundation must also be subjective. In this case there is again, no objective rational truth. However, if it is objective than rational truth can also be objective. Therefore, if rational truth is objective so must be spiritual truth. This is not to disregard the reality that each human does have different experiences and phenomenon and that our minds make sense often with our language and other systems of the world around us. However, there is an objective reality we can know because of God. God is just an abstract exterior concept that as a principle guarantees our true witness of reality but he himself is involved in this world. He was involved as its Creator, sustains all things and came into it most definitively in the person of Jesus Christ. Spiritual truth has a basis in reality. It is not just human belief but human belief in a real God, in the real person of Jesus Christ.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."- (Hebrews 11:1, KJV)
Faith is evidence. It is evidence not of that which is not real but that which, though unseen, is real.
Notice that I have stated that rational truth, if it is able to be objective, can be objective. It is not always. By the nature of reason it should be sound but by the nature of the humans who reason we know it is often not. We are limited. Rational truth cannot be limited to only materialism or scientisim. That is rational truth is based in the real but that does not mean it is only based in matter or in the stuff we can see, taste, hear, touch etc. Nor is it limited to only being correct if it is scientific and is discerned through the scientific method. Spiritual truth can be perfectly rational but cannot be demanded to bow to the narrow views of materialism or scientisim or naturalism or other human philosophies. This does not mean that spiritual truth is automatically right because it is spiritual but it does mean that spiritual truth can be rational.
You are correct in asserting that anything humans do is flawed. Including our rational minds. Why is it logical that our flawed system of rational should pluck out our flaws when it in itself is flawed. The Word of God however, is from God and through written through men is from him and perfect. Furthermore, faith is also a gift from God. Truth comes from God, without him there is not truth. Truth begins with him not with man. Man is not the measure, God is. That God has spoken to us is how truth comes to us, in the Bible. This truth came through the real, in real societies, in real men and woman in time and history. Likewise did Christ, the Word made flesh. This is the difference between Christianity and all other religions. As Bishop Fulten Sheen said, "If religion is mans search for God Christianity is God's search for man." We can't assume that all religions have the same origin as if they are all essentially the same when in reality they are not. The Bible did not come from man but from God. The pain, unrest and warfare that has spurred from religious conflict is truly tragic. We should be able to be rational but that does not mean that faith is irrational.
The Ten Commandments are not the opposite of the U.S. Constitution, it historically undeniable fact of their and other Biblical influence on the U.S. Constitution. The summary of the commandments is not do not but do, do love God and do love your neighbor. They are laws that deal with God and people. To kill or murder is wrong in Christian faith because it is a sin against God and against that persons humanity. God does stuff with purpose, including give his laws. God hates murder because he loves all people. He wants us to trust him and obey him out of faith and trust but that doesn't mean that because we should obey him because we love and trust him that his laws have not reason, quite the opposite. God is definer of justice itself and he is the source of every reason for justice as he is the source of reason. Biblical faith is not irrational or foolhardy.
""To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his." Job 12:13, NIV
Again, peace Sid,
Spencer
- Periannath January 15, 2009 5:18PM
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.
More begging the question and Non Sequitur
"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)."
This understanding of human sameness or shared anthropology is incomplete precisely because you leave out the actual spiritual element of man yet give the illusion that it is included. The idea that all people are basically the same, i.e.. created equal (again something only guaranteed by God), is a Biblical idea. One could suppose that in a modern rationalistic society why would we put so much stock in a principle from a "dusty old book?" Perhaps because this dusty old book is right. You include the physical, biological or bodily part of man (Gk. Soma) and the psychological part (Gk.psyche), but by defining spiritual by something that it is not you actually fail to give an adequate definition which is to state which that thing is. Equating spiritual needs to "merely...needs that are not physical" fails to distinguish between what is actually a spiritual need and what could also be a emotional need or a psychological need which can also not be considered physical in the biological sense. The implication of this vaguely communicated idea of spiritual need actually leaves out the real essence of spiritual need. This is necessary to fit the paradigm of "live and let live" because such a structure of apparent moral law fails to account for the totality of the human experience not just in the individual human experience but in the communal as well. It is incapable of doing so because the motive is not the ultimate concern for the common good but an excuse of the individual to unconcern them self with the good of the other. As the concept "live and let live" is shaped by the humanistic framework of individuals operating as laws unto themselves, it fails. When, as was originally meant in the phrase "live and let live," it is to literally do unto others as you would have them do unto you there is a change for hope. Here the common good and the good of the neighbor is established. It is not about how little should be done (tolerate, mind your own business about the life of others) but what should be done (how can I love my neighbor in this circumstance, what does it mean to love my neighbor?). This is the a central teaching of Jesus Christ and of Christianity. The modern evolution of the idiom however, has scarce remembrances of this original meaning and fails precisely because, again, it does not take into account the breadth of human experience both individually and communally (and is unequipped to address the full experience because its own ethos makes such parts and judgments of others off limits) and has no concern for the common good (because likewise the good cannot be established because the ethos of the modern "live and let live" make such judgments impossible). I should clarify by judgments I don't intend to imply being judgmental but rather only the ability to judge whether the actions, motives and intentions of the other are morally right or wrong according to the Good.
Compare:
"Live and let live, i.e. Do as you would be done by..."-1678, English Proverbs
"Live and let live is a pretty good philosophy. If the guy in the next lane isn't buckled up, why not leave him alone?" (2001, Washington Times)
Both quotes acquired from the The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs.
[See also my other post, "Christ...fully reveals man to himself."]
Secondly, you further beg the question, i.e. provide a circular argument, by stating that live and let live is good because watching people live and let live (without the ability to harm others) is good because you have observed it so. You then conclude, therefore, that homosexuality is not morally wrong. This is Non Sequitur; where the logic of your agrument does not follow from the premise to the conclusion offered.
Peace and Happy New Year,
Spencer
- Periannath January 2, 2009 12:09AM
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.
please elaborate
"(also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence)"
Can you elaborate on the above statement?
You say first that there is no objective evidence but continued to say there is objective evidence?
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 2:55PM
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.
Don't respect conservative Christians, put them to this TEST!
If Christian conservatives were sincere in their condemnation of homosexuals on BIBLICAL biblical grounds, as I show on my http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/God&gays.html they would be just as conscientious about applying the bible 's teaching that those who don't obey the sabbath demands that are repeated forcefully and frequently in "God's Word". How many rich Republicans would support such "Christian conservatives" for public offices, if they were demanding that people not work, or shop, or go to entertainment events one out of seven days every week?!?
In contrast to a few rare and obscure references to homosexuality in the O.Testament, the sabbath command is one of the TEN GREAT COMMANDMENTS, and the penalty required by the bible is DEATH.
How many show the sincerity of their view of "God's Word" by their insistance that people either obey the 4th commandment or DIE?!?
(I would have asked, "should homosexuals be treated as parriahs?" (even if you view it as one of the MANY behaviors condemned by the bible)
- Rayosun
September 10, 2009 4:47PM
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.
is homosexulity a sin?
Well you know how to use big words but didn't make a point I agree with the bible and both verses you quoted and believe that a man and a women should be married not two men or two women let's think about it we are suppose to reproduce two men can't do that or two women.I sit wrong well that is an matter of opinion and mine is that it is wrong I don't want a queer for a son ,or daughter.
- popabear
November 4, 2009 9:36AM
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.
But isn't everything a sin?
Absolutely. Of course, being both logical and very religious, nearly every single thing any human has done since the “fall into sin” is a sin. That being said along with the common faith that ultimately there is only one punishment for all unrepentant sin, it should not be regarded as such a touchstone issue. Or at least anymore so than murder or swearing. They are all sins against God, they were already forgiven before they even happened; all you have to do is accept that faith. Why do we treat it differently? Because it involves a sexual act?
As human beings we have a tendency to try to categorize things and assign value to actions that don't require it. That is not the way sin works. Homosexuality is essentially the same sin as lusting after someone you pass on the street.
I do have to say it's a sin, but only because as humans every thing we do could be considered a sin.
- JaneSays September 9, 2008 1:09PM
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.
Its the Ungodly reaction to pain.
Hi all,
I dont wanna write down all the scripture in the word of God, the holy bible, that clearly states that this is a sin, however I do wanna share this. God gives people who want out of this life, understanding, as he did for me. I believe one can be free from feelings, it takes work. We are all built with a conscience. And something inside of me knew gay feelings were wrong at a young age, I just didnt know why. The church never told me it was wrong, society, or people, I just knew. I think we all can try to remember those first emotions. And so its all ungodly emotions. Relationships become co-dependant, and we use others to fulfill the pain. Whether its sex or relationship. Nothing is good in homosexuality..Nothing..it's call disfunctional, and can be healed.
If you're gay, you understand hurt..and rejection..fear...disappointment..guilt..anger..being left out and misunderstood. A gay lifestyle offers many promises. Freedom, independence, pride, sympathetic understanding, compassion, fulfilled desires, honesty. Being honest about our feelings is so important. Unlike others, the homosexual has struggled through two traumatic births: the natural birth, and the personal birth of self-acceptance. Both passages are marked by pain and great labor, but the product of the natural birth doesn't remember. The product of the personal birth remembers always. However, a Cruel Deception torments the gay community. Once the "birth" is accomplished and the person comes out of the closet, the promises are not kept. At first there may be relief, pleasure, and the euphoria of belonging. But can the gay lifestyle ever satisfy the deepest desires and longings of the homosexual man or woman? Could all that freedom, pride and sexual activity be covering up feelings? At best, it brings temporary diversion. At worst unfortunately, it brings despair and death. Why? Because those desires, longings, hurts, and fears are common to humanity and are the result of living in a fallen world. Everyone is affected, and only God can save, heal, and satisfy. We must realize that in most instances, the attraction for the same sex begins before the age of ten and is usually non-sexual, emotional, and involuntary. This brings confusion, fear, and guilt on a young person who is already feeling rejected and unworthy, and increases the need for affirmation. It is very common to experience injured, rejected femininity or insecure masculinity. With sexual maturity, the needs become eroticized and the sexual desire is strong because it is linked to the emotions. Sexual activity then becomes a way to feel loved and affirmed, and becomes addictive; we cover the pain with pleasure; we idolize someone like us and are esteemed by them; there is some relief from identity confusion, and we can defy, and have some refuge from, a hostile society. But, has this really dealt with the buried emotions, or are we caught in a pattern of behavior that covers them? There is a strong connection between buried feelings and sexual complusion. God has shown all those who have gotten free that all this was changeable, and He wants to go through the process with you. He wants you to experience the intimacy with Him that overcomes all addictive behavior. You will never have intimacy that can compare with the intimacy with God, who loves and cares for you. God does not want to judge you, He wants to save, forgive, deliver, heal, restore, comfort, renew - all the things that only He can do. For these wonderful things to happen, you will need another birth...the spiritual birth. We all do, because we are fallen, and a fallen world has imposed wounds, fears, alienation and identity confusion on us, and we reacted in sinful ways to compensate, console, and protect ourselves. Jesus Christ came for that very reason, to save the lost and helpless. Come to him and let him do his marvelous work in your life..Let His Love heal the wounds; let His goodness dispel the fears; let his presence replace the loneliness; let his grace and mercy cover all your sins, and let Him give you a new identity as His child. He wants to be your Heavenly Father and give you peace, joy, and security that so many have found. "For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations." Psalm 100:5
- izzy2517 September 10, 2008 2:40PM
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.
Deny yourself and follow Christ
One who has been raised with the knowledge and experience of the scriptures already feels condemned. We don't need to do the condemning but we do need to follow what our hearts and scriptures tell us is right. For most men it is disgusting to think about, nonetheless, we have to face it daily that their are people who think it is perfectly OK to engage in the homosexual lifestyle. It's the society we have helped nuture that has brought us to this choice of yes or no. Pick up your cross (whatever it is),deny yourself, and follow Christ.
- lessofself September 15, 2008 11:36AM
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 homosexual lifestyle?
lessofself wrote:
"we have to face it daily that their are people who think it is perfectly OK to engage in the homosexual lifestyle."
This seems to be a common argument. Make a broad, all-encompassing statement which condemns the homosexual lifestyle and then insist it just a sinful choice.
This argument is illogical because it assumes that all homosexuals live the same way and believe the same way, therefore all homosexuals should be condemned.
Would it be fair to lump all heterosexuals together into one group and then condemn the heterosexual lifestyle based on disgusting heterosexual activity at Mardi Gras?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jonathan-And-David.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 16, 2008 9:34AM
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 second the wow
I hadn't noticed the gay christian link on your comments till this post. And as I am not religious I was already impressed with your previous posts. There are so many paths to take in life and half the fun is seeing what others have chosen. You certainly chose an interesting one. I also second the very well written response, I wish I had written it (if would permit me one second of envy) : )
- mangueken
November 22, 2008 4:59AM
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.
WOW
Very well written....
thanks
- crash
September 15, 2008 7:20PM
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.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality
when asked recently what i thought of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people...this was my response...
they're awesome people, most of my best frenz from my past are gay or lesbian..and just like the rest of us, they're sinners as well..
i am a sinner, saved only by His grace. i am so far from being able to walk on water without sinking to the bottom..but He loves me enough to save me by His grace.
God loves them as much as He does you or i..Jesus came and died and rose again for them as much as He did for you and i..
God doesn't like what they do, as far the kind of life that they live(nor does He like what thieves, liars, and murderers do)..but they are just as able to be delivered from that life, and saved and be heaven-bound as any of the rest of us..
unfortunately, there are many, many gays and lesbians that believe they can continue living that life and that God will welcome them into heaven along with those that have confessed their sins, and repented of that life..and God is the only one that can judge, but God will not and cannot allow anyone who is unrepentant into heaven..no matter what the sin is.
many and most leaders in the gay church tell their congregations that God is love, and He is..but God is also just..He is holy, and i don't think most people realize exactly what that means..
asking forgiveness of Him for what we've done is one thing..being repentant is another. to repent is to confess that sin and turn from it, in some cases(like mine) run from it;)
alot of Christians approach the glbt community the wrong way..with hate, and contempt, and self-righteousness, and threats of hellfire and brimstone..
which always reminds me of the woman that the pharisees brought to Jesus because she was caught in adultery..when asked what He thought should happen to her for what she had done, He drew a line in the sand and told the crowd of men collected there that "whoever is without sin, let him be the one to cast the first stone"..after thinking about what the Lord had said, and examining themselves (realizing that none of us is without sin), they set their stones down and left..the Lord then turned back to the woman, asking her where her accusers were..He simply told her "to go and sin no more"...
alot of Christians need to remember that when it comes to the hateful, accusing way(s) that they approach those that are still struggling and lost...
- darfox1 September 10, 2008 11:31PM
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.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality(cont.)
i only know what i believe, and what the Lord has laid on my heart...
my prayer for the gay Christian is that the Lord will lift the veil of deceit that the enemy has placed over their eyes and heart in regards to their personal relationship with the Lord.
i know that i believed for the longest time, as i was fence-sitting in my faith, that "God knew where my heart was", which is true, but at the same time, God can't and won't allow sin into heaven. even though i knew what i was doing was wrong in His eyes, there was a hope and belief that He would still save me and welcome me into heaven. the thing is, i was struggling with my sexuality and my faith simultaneously, and even though i knew better, i still wasn't willing to give Him my all, my everything. or maybe at that time, i thought that i had given Him enough to work with.
i was trapped in that corrupt and vicious circle of sin and repent, sin and repent, sin and repent...and if i'd actually repented at all, i would have leaned heavier on Him, gotten into His Word, and turned my back on the sin and walked away(or in my case, ran the other direction as fast as i could). so, i don't think i ever truly repented.
i was also deceived into thinking that as long as i didn't actually go through the act of sex with another person, that it wasn't as bad...when it's scriptural that if we've even so much as lusted after another man(or woman) with our eyes, it is adultery.
Matthew 5: 28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman/man lustfully has already committed adultery with her/him in his/her heart.
so, i was guilty right there. whether it was self-abuse, or having sexual relations with someone else, it is still adultery, as it is sex outside the bonds of marriage, and that in God's eyes is wrong.
there again, for so long, i felt or bought into that whole "God knowing where i stand" thing, what a sad joke...He did know where my heart was, and unfortunately it wasn't truly on Him.
- darfox1 September 10, 2008 11:34PM
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.
Absolutely NOT a sin!
I've talked to many gays and lesbians, and call some of them my close friends. ALL have told me that they KNEW they were gay from an early age! I've been quite saddened when they've told me of their struggles, their self hatred and concomitant self-destructive behaviors. I've listened as they've told me of their families disowning them. I've been awestruck when I've heard their stories of redemption and self-acceptance. Many have told me that they wished God had not created them this way. That tells me that, indeed, GOD CREATED GAY PEOPLE! If God is perfect, then this wasn't a mistake! Maybe he created them so that prosthelytizers might learn a lesson about what Jesus would really do!
Here, as always, the problem lies with those who don't practice what they preach. The real problem is those who would control another's actions in the name of religion, social conservatism, or saving the sanctity of marriage (and the children, of course)! The last time I checked, marriage wasn't in any danger! I, for one, will always like women, no matter who or what my neighbor likes. Many of the most ardent opponents of gay rights are repressed homosexuals! Most gays, along with christians, atheists, and everyone else, just want to be left alone to live their lives in freedom and peace. I know I do!
- PSYOP
September 10, 2008 11:46PM
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, it is a sin.
PSYOP says >> "Many have told me that they wished God had not created them this way. That tells me that, indeed, GOD CREATED GAY PEOPLE! If God is perfect, then this wasn't a mistake!"<<
There are several major problems with a statement that sounds so right. First of all, our feelings don't determine truth. If we really believed that our world would be in much worse shape than it is.
Secondly, no valid scientific evidence exists to support this oft repeated claim.
Thirdly, people do change. Since this is demonstrably true, it casts serious doubt on the genetic claims.
Fourthly, valid studies do exist to demonstrate that change is possible.
We may quibble over the number who do, etc., but not over the fact that they do change.
Finally, the Bible is quite clear that because of the fall we are all born sinners. We sin because we are sinners, not vice versa. Thus we all have predisposition to sin, to various challenges both physically and spiritually. Consequently we all need a Savior.
A new study says some are predisposed to adultery. Do we accept that and make allowances for it? Or do we use the tools God has given to live the lives He intended.
- pbob
September 11, 2008 8:15AM
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.
You probablyshouldn't have said that....
A person of faith bringing up scientific evidence? That is almost funny. Faith is the antithesis of science. There is no scientific proof of the existence of God yet you choose to believe. I respect that choice but science has nothing to do with anything about faith. Faith, by definition, is the belief in something that there is no proof of.
And you bring up adultery. Would you like a list of "Good Christians" who have crossed that commandment? Yet I have never heard any Christian spewing hatred and oppression towards their fellow Christians who have strayed. You may want to read up on some of the developments in the Catholic church in the last 10 years.
While there may be a passage in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin, there are HUNDREDS of passages that tell you to love your neighbor, judge not, forgiveness, etc etc. If you are a true Christian then you are to treat your fellow man as you would be treated, gay or not. There is no gray in that, it is crystal clear.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 10:36PM
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.
Jesus told me to ignore the rights of the Gays... I heard him say it.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
There are plenty more. You're choosing to ignore mountains of evidence that sexuality is indeed a genetic. The weight of evidence is heavily leaning that way... So, in a way, gay people are aberrations of what is normal. But so are left handed people, albino people, etcetera. Are left-handed people sinful? Do we tell the double-jointed that they're going to hell for choosing to be double jointed? Are Downs babies not born the way "God" meant them to be born? It's a genetic aberration of the what's normal... but you can't say they're imperfect or you'd be saying "God" was imperfect.
People change their behaviors... not their genetic "flaws". Anyone can tell you what you want to hear. And people can behave in convincing manners. That doesn't mean they have "changed".
A left handed person, until recently, was taught that it was "wrong" way to write... and was forced to write with the right. The person undoubtedly "changed". He wrote with his right hand. Wow. That obviously means that left-handedness is a choice!! Yielding to societal pressures means that genetic differences are choices!
And since you believe that one, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
- SocialistBetty
January 4, 2009 3:21PM
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.
The pot calls the kettle black.
SocialistBetty,
I've read several of your post now on different topics and it's very clear to me that you yourself will believe anything someone tells you as long as it promotes your viewpoints.
Gay Gene? Please, that's been proved a forgery a long time ago. Only the pro-gay community keeps trying to dig up that dead horse and make it walk!
Homosexuality is a learned behavior that can be fixed if dealt with correctly.
Just like an alcoholic, though, if the person isn't willing and doesn't have the will-power or help from God then they'll fail. It's a deep issue that requires determination and help to overcome, but it can be overcome.
- michaelz
January 10, 2009 8:00PM
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.
Oh Real-lay?
Gay gene? No one's ever said there's a "gay gene". What is that anyway? A gene that sleeps with guys name terry? Just kidding.
There's EVIDENCE... and a lot of it... that points to gayness being an in-born trait.
So how exactly do these people "learn" to be gay? You and I aren't gay. How did we escape the evil clutches of the gay agenda that's hell-bent (pun entirely intended) on "teaching" kids to be gay? Before the "gay agneda" occurred there have been gay people... how did they "learn" to be gay? I know people who've parents have said they knew their kid was gay from childhood... their parents didn't treat them any different than they did the "straight" siblings. How did that child "learn" to be gay?
And since you ingore the fact that homosexuality exists in animals (non-human animals) would you care to explain how you think that gayness is a learned behavior?
And since you've read several of my posts, you would know that I don't base my opinions on idiotic religious views, but on those of reason and observation. But thanks for that. All that statement says is that you can read.
- SocialistBetty
January 11, 2009 2:57PM
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 born gay.
Struggling with homosexuality is not necessarily a sin. The sin is actually giving into those desires both mentally and physically. As a former homosexual, I can say that even though I felt the attracted to the same sex, from an early age, I can tell you, I was not born gay. As a matter of fact, I know gay men that have told me they don't believe they were born gay, and still live in that lifestyle.
Something that I noticed gay men struggle with is seeing themselves as the men that they were born as. I've asked a couple guys living in that lifestyle, about if they felt like men (even at an early age) and if they ever felt like they had to measure up to what they feel being a man is ( I know that was my case and as I mentioned before, plus I've asked other men who live in the gay lifestyle, and they could relate to me).
Another thing that is important to consider is the issue of envy. I believe The reason of why I liked certain kinds of men was because I they happened to have some sort of physical or intellectual feature that I wanted to have, but felt like I didn't have. For example, let's say a certain man ( dealing with homosexuality) wants to have darker skin. He will (most likely) be attracted to men that have darker skin. Now that doesn't mean that he will never feel attracted to someone that has lighter skin, since they might have something that they want to have (physically or mentally).
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 9:38AM
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.
Jesus said eunuchs (gays) are born that way.
Your comment about not being born gay is interesting. But I don't think we can extrapolate from your experience and the experience of a few gay men you've talked to that no one is born gay.
Jesus, contrary to what many people allege, did address homosexuality. The text is Matthew 19:3-12. Jesus says there are three groups of men who CANNOT receive His teaching about Adam and Eve stle marriage.
The first group Jesus mentions is born eunuchs. The term eunuch was sometimes used to describe what today we would refer to as gay or homosexual.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
I think it is a mistake to assume that gay men are generally the same in their views, beliefs or actions - envious of other men who possess attributes they feel they lack or that gay men are generally effeminate and somehow not real men.
Some gay men do exhibit feminine characteristics but then, so do some heterosexual men. And some gay men are as macho as any heterosexual male.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 14, 2008 3:36PM
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.
homosexuality...
I do believe Jesus discussed homosexuality,(Romans 1:24-27) but not in the way the "Expert" is saying. He is strongly against homosexuality, as he says in many verses. It is a sin. Also, "eunuch" means a guy with out testicles or testicles that do not function properly. In no way was he reffering to someone 'Born' gay. He simply ment just that. Someone who was born without testicles that do not function properly. They would feel less superior and be less likely to take in what he was saying.
- d-ron30
November 26, 2008 11:24AM
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.
You're missing the mark...
"I do believe Jesus discussed homosexuality, (Romans 1:24-27) but not in the way the "Expert" is saying. He is strongly against homosexuality, as he says in many verses. It is a sin."
The Romans 1:24-27 passage is frequently misused and abused today, especially by Christians who want to condemn gays and lesbians.
It is impossible to understand Romans 1 until you factor in Cybele, the fertility goddess whose pagan temple loomed over first century Rome from atop the Palatine Hill.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
What Paul describes is fertility goddess worship, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
To interpret Romans 1:24-27 as a condemnation of gays and lesbians rips the passage from its context of idolatry and idols and false worship.
To interpret Romans 1:24-27 as condemning homosexuals is to ignore the cultural, historical and religious context Paul addressed when he wrote Romans.
First century Christians in Rome were familiar with Cybele's temple because it loomed above the Circus Maximus. The temple was clearly visible and the religious parade every spring, led by the castrated galli priests was well-known to every citizen of Rome.
To insist that Paul was addressing the issue of two women or two men who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together but was not addressing shrine prostitution is a sad misunderstanding of history.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
- Rick Brentlinger
November 26, 2008 10:06PM
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 encourage you to study before drawing a conclusion.
"Also, "eunuch" means a guy with out testicles or testicles that do not function properly."
Again, you're simply incorrect. Many anti-gay Christian scholars disagree with you. And I notice you simply give your uninformed opinion with no facts to support what you say.
Dr. Robert Gagnon, the most prolific anti-gay evangelical Christian scholar alive today, commenting on Matthew 19:3-12, admits on his website that:
"Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions." - Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon
The Babylonian Talmud was very clear in pointing out that eunuchs were not necessarily without testicles.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Same-Sex-Attracted-Eunuchs.html
According to the Talmud, a saris/eunuch could produce semen. Therefore he had functioning testicles.
"“R. Joseph said: It must have been such a saris [eunuch] 6 of whom I heard Ammi saying. 'He who is afflicted from birth...’ Our Rabbis taught: Who is a congenital saris [a born eunuch]? 13 Any person who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if he produced them afterwards he is deemed to be a saris [born eunuch] in all respects.
And these are his characteristics: He has no beard, his hair is lank, and his skin is smooth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Judah b. Jair: 15 Any person whose urine produces no froth; some say: He who urinates without forming an arch; some say:
He whose semen is watery; and some say: He whose urine does not ferment. Others say: He whose body does not steam after bathing in the winter season. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: 15 He whose voice is abnormal so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman. " - Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, 80
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_80.html #PARTb
Ancient Roman Law also taught that a eunuch was not necessarily diseased or lacking testicles.
“The name of eunuch is a general one; under it come [1] those who are eunuchs by nature [born eunuchs], [2] those who are made eunuchs [by castration or crushing], and [3] any other kind of eunuchs [those who voluntarily abstain from marriage].”
The Digest of Justinian, Vol. IV, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 944.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jesus-On-Hell.html
- Rick Brentlinger
November 26, 2008 10:21PM
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.
Everything's interpreted literally now?
Then what does "Whisperers do not inherit the kingdom of heaven mean"?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:59AM
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.
Jesus the Jewish Messiah is The Way
Who, exactly, goes to heaven and who, exactly, goes to hell?
Great question quantummechanik! Jesus the Jewish Messiah warned His mostly Jewish hearers that if they did not believe He was the Jewish Messiah, they would die in their sins.
"I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Gospel of John 8:24
People who trust Jesus Christ alone (no good works, no church membership, no baptism, no confirmation, etc), as the payment for their sins, are saved and go to heaven.
People who refuse to trust Jesus Christ as the payment for their sins, choosing instead to trust their own righteousness, are lost and go to hell.
Here is Here's what the Ten Commandments say plus a short video that explains How To Get Saved.
Rick Brentlinger
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:46AM
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.
Opposing Views cut out the Link
Oops, sorry. Opposing Views cut out the Link I posted in the previous answer.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Getting-Saved.html
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:48AM
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.
Right, so just to be clear
The lists of who goes to hell are somewhat irrellevant. The only thing that determines your entrance into Heaven is your religious affiliation. Is that an accurate summary?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 10:49AM
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.
Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven
"The only thing that determines your entrance into Heaven is your religious affiliation. Is that an accurate summary?"
You ask some really intelligent questions quantummechanik but No, that is a common but entirely mistaken belief.
Religious affiliation is NOT what determines going to heaven or hell.
Whether or not you have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is what determines whether one goes to heaven or hell.
"Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by me." -John 14:6
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com
- Rick Brentlinger
June 10, 2009 1:05PM
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.
What would you call
a relationship with a particular deity, if not a religious affiliation?
- quantummechanik
June 10, 2009 3:59PM
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.
thus requiring religious affiliation?
"Whether or not you have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is what determines whether one goes to heaven or hell."
Does this not then REQUIRE following the Christian religion ? Or to phrase it another way... can a member of another religion still have 'a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ"... even if that religion explicitly (as in the case with Islam) or implicitly (as is the case with Shinto) denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.
- MrBook
June 10, 2009 5:03PM
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 Secret of the Ten Commandments
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com /
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:50AM
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.
Response to Absolutely not a sin
I read your post and thank you for writing. Not too many people take the time to listen and care for others, but I believe your conclusion is incomplete. Although indeed homosexuals may be from birth and it is not their fault, (that is my personal belief), it does not answer the fundamental question of is it correct behavior or "good behavior" for themselves or anyone else. If you determine what is good as doing as you feel compelled, well what if someone felt compelled to murder, or have sex with children since birth? What if they act on that compulsion, and truly many of these sociopaths are that way from birth. Are we to judge them? Yes, their actions are wrong. Do we condemn them? If they commit crimes, yes. But are the actions of homosexuals wrong in some sense? Absolutely. I can say that because I believe in an absolute moral law, someone who does not belive in a moral law beyond themselves cannot use the word absolute. Do we condemn them? No. Why? Have they taken the rights of another in their actions? No. So they are not doing illegal activity. So what do we as a society do? We love them, we treat them as equals, and we decide for ourselves what is morally correct. I believe it is immoral behavior, do I have that right to believe that, who is to tell me my philosophical beliefs , who is to tell them theirs? To ask a question is it a sin, unfortunately sets up both sides for a fight, it may be better to ask, should we live in the context of our own conciences having a view to the liberties of those in our society. I wonder if anyone would even ponder that one.
- Andante931
November 19, 2008 10:21PM
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 balance between a passing thought and action
I have gotten into many debates about this and I honestly believe that God is quite clear with what He declares is not natural and the act of homosexuality is. Though what must be stressed is that it is the only the action that is sinful. I know of many that have deep seated homosexuality and because of this they find it hard and they will probably never get to the point were they reverse their orientation (oh and another thing for those who believe that it is nature that causes homosexuality then why does the bible condemn it. God didn't make people like this, it's the world that fasions them this way). These people can choose a chase life, they can be gay but they aviod the relationships that most homosexual people have.
- Timmy September 11, 2008 2:14AM
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.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality(cont.)
the Christian gay that believes he's doing the right thing and is going to go to heaven is being deceived, and without fully seeing their sin and repenting of it...they are heading toward sorrow and suffering, whether they love God or not, He loves them, too, and doesn't want that to be their future, but He can't allow them into His presence unless there has been repentance and forgiveness. it's hard on both sides...trying to convince a gay Christian that they're heading for trouble (as they should know they are if they know their bible and what the scriptures clearly state), or the non-Christian gay, as they may not necessarily see the need for Christ in their life, if they haven't been explained to the reasons why we need Jesus as our personal Savior.
that's why i feel its crucial that the right witness is sent into the lives of both Christian and non, as there is so much anger towards Jesus and the "Christian" community, due largely to the wrong type of witnessing and preaching by those that attend glbt parades, festivals and events to "spread the Gospel".
i know, having attended the pride parades before, that the "Christians" that show up to these events are(more often than not) red-faced, veins bulging in their foreheads, screaming at these people messages of damnation, which i definitely feel is the wrong approach.
the world is so used to Christians who use these methods, and when they see them doing that, they think "why would i want to live like that" or "that's what Jesus is all about?", and they probably do more harm than good for God's kingdom. their intentions might be good, but their delivery is taken offensively, and if that's their method, i can see why.
what did Jesus do? and what would Jesus do?
i think if we're to reach this community, it needs to be done with love and in such a way that it comes across as that they are truly loved by ourselves and more importantly by Him, but its the lifestyle that is unhealthy and will ultimately lead to death.
like i said before, i know i was deceived for a long time, but i think its because i kept hanging onto other sins in my life, and once i gave everything over to Him i was finally able to start to be healed in every area.
so, yeah...it's the prayer of realizing our sin, and the resulting deliverance from it. it's hard, too, because i know i had alot of people around me that coddled my sin lifestyle, and filled me with "feel-good" vibes, saying "well, my "god" wouldn't send someone to hell for being gay"...and that's the first mistake right there. of course, their "god" wouldn't send someone to hell for being gay, because they have just created a "god" that fits their liking and approves of such things, whereas it states in scripture a number of times how wrong sexual sin is in the eyes of the Lord. i dont know how many times i'd be engaged in that type of discussion/debate with someone, but if they say their "god" wouldn't do that, then that in itself is idolatry, as they've just created their own "god". if that were the case, then there would also be a large portion of liars, and thieves, and murderers(all unrepentant) in heaven, and as i said before...God loves us, but He can't allow these things in His kingdom.
i have so many friends still in the lifestyle, and i pray daily for their salvation.
it breaks my heart that many won't turn to Him in time before its too late, but yet i pray that they may...
- darfox1 September 11, 2008 6:46AM
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.
If what you say is true, then God is an unjust God.
If what you say is true, and a murderer, rapist, or someone who is an awful person all of their lives, repents before death and goes to heaven, and yet a gay man/woman who hurts no one, but seems to "offend" people just by being themselves, can not go to heaven because they won't repent.......then that God is a not a God to me anymore, but the devil. I'm not religious as you can tell. This country was founded on religious freedom, and yet it seems we have no freedom not to believe what others choose for us to believe. I am not "saved" and I have not "found jesus" yet. Most likely I never will. Maybe that means I will go to hell, however, isn't that my choice to make and God's responsibility, not everyone else's, to judge me? Because it seems to me, that all the religious followers seem to think God can't handle his job, and want to do all the judging for him. Well, if you truly believe he is all powerful and is the one to judge him, why can't we leave homosexuals alone? Go after the really bad people, who hurt other people all the time, and then when that situation is taken care of, then take care of the lesser evils as you see them.
- michecrawfo1
September 15, 2008 9:57AM
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.
A Sin By Whose Standards?
I find it interesting that every entry here regards sin in the context of the Abrahamic religions, and most specifically Christianity. If we view the question from the context of other religions, such as Hindu, Buddism or Wicca we find different answers to this question. Many sects within the Eastern religions are more tolerant of homosexuality and do not consider it a sin. Wiccans do not consider homosexuality a sin. The Bible is not the only moral yardstick in the world.
- Pat Cheney
September 15, 2008 7:22PM
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.
Homosexuals without engaging in the sexual activities.
In response to your answer about a "broad" statement. Yes you are right, it is a broad statement, but I am one who is on the other side of the situation here. What do you say about a man who has been married for 24 years and then decides to cash in on the deal of family and wife. Not many would of guess that he had those tendencies. (not even myself for a long time) They became very noticeable when he stopped being involved with his church family and became involved in other activities. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as being a homosexual but not engaging in the activities of it; because I could vote "yes" on that idea, therefore the vote of "NO" to the question of is Homosexuality a Sin.
- lessofself September 16, 2008 11:20AM
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.
Been on both sides
As someone who spent ten years in the lesbian lifestyle before finding Christ and becoming a Christina, I can tell you that the mental and emotional junk I went through led me to believe that, “there has to be more to your life than this.” To base everything in your life around sexuality and sex is not healthy for anyone straight or gay. Sin is the human depravity that causes us to live and do things outside of health limits. I find that like myself and many others I knew, something in our lives led us to making the choice to live gay. Usually it was abuse, molestation, rejection, or parents speaking things over our lives that caused us to become confused about who we were made to be. No on eis born gay but people can be rejected before they even come out of the mothers womb. A baby knows If its wanted and can sense if its going to be harmed. Then again, we live in a society that defines life begins at conception. That’s a whole different issue.
- AUDREY September 19, 2008 1:52PM
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.
glad you seen the light
as far as the comment about a babies sense .im really confused about that i never sensed anything when i was in the wound as matter of fact i dont remember any of that. can anyone tell me what its like being in the wound.honestly i would really like to know. i guess i just missed out.
- blah
December 10, 2008 9:06PM
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.
Glad you are happy
Audrey, I'm glad you are happy with the choices you have made, but please try not to make the mistake of assuming that everyone's life, experience and sexuality mirrors your own.
I'm going to make some educated guesses, here, and you can feel free to disagree with them or disavow them as you like. You've made some assumptions about "all gay people," so it is, perhaps, only fair that others make a few about you.
Sometimes when you spend a lot of time thinking about a topic, your vision can become a little narrow and it is easy to assume that everyone else must be seeing things the same way you do. If they claim to see them differently, then it becomes quite natural to assume they must be lying.
However, if you can attempt to look beyond your own experience for a moment, it is important to know that there are many, MANY gay and lesbian people who were not abused, molested, rejected or overly controlled by our parents. Many gay people had perfectly average, typical, relatively uneventful childhoods.
You may have made "choices" in your early adulthood which caused you to decide to enter a relationship with a woman. Your innate ability to be sexually attracted to a woman, though, probably did not arise from any "choice" that you made or any bad experience in your childhood, but rather, from a sexual orientation which allowed you to be attracted to persons of either gender -- bisexuality. Some folks are more drawn to opposite gendered individuals while some are more drawn to same-gendered individuals. Some, however, seem to fall somewhere in the middle. And for a person who is already feeling confused and vulnerable because of a less-than-ideal childhood, such feelings for people of both genders might be quite confusing.
Onto that, then, you layer the convictions taught to you in childhood (or possibly adulthood) that same-gender attractions are "bad" or "sinful." Since you, as perhaps a bisexual woman -- I don't know you, and can only guess based upon the history you present -- feel attractions to both genders, it would be quite natural for you to assume that EVERYONE has a similar experience, but that some people choose the "wrong" gender, while others choose the "right" gender, and that those who choose the "wrong" gender are making a "sinful" choice, based upon the religious teachings you've been indoctrinated with, or chosen to follow.
You then may assume that you chose the "wrong" gender BECAUSE of those bad experiences in your childhood, and that if you hadn't had those experiences, you would not have been tempted to choose the "wrong" gender for your loving attachments.
The problem is, everyone is not you. Many people truly are NOT attracted to people of both genders. Most are attracted entirely or mostly to people of the opposite gender. Some, probably far fewer, are attracted entirely or mostly to people of their own gender. A few, probably like you, are attracted more or less equally to both. And regardless of whether we have idyllic childhoods, brutal childhoods, or something in between, we will still be attracted to the gender to which we are innately attracted.
It is really easy to draw conclusions about others based upon your own experiences, but probably more helpful and mature in the long run to LISTEN to the experiences and self-knowledge of others and to try to understand that their experiences and feelings are every bit as valid and true for them as yours are for you.
- Babaroni
December 12, 2008 5:48PM
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.
Homosexuality is not a sin...
Since the bible is interpreted in many ways, translated in numerous versions and how the old law does not apply to Christians—then no, homosexuality is not a sin. Why do religious zealots constantly tell homosexuals that they’re committing a sin by loving another person of the same gender? What about the woman sitting in the pew next to them who has been divorced, yet remarried again while her husband’s still alive? It’s adultery. People are judging based upon their interpretation of the bible, which ultimately separates people.
The old law is just that: old.
Look at Galatians chapter two verses 17 through 21:
"But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God’s approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one for those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.
That one sentence says it all: {“For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.”}
Then you have this passage:
“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ-and not because we have obeyed the law. ***For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law.***” ~Galatians 2:15-16
Relying on Jesus’ sacrifice is why love between two people is not wrong. The Old Law no longer binds us.
Then, the ex-gay woman chucked this scripture at me:
“Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t you fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers---none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.” Corinthians 6:9-11
They cherry picked that one and left the second part of that scripture out. It finishes off like this:
“There was a time when some of you were just like that, (before Christ), but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.”
If it’s “still” an abomination, then put down the shrimp scampi, because we’re all going hell anyway, as “religious” people will have it.
www.dtrant.blogspot.com
- dpasquella September 22, 2008 12:42PM
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.
Facts are yes its sin
Lets not distort Scripture. No where in scripture does it say "hey everyone its ok to have sex with anyone and anything." In fact the scriptures say the opposite. They don’t even condone more than one partner. However though it is sin this does not mean anyone should hate over it. Scriptures tell the opposite of this too. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I have friends who were and are gay. Though I don’t condone it, I often just share with them the love of Christ and let the Holy Spirit work in them. Ryan a friend from church uses to be gay. He still struggles sometimes, but now he has the strength of Christ. He also now has a family. He gave a speech once at church. It was beautiful.
- rkiser
September 25, 2008 5:37PM
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.
I think it's pretty clear...
When the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for two men engaging in sexual activity with one another, I think that's pretty convincing evidence that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God sees it as sinful behavior.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 4:56AM
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.
Not quite...
You are misquoting scripture, bagpiper. The passage to which you refer says for a man not to "lie with another man in beds of woman." While the meaning of this seems a bit obscure, it clearly is not a blanket condemnation of all same-gender sexuality. First, it doesn't even apply to women. Second, there is that troubling reference to "in beds of woman."
It would seem to indicate to me that a man who engages in sexual activity with another man in his wife's bed is being condemned here; not surprising, considering that this would be both a situation where someone who is ostensibly heterosexual is engaging in homosexual acts for some reason, and, perhaps more importantly, is commiting adultery in his own wife's bed.
- Babaroni
December 12, 2008 6:27PM
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.
Agree with another post:
Homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality...however, any sexual act outside of lawful marriage is a sin. i don't make a distinction there.
- lisajulia
October 8, 2008 7:28AM
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 quite the same
Homosexuality is not a sin. Sodomy is a sin, both within and without marriage.
- thefederalist
October 8, 2008 10:09AM
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.
Really?
So the government's approval determines whether an act is "sinful" or not?
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:08PM
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.
therefore?
Since homosexuals cannot get legally married in much of the United States then isn't most homosexuality a sin? I find the idea that what is and is not a sin in the eyes of God is determined by the laws of a mortal nation.
- MrBook
June 9, 2009 6:52AM
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.
Homosexuality is not a Sin, Homosexual Acts ARE
A person who has a sexual desire for someone of their same sex, does not commit a sin by having a desire.
However, if he indulges the desire in his imagination and then acts upon it (masturbation and/or sexual contact with another) then it becomes a sin.
Why is a homosexual act sinful? For the same reason that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin - it injures the people who indulge in it, destroys the presence of grace in the soul, and leads to a warping of the intellect and will, especially one's view of human dignity.
- Columcille
October 8, 2008 4:25PM
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 know this all too well!
As I have grown up I have seen the lustful behaviors and sexually driven relationships. I see this as a sin because it not only does a disservice to those involved but it is against what we were naturally created for, a man and a woman. If this were not a sin there would have been two guys in the beginning or two women for that matter. Since men and women were created for the purpose of completing each other as well as to reproduce it is easy to say that a homosexual relationship is sinful. That is what is taught however for Christian homosexuals such as myself it causes a major debate. God says no to this but every sin is forgiven if a person strives for a personal relationship with Christ.Therefore I believe it is a sin but nothing greater or less than any other sin such as murder, lying, betrayal, hatred, etc.
- chezdude1
October 9, 2008 4:27PM
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.
Leviticus 10-16 As presented from the Holy Bible
10. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14.And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- dadunique
October 11, 2008 3:42PM
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.
God's Word Is Valid
There is nothing more to say than I believe what GOD says is true and HIS spoken,written or revealed WORD is true. Alot of people just can't get it because they want to live how they want to live.
Can a homosexual prove he/she was born this way? and on what basis would you say that?
- REALITY
October 13, 2008 6:45AM
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.
According to the bible
It says in the bible about not lying with a man as you would a woman (directed at men). So yes, the bible classifies it as a sin. However, it says all sins are equal... so... that small lie you told last week is exactly the same as murdering 1000 people which is the same as stealing a pack of chewing gum which is the same as being gay. Any sin separates us from God so it doesn't matter how 'good' or how 'bad' you are. Romans 3v23 says that 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'.
Or in another version and a bit longer:
Romans 3 vs 21-24
'But in our time something new has been added. What Moses and the prophets witnessed to all those years has happened. The God-setting-things-right that we read about has become Jesus-setting-things-right for us. And not only for us, but for everyone who believes in him. For there is no difference between us and them in this. Since we've compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us, God did it for us. Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we're in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ.'
Basically God knew that man would never be perfect again so he needed someone to take away the sin that separated us from him so he sent Jesus who took all our sin and set us free from the punishment that we deserve. Because he loves us he gave us a simple way out of hell. Jesus. He 'restored us to where he always wanted us to be'.
- XLX
November 3, 2008 4:00PM
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.
Yes of course
The commons sense answer is of course it is a sin. Those that beleive in scriptures and our heritage know that it is a sin. Those that are practicing this behavior know in their hearts it is wrong. The bible speaks of a time when that which is good is said to be bad and that which is bad will be said to be good. We will then know that the end is coming soon. The radical approach to this situation is proof enough of the legitimate points that I make. Look at how the homosexual audience responded to the recent vote in California. They were ok with voting for BO even though he said marriage is for men and women yet they didn't picket the Black race who voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They didn't picket the Muslims who are on record as being against gay marriage. They violently went after the LDS church. A church that is very very small and have always been against gay marriage and who are only exercising their God given right to disagree. So why the violent approach? Simple really. You lose it when you know in your heart you are wrong.
- heroman
November 12, 2008 7:04PM
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.
Bible,Shmyble!
I don't believe the Bible was created or related to the exesentence of GOD. If god thinks Homosexuality a sin, Then why would he make Homosexual's? Not to be ridduculed! It's purposturous to assume that Cause it's in the bible that it's real! There are many things in the bible that don't make sence, this being one of them. I think the bible might be a Fictionary tale. It is not a sin! Cause if it was then he would make people born with knives in there hands and a motive to kill! Then if being gay is such a sin, then what are the people that critisize people for who they are? Not sinning? Judgeing people,Not sinning? People shouldn't judge people like that. Is it a sin?Not anymore than judgeing someone who is.If it's a sin that their gay, then it's a sin that your straight.
- Kawaii
December 15, 2008 5:10PM
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.
Sin
According to the bible, God created man and woman without sin. But sin entered the world through the means of a serpent(satan)and influenced the two to fall from God's grace by eating of the tree he commanded them not to eat, which was the first sin. After that everything kind of went to pot and nothing is what God had intended it to be. The whole world and everything pretty much sucks because of it. There's death, desease, anger, sadness, immorality, evil etc. because of that first sin. For a long time death was the only atonement for sin, because God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate of that tree they would surely die. So, people had to sacrifice their purest/spottless animal to make up for their sins. That was until Jesus came and sacrificed himself for everyone's sins, commited and uncommited. Now I could totally see how someone could look at it as a fairy tale made up by cavemen or something, because it does sound crazy doesn't it? It's hard to believe any of it. But is it just as hard to believe that everything we see, touch or feel just created itself and it happens to all work just right? Not one molecule or one fragment is out of place. If the earth and atmosphere were any larger or smaller, we wouldn't be here.I just happen to think that it's harder to believe the pieces "just happened" to fall perfectly together without something greater behind it all. Everything has a beginning.SO, God didn't create us the way we are today, we became this way as a result of that first sin. I'm just explaining it as interpreted from the bible. Not trying to argue. Thanks
- blond2much
February 2, 2009 2:44PM
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.
To Pastor Rick
Just out of curiosity do you have any information on these 40 (or 10 year etc) year committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships there are? Such would be a starting point (I just signed up today).
- Esdraelon
February 13, 2009 9:25AM
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.
So, if a homosexual isn't affiliated with any religion..
I don't study the Bible, so I'm not exactly if this is true, but from what I've heard, the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin. If this is true, what if someone who is homosexual doesn't believe in the Bible? What if they're affiliated with another religion? Or no religion? Then, would their personal choice be considered a sin?
Many would consider murder wrong. Killing impacts another directly. Choosing someone of the same sex to be a life parter is a personal choice that only directly impacts the two that are involved, and perhaps to some extent, their family and friends. That isn't harming anyone. They make their choices. You make your own.
- deepikaur
March 1, 2009 6:35PM
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.
scripture never said homosexuality was a sin
all scripture is god breathed(1tim)
but scripture never said homosexuality was a sin.
under the old covenant not all prohibitions of themselves were sins.
num 15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
doing household chores is not a sin. the essence doing household chores on the sabbath is not sin. yet under the old covenant because god made a prohibition about it it became a sin.
hebrews 8: 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
- FEETXXXL
March 4, 2009 8:11PM
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.
homosexuality is not a sin
under the new covenant.......... 1thess 5:21 test everything, keep the good. how can we test the law if we are still under it and have a canonical relation to it as in deut 28
as believers our test is as specified in 1john1 "that which have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched."
it is a test of witness thru fellowship of the holy spirit, thru the one who lives in each believer(the triune god)of walking in the light.
it is a witness to test where the spirit of christ(god) rests. because wherever the spirit of god rests that is what is approved by god.
the witness of believers is that believing homosexual lives and marriages are filled by the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages.
jesus said "you will recognize them by their fruit" fruit being the fruit of the spirit because it is of the fruit of the spirit that we lay up treasures in heaven..............these are the things that last.
about all this energy about moral law . in romans paul said we are no longer under the law but grace. paul in romans says that under the new covenant we are now led and serve of the spirit. that we are callled to a higher standard of fulfilling the law(love) rather than following it. because now our conviction about sin is from our heart with the one who lives in us, rather than thru a set of laws about controling are outward physical lives. the law is now for making us conscious of sin..........conscious of loving our neighbor as ourselves.................. the summation of all the law. but it is the spirit that convicts our hearts about our sin.
the conviction is thru godly sorrow in our hearts, and it is without regret.(2cor7:7-10)
if king david had loved his neighbor as himself( under the new covenant the 2nd commandment is the summation of all the law(romans)) he would never have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.
- FEETXXXL
March 4, 2009 8:54PM
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.
Homosexuality is Not a Sin when Interpreted properly
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality . These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=10620&pid=805
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/about/homosexuality.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com /
Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.
This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.
- ShadowMan
March 21, 2009 3:45AM
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.
The true meaning of Leviticus and Romans
----------------------------
Leviticus
----------------------------
Leviticus is commonly misinterpreted to refer to homosexuals with the following 2 verses:
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
These verses have nothing to do with homosexuality when you look at the rest of Leviticus and other passages. Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.
The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.
It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.
Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
--------------------------------
Romans
--------------------------------
This is another passage commonly taken out of context. Romans was not talking about homosexuality, it was referring to idolatrous practices and other sins.
Letters from the Apostle Paul Romans 1:26-27
If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching .
Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.
Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.
The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
- ShadowMan
March 21, 2009 3:50AM
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.
More passages commonly misinterpreted
=========
SODOM
=========
The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality ."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder , disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.
All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY. The story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.
====================
CORINTHIANS
====================
This passage virtually shows how many twist and change God's words to spread hate.
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.
Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.
Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.
First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.
Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)
Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.
- ShadowMan
March 23, 2009 3:12PM
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.
Re: Corinthians
KJV 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Homosexuals would fall under fornicators or "pornos" since there are no homosexual marriages.
- Screen Name
April 8, 2009 2:15AM
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.
There is a problem with the question
The field has not been marked out clearly. This is a very open ended question.
What results is that people from all types of faiths and beliefs give contradicting views. Which is fine if you are not looking for something conclusive: however if this is to be debated clearly, would it not be better to define the questions?
Sin according to who? or what? Are we looking at the
Judeo-Christian bible ? The Jewish scriptures? The Qu'an?
You cannot lump this question into believers V non believers.
If the question were asked more specifically like:
According to the Judeo- Christian bible is homosexuality a sin?
In this case people from all faiths can reason from the biblical perspective to answer the question rather than asking the question is the bible correct / altered or any other host of questions.
As a non believer it would be a great objective undertaking to answer it from the bible point of view, weather you agree or not.
You can put forward the question " is the bible trustworthy" at another time, for it is a subject completely on its own.
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 3:05PM
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.
Your "Expert"
The question's legitimate, I suppose, but the answer is obviously no. A sin must be an action, and homosexuality is NOT an action. It's not something you DO, it's something you ARE. It also must be chosen, and sexual orientation is NOT chosen.
However, my major objection comes from your supposed "expert." That as an expert on this topic you chose the insidious hate group "Exodus" to give their proven lies is horrifying. Not ONLY do they promote the hateful lie that it's a "sin" to be gay, blasphemously misusing twisted and out of context scripture as their weapon, but they also promote a far more insidious and dangerous lie...that they can "cure" homosexuality, turn gay people into straight people.
This is not only a PROVEN lie...there is no such thing as a former homosexual...but this lie destroys countless lives. EVERY credible mental health authority confirms that not only can a gay person not EVER turn into a heterosexual, but that it causes tremendous damage to try. You should be aware that of the two founders of this hate group, one is still promoting the lie of being a "former homosexual" even though he's admitted in interviews that he still "struggles with temptation"
In other words, he's still attracted romantically and physically to men.
In other words, he's still homosexual. Being celebate, or even forcing yourself to have sex with women, doesn't change this fact.
On the other hand, the OTHER of the two founders of Exodus now admits the entire thing was a fraud, and is now living as what he ALWAYS really was...a gay man.
Intentionally causing harm to people is a moral outrage. To pretend to be a "Christian" group while doing so is blasphemy of the worst kind, like the KKK pretending to be a "Christian" group. Exodus should be removed from your site, they're no "expert" in anything except promoting bigotry and lies.
- Dad
May 8, 2009 9:13AM
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.
we all have sinned
You ask is being gay a sin.One sin is not as bad as another sin and we all have sinned.You without sin cast the frist stone.JESUS LOVES US ALL. HE DIED FOR YOU.COME TO JESUS today.COME
- zman
May 30, 2009 9:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Who cares?
Why worry about it? "Sin" is only a concern if you buy into that particular mythology anyway. Besides, any religion 's idea of "immoral" shouldn't necessarily be "illegal". As long as you are harming no innocent person (someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed right now) what you do is no one's business but your own.
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:01PM
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.
presupposed worldview
To even ask this question requires a worldview where Sin exists. This is not a legal or moral issue, it is a Christian one, and is only valid if your worldview includes the concept of Sin.
- MrBook
June 9, 2009 6:47AM
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.
What is a Sin?
Homosexuality is NOT a sin; ignorance is. The bible is based on OPINIONS of what is "Wrong" or "Right". The bible is fiction book, in my opinion.
- The Antagonist
July 13, 2009 11:55PM
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.
The centurion's pais
If Jesus didn't condemn Gays why should we? When Jesus healed the centurion's servant the word for servant was pais. Pais denotes a gay relationship. But Jesus didn't condemn the relationship?
- mike1948
August 1, 2009 1:28AM
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.
Recoculous
The entire concept of sin is ludicrous. The funniest thing about people that think this way is that they are the pure definition of hypocrite. They take the Bible verbatim, yet they choose what to take verbatim (another discussion if this is a verbatim sin all together) when it benefits but ignore when it doesn't. For example, the concept of casting the first stone, or the concept that only God can decide right and wrong, or the belief that Jesus supposedly hung out with the dregs of society because they had the first chance at heaven. Those who persecute are the most likely candidates for Hell. While I don't believe in any of this malarkey, the concept that something which is not one's choice is a sin is hilarious. Leave homosexuals alone, they are generally nicer and more generous people and closer to the false image we portray of Jesus than any of the finger pointing focus on the family, Southern Baptist morons in this country.
- remeadial
August 2, 2009 11:01PM
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.
Hypocrites.
I am a fundamentalist Christian, I take the Bible as it is written. I also have know many gays and don't think homosexually is a sin. Jesus did not judge gays and taught that we should judge anyone. It is disturbing to me that people get turned off Christianity by a few vocal hypocrites.
- mike1948
August 3, 2009 3:39PM
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.
Homosexuality is what God made us!
If we accept what the church has always taught us that God created us in his Image and that God would never creat imperfect humans, than how can Gays be considered sinful as a group? Most scientific and theological scholars have determined that gays don't make choices to be gay but are born with this! I never wanted to be gay-but to have a loving wife and kids and live a life devoid of discrimination and sorrow at times! We are all sinners but if you lead a righteous life and follow the example Jesus set for us by loving an acepting everyone, than we will be in heaven! Jesus Christ never once preached against homosexuals-there is no shred of evidence in the New Testament.
I personally do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible
because it has been interpreted so many times over the years and when you do that, we lose certain meanings as a result. The far right has always needed to find scapgoat for their hate-being blacks during the civil rights era, the fight over abortion rights or now attacking and spreading lies and contempt towards gays and lesbian people. We are
making progress but is slow and ever forward despite the huge amount of money and hatred that spews from the so-called religious right and other fanatics! I wonder after they fail trying to convince the American people how wicked and terrible we are, who will they single out for their hatred? Native Americans or maybe the Canadians?
- philly53
August 30, 2009 8:32PM
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 it is
It isn't popular to go against the so called "politically correct" agenda that seems to be sweeping the world, but a spade is still a spade. God's very own book states clearly that homosexuality is an abomination. You don't have to like it, you don't have to adhere to it, but don't pretend it isn't there. It's a sin just as much as adultry, murder , stealing, bearing false witness, or any other of the countless disgusting things we do. Before they start to change the Bible, they should realize there are some specific verses there that pertain to those who do just that.
- chief45
September 1, 2009 8:08PM
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.
A sin is a sin
And how many shellfish have you eaten in your life?
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 9:45PM
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.
typical
I don't see anywhere in my comment where I said I haven't sinned, if that's what you mean. But an interesting side point is that I "don't" eat shellfish, but for other reasons. If you're trying to say that the old testiment is mute, that fails, as I believe the 10 commandments are in there? Something about not murdering and the like...I think that would still be in effect.
- chief45
September 2, 2009 8:06AM
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.
Sabbath.
A better question would have been, do you worship on Saturday or Sunday?
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 10:49AM
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'm Jewish
I am old testament as anything. So that I still go with. I just wonder how it still applies that Christians can debate what constitutes sin, what the ramifications of that are, etc. when sin, to you guys, is like oxygen. Everyone has it, everyone has it in equal amounts, and no one is any better than anyone else because everyone breathes. A thief is the equivalent of a murderer, a homosexual is the equivalent of a married guy who thinks some other lady is quite attractive. Sin is sin, consummated or unconsummated, as the case may be.
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Sin.
As a Christian I want to tell you that Jesus couldn't have said it any better!
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 10:49PM
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.
This begs the question
If, on a supernatural level, lust of any sort counts the same consummated or unconsummated, why not just go ahead and consummate. You can't get in any worse trouble, and if it makes you happy...
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:09PM
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.
1+!=2
Thinking it is one sin, doing it is a second sin. Is thinking about murdering someone just as bad as actually murdering him?
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 11:22PM
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.
Logical Morality
"Because God says so" is not an acceptable answer on its own, for if homosexuality really is immoral then there should be a a logical explanation to support it. God would not forbid something without reason. The ill effects of homosexuality should be observable in society.
Most respectable scientific organizations that have done research on homosexuality have concluded:
1) Homosexuals are just as stable, healthy, and functional as heterosexuals.
2) People do not choose their sexual orientation.
3) Homosexuals desire the same things from their relationships as heterosexuals (companionship, love, raise families); they are not simply perverse and sex driven.
4) Attempting to change sexual orientation is usually ineffectual and can be psychologically damaging.
List of Health Organizations that analyzed the research and issued policies in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, American Counseling Association, American Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, American Academy of Family Physicians, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American School Counselor Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association.
Scientific evidence is hard to refute, but many still try. Some argue that their research is effected by liberal bias . This is complete fallacy. These organizations are national groups that represents people from a diverse range of political, religious, and racial backgrounds. These organizations do research on many topics out sexual orientations and have no invested interest in supporting homosexuals .
- jeremiahjoplin
October 24, 2009 7:14PM
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.
Knowing God's Original Intent
It is dangerous to argue that we as humans know God's intent. To simply state "God's original intent is..." is simply an opinion, not a fact. These statements have been used throughout history, but are based more in traditions than in factual evidence. Several opinions about "God's intent" have shown to be false.
At one time people believed that God did not create all races equal and that slavery is acceptable. This is very easy to be supported Biblically, for there is a consistent opinion throughout scripture that slaves must submit to their master, and the Bible states "slaves are property." Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. If you believe owning another person as property is wrong, you will not be able to support that Biblically. It was believed that women were not created equal to men and women have a lower mental capacity than men; women must submit to men. People argued God separated the races for a reason and therefore races should not intermarry. There are Bible verses that, when taken literally, support all of these statements.
The churched condemned Galileo as a heretic because he said the earth revolved around the sun. Their understanding was that God created the earth and put humans on it. Therefore, the earth must be the center of the universe. Many well respected religious such as John Calvin and Martin Luther quoted scripture against Galileo. They could not get past their understanding of God's Intent.
We cannot know God's original intent and therefore cannot use this as an argument.
- jeremiahjoplin
October 24, 2009 8:11PM
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.