Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't have a religion and being gay is fine by me. What about you guys??

As an agnostic, I'd say I don't know.

According to Christianity, same-sex sex between men is immoral. I know Christians usually don't based everything on the Bible (Sola Scriptura) but at the same time any new Christian revelation should not contradict the Bible either, it should be an addition or supplement to it. And if God changed something then he should've done a better job letting people know.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not so sure of that reasoning. Besides, the inverted cross is a Christian symbol in the first place. It's the Cross of St. Peter.

I somehow doubt most Pagans would have been aware of that at the time. But this was what I read about it from many Heathen websites.

There definitely is. It's a fertility symbol.

Thor is a fertility God, after all. ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

The human mind sees symbology even when there isn't any.

Thor's hammer.... is a hammer nothing more.

The Christian cross.......is the means of Roman Capitol punishment, nothing more. It's shape is the most logical shape to have if you are trying to crucify a Homo Sapien. It has no more meaning then a triangle.

The human mind is also quick to declare complete nonexistence when it does not have any first-hand experience of something, or is somehow unable to conceive of something.

The various meanings of symbols are subjective, determined by the observer and generally with peer-agreement. If you declare that people who interpret other meanings in the symbols of Thor's Hammer and the Christian Cross as somehow "wrong" because there's no objective meaning outside literal interpretation or "original" context, then I question how you reconcile that perception with the ability to communicate. After all, letters are objectively nothing more than scribbles, and yet the fact that we can derive meaning from the scribblings is one of the most fundamental aspects of modern life, and the inability for some to do so is conceptually associated with mental retardation and/or cultural barbarism. Remember that even what letters mean what will change from language to language, and through history. The English "bow" and French "beau" are pronounced almost exactly the same, assuming the speaker is using the same accent for both, but the former also has a different pronunciation for a different context. There also used to be two separate letters for 'th': ð (voiced) and þ (unvoiced). Both are still sometimes found in other European languages. (IOW, it's not Thor, it's Þórr.)

The Christian Cross is the symbol of Christianity, definitely more than its original image of a form of capital punishment, because various cultures around the world, including our own, have agreed to regard it as such. If the Heathen community agrees to regard the standard image of Thor's Hammer as being phallic to some degree, than phallic it shall be in addition to being a hammer. After all, objectively speaking, it's not a hammer at all; it's just a random symmetrical shape often drawn on some kind of surface or shaped with some kind of material into a decoration. It doesn't even resemble a modern hammer.

Just as the letter A can have many different meanings depending on the context, so can symbols have different meanings depending on context. If you think that such things can carry no meaning whatsoever, or are only capable of having a single meaning, then observe(preferably in your mind) the reactions of people in a Buddhist Temple and a Jewish Synagogue to an open display of a swastika.

After all, a triangle may have no meaning in itself, but bring three of them together and arrange them in the right way, and you get the Triforce. ^_^ (Or the crest of the Hojo Clan, for the historically minded.)

 

[Ingledsva]

As a Atheist I do not believe in a sin concept. However, when I was younger and a practicing Catholic I was taught that homosexuality was sin. This was taught at my local church and my interpretation reading the bible. The Catholic church still holds this view. This is from their website.

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

The website is Catholic dot com/homosexuality

According to the religion? No.
According to some in the religion? Yes.

I just showed you what the official position was of the Catholic church and it's 1,000,000,000 followers. If a Catholic follower does not agree with that then they are not a Catholic, plain and simple.

:yes:

I was raised Catholic - and that site is fudging (lying about) the FACTS.


They KNOW that a "Sodomite" was a Sacred Qadash.


Look up "sodomite" in a Strong's.


It will take you to "6945" - "a QADESH," a Sacred Temple Prostitute.


No homosexuals involved in the Sodom story.


They didn't accept the "pure" women because they were there to JUDGE and TAKE JUDGEMENT on the Angels - before the Angels could JUDGE and pass JUDGEMENT on them.


The word they use to imply that they wanted sex is "yada," to know.


Yada also means to ascertain - to make a judgment.


YHVH uses the word in a previous verse where he says he is going down to "yada."


I'm guessing they mistranslated "yada" in the Sodom story, and God wasn't going down for Gay sex!


What do you think?

*

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I was raised Catholic - and that site is fudging (lying about) the FACTS.


They KNOW that a "Sodomite" was a Sacred Qadash.


Look up "sodomite" in a Strong's.


It will take you to "6945" - "a QADESH," a Sacred Temple Prostitute.


No homosexuals involved in the Sodom story.


They didn't accept the "pure" women because they were there to JUDGE and TAKE JUDGEMENT on the Angels - before the Angels could JUDGE and pass JUDGEMENT on them.


The word they use to imply that they wanted sex is "yada," to know.


Yada also means to ascertain - to make a judgment.


YHVH uses the word in a previous verse where he says he is going down to "yada."


I'm guessing they mistranslated "yada" in the Sodom story, and God wasn't going down for Gay sex!


What do you think?

*

Your translational assessments are correct however I think it's pretty obvious looking at the context they were using "to know" euphemistically. Conversely where YHVH comes down he is literally trying to know ( to discern)
( so much for omniscience).

So what' the context?

• Not only did Lot offer his two daughters immediately after the mob wanted to know them, he makes a point that his daughters are virgins, implying the offer was to satisfy the mobs sexual desires.

• When the Lot tells the mob no they respond saying that will do to Lot worse then what they will do to the two angels. How can you hurt someone if you are literally just trying to know them?

• Other references to S & G. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7

Although I understand that many people are much more accepting of homosexuality then they were in the past, what I cannot understand is why people are trying to irrationally revise institutions that traditionally have been against homosexuality. Political Correctness has gotten so far it overlooks the obvious moral degradations in lieu of current Liberal teachings.

" What YHVH is just a mass-murder of children?!?!?! Thank goodness! For a second I thought you were implying he is homophobic...pheww"

Is really how some of you guys come off.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Dogma and social teachings aren't the same things. I hardly care what the Vatican or conservative apologetics sites like catholic.com have to say about sexual issues since they are disregarding modern science on the subject and are stuck in a faulty "natural law" understanding of it from the Middle Ages which needs to be thrown out and the teachings completely revised in light of new knowledge.

I've been thinking long and hard about this for years. I don't appreciate smug anti-theists like you using what is often a very difficult emotional and social journey to go through (LGBT Christians coming to terms with being both) in order to score "points" in bashing us.

I am not a anti-theist. All of my friends and family are theists ( Christians). Even my wife! I even have cousin who is a witch! Well, I guess technically he would be a Warlock but he identifies himself as a solitary witch.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not a anti-theist. All of my friends and family are theists ( Christians). Even my wife! I even have cousin who is a witch! Well, I guess technically he would be a Warlock but he identifies himself as a solitary witch.

Fair enough. My apologies.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Your translational assessments are correct however I think it's pretty obvious looking at the context they were using "to know" euphemistically. Conversely where YHVH comes down he is literally trying to know ( to discern)
( so much for omniscience).

So what' the context?

• Not only did Lot offer his two daughters immediately after the mob wanted to know them, he makes a point that his daughters are virgins, implying the offer was to satisfy the mobs sexual desires.

• When the Lot tells the mob no they respond saying that will do to Lot worse then what they will do to the two angels. How can you hurt someone if you are literally just trying to know them?

• Other references to S & G. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7

Although I understand that many people are much more accepting of homosexuality then they were in the past, what I cannot understand is why people are trying to irrationally revise institutions that traditionally have been against homosexuality. Political Correctness has gotten so far it overlooks the on bio us moral degradations in lieu of current Liberal teachings.

" What YHVH is just a mass-murder of children?!?!?! Thank goodness! For a second I thought you were implying he is homophobic...pheww"

Is really how some of you guys come off.

Great post!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Dogma and social teachings aren't the same things. I hardly care what the Vatican or conservative apologetics sites like catholic.com have to say about sexual issues since they are disregarding modern science on the subject and are stuck in a faulty "natural law" understanding of it from the Middle Ages which needs to be thrown out and the teachings completely revised in light of new knowledge.

I've been thinking long and hard about this for years. I don't appreciate smug anti-theists like you using what is often a very difficult emotional and social journey to go through (LGBT Christians coming to terms with being both) in order to score "points" in bashing us.

How do you know that Christianity is supposed to be aligned with current scientific facts? Shouldn't an all-knowing god have factored these facts into his rules already rather than leaving it up to man to decide what to revise and/or unrevise (just in case scientists reverse their position on a matter)?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How do you know that Christianity is supposed to be aligned with current scientific facts? Shouldn't an all-knowing god have factored these facts into his rules already rather than leaving it up to man to decide what to revise and/or unrevise (just in case scientists reverse their position on a matter)?

I don't believe that the Law was handed down directly from Heaven. Much of it was tribal codes that have nothing to do with us today. Christians do not live under the burden of the Law, we live by Spirit and Grace.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't believe that the Law was handed down directly from Heaven. Much of it was tribal codes that have nothing to do with us today. Christians do not live under the burden of the Law, we live by Spirit and Grace.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

The OT says the law came from God. Many times the law is called holy.
So it was okay for god to kill homosexuals and discriminate against them in the OT even though homosexuality was always unchangeable?

In the NT Christians aren't supposed to sin so at least the moral rules from the Law still apply.

Living by Spirit and Grace does not involve or mean that we live by scientific facts. Science as a system of inquiry did not exist back then nor would everyone have access to peer-reviwed journals to have the info. to begin with. Scientists could've told them dead men don't rise from the dead

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The Bible is not a science textbook.

.... But still it is a book full of moral instructions. You don't need science for morals..just look at OT or how Christians got their knowledge prescience.. Morals supposedly were revealed by God

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The OT says the law came from God. Many times the law is called holy.

Jesus refuted the Law and moved us beyond it. Even in the OT, God was angry at the Jews for being legalistic instead of being compassionate and merciful, which is what He wanted most of all. The Pharisees are the sect that took this legalism to an extreme and they were the sect that was most in conflict with Christ. (Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisee movement and so you have the lives of Ultra-Orthodox Jews micro-managed by rules every second of the day.)

The Law of Grace is what Christ came to proclaim.

So it was okay for god to kill homosexuals and discriminate against them in the OT even though homosexuality was unchangeable?

God did nothing of the sort.

In the NT Christians aren't supposed to sin so at least the moral rules from the Law still apply.

We don't follow the Mosaic Law. We are to pursue justice, love and compassion.

Living by Spirit and Grace does not involve or mean that we live by scientific facts. Science as a system of inquiry did not exist back then nor would everyone have access to peer-reviwed journals to have the info. to begin with. Scientists could've told them dead men don't rise from the dead

Science and religion are two different fields that tell us about two different levels of reality.

The Resurrection is a miracle. God is not bound to scientific law.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

.... But still it is a book full of moral instructions. You don't need science for morals..just look at OT or how Christians got their knowledge prescience.. Morals supposedly were revealed by God

We get our moral views from Christ, above all.

 

[sojourner]

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

The biggest problem I have with the blurb here is that the dissenting opinion is labeled as "homosexual activism." While it is true that homosexual activists may cabbage onto the newer (and, I believe, more exegetically-honest) interpretation as a means of supplying their side of the argument with biblical authority, one needs to understand that the exegesis informing this interpretation is not largely driven by homosexual activism, but by a deeper and more critical application of theological and anthropological criticism to the pericope in question, and a desire for interpretation to be as honest as possible.

The fact is that it's the issue of hospitality that informs the inclusion of the rape scene in the story, and that hospitality is, indeed, the central concern, based upon several indicators in the story. Not only (as Ezekiel says) did Sodom "not aid the poor and needy," she also failed to show hospitality to the main characters in several significant ways. First, no one met the visitors at the city gates (it was the hospitable custom for the city elders to congregate at the city gates to greet newcomers). Second, no place was provided for the visitors to stay; they were found in the square. It is significant to note that it is, finally, a stranger (Lot) who offers hospitality, and not the citizens, themselves. It is further a sign of inhospitality that the citizens intend to rape the visitors, for the hospitality code at the time would have placed the onus on the citizens to keep their visitors safe -- not to perpetrate harm upon them. In fact, the article does concede that Ezekiel mentions a lack of hospitality. The reference to Jude has little bearing here, since it is a Greek opinion from a much later time period.

Suffice to say that the article reflects an outdated exegetical view of the pericope and need not have any significant weight given to it.

I just showed you what the official position was of the Catholic church and it's 1,000,000,000 followers. If a Catholic follower does not agree with that then they are not a Catholic, plain and simple.

That's a conflation of the facts. Homosexuality and sin is not an infallible or cornerstone teaching of the church. Therefore, one may conscientiously dissent on this matter and remain a faithful Catholic.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We get our moral views from Christ, above all.

In trinitarian doctrine, what is the difference between getting moral views from Christ and morals revealed by God?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In trinitarian doctrine, what is the difference between getting moral views from Christ and morals revealed by God?

None, since Christ is God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

None, since Christ is God.

I might be missing something so apologies if I am.

But then what exactly did that post mean? That appears to be saying the same thing as what it quoted?

And if morals were revealed by Christ, how can the sexual laws be outdated or anything of the sort?

And I don't think it's true that the Mosaic Law is abolished. What of this? “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I might be missing something so apologies if I am.

But then what exactly did that post mean? That appears to be saying the same thing as what it quoted?

And if morals were revealed by Christ, how can the sexual laws be outdated or anything of the sort?

Even if the sexual laws were still in force, they weren't talking about homosexuality as we understand it today.

And I don't think it's true that the Mosaic Law is abolished. What of this? “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

Christ fulfilled the Spirit of the Law and the prophecies. That's all that's saying.

 

[Ingledsva]

I was raised Catholic - and that site is fudging (lying about) the FACTS.


They KNOW that a "Sodomite" was a Sacred Qadash.


Look up "sodomite" in a Strong's.


It will take you to "6945" - "a QADESH," a Sacred Temple Prostitute.


No homosexuals involved in the Sodom story.


They didn't accept the "pure" women because they were there to JUDGE and TAKE JUDGEMENT on the Angels - before the Angels could JUDGE and pass JUDGEMENT on them.


The word they use to imply that they wanted sex is "yada," to know.


Yada also means to ascertain - to make a judgment.


YHVH uses the word in a previous verse where he says he is going down to "yada."


I'm guessing they mistranslated "yada" in the Sodom story, and God wasn't going down for Gay sex!


What do you think?

Your translational assessments are correct however I think it's pretty obvious looking at the context they were using "to know" euphemistically. Conversely where YHVH comes down he is literally trying to know ( to discern)
( so much for omniscience).


ING - I do not agree. When a word is used twice by main characters, it is done so for a reason. God and the crowd use it. And by the way it is ALL the people - not just the men. The first use - is God using it to mean ascertain and pass judgment, and that is absolutely the same meaning used by the crowd. Send out the angels so we may "judge them and pass judgment."


So what' the context?

• Not only did Lot offer his two daughters immediately after the mob wanted to know them, he makes a point that his daughters are virgins, implying the offer was to satisfy the mobs sexual desires.

ING - The word also means pure, which relates to the crowd wanting to "JUDGE" the angels/messengers. They did not want substitutes. They wanted those whom came to JUDGE THEM.

• When the Lot tells the mob no they respond saying that will do to Lot worse then what they will do to the two angels. How can you hurt someone if you are literally just trying to know them?

ING - You didn't pay attention in the story. YHVH's "YADA" is "to ascertain and pass judgment," as he had heard the cry of the people. This is NOT just to "know." The angels have come from God to "ascertain and PASS JUDGMENT" (which they ultimately did.) Thus the angry crowd wants to turn the tide - get hold of the angels - judge (ascertain) them, and pass judgment on them - first.

• Other references to S & G. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7

ING - Fornication covers sex - period. It does obviously des not make this about homosexuality, and we know from multiple verses in Tanakh, that "Strange Flesh" refers to foreign women and Sacred Sex. NOWEHERE in the verses about Sodom is homosexuality mentioned.


Although I understand that many people are much more accepting of homosexuality then they were in the past, what I cannot understand is why people are trying to irrationally revise institutions that traditionally have been against homosexuality. Political Correctness has gotten so far it overlooks the obvious moral degradations in lieu of current Liberal teachings.


ING - What BULL! There is NO moral degradation in being Homosexual!

2. The majority - if not ALL - of the so-called against homosexuality verses - are actually against the sin of Idolatry through SACRED SEX.

Since they try to "erroneously" use these Sacred Sex verses against Gay people, - WE WILL CORRECT THEM!


" What YHVH is just a mass-murder of children?!?!?! Thank goodness! For a second I thought you were implying he is homophobic...pheww"

Is really how some of you guys come off.

I do not know what you are talking about with that last one?

I am NOT a Christian, - I am arguing what the Bible ACTUALLY translates to, -and I have posted on the illogical idea that a loving God murders the innocent for the sins of others.

*

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Gen 18:21 Descend now to discern (if the) cry (that has) come before me is altogether of a truth or not, (and) if not (I will) yada/ascertain and Judge.


That “KNOW” in 18:21 is YADA – ascertain-judge-punish.

The purpose of the “angels” is to SEE and ASSERTAIN for the purpose of punishment.

This is emphasized in Gen 19:9


Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Gen 19:4 Before bedtime the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded about the house, young and old together as a human wall.


"Enosh" is also PEOPLE - It uses "aner" when the people ask "where are the men..."

So it is males AND females, young and old!


Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (yada - ascertain and judge) them.


Then, in 19:8, Lot tries to give them his virgin (pure) sacrifice) daughters instead, but they DON”T ACCEPT THEM. Telling us why they are actually there in 19:9.

Gen19:9 (But) they said, "nagash" (Strong's - to adduce an argument, Dictionary - adduce - to cite an example or means of PROOF in an argument!) stand aback, and said, united/together they came here to JUDGE/punish; so (we) JUDGE/punish henceforth as wicked them. (Then) Pressed the people against Lot mightily to approach and break the door.


So it would appear, even though Lot offered his daughters, they where not there to have sex with the angels, or anyone else!

It is also interesting that “asah” which also means sacrifice, is used in 19:8 where he tries to give his daughters.

So instead of the usual understanding of “sex with my daughters instead of the men,” he is saying “make a sacrifice of my pure daughters in place of these men you want to judge (and take vengeance on,) which are under my protection.”




*