Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ingledsva]

Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia, about the sinking of the Titanic, slot machines, beastiality, and a million other things, does that mean he agreed with pedophilia ? You are right, homosexual marriage didn't exist in mid century Jewish society, it was considered wrong and sinful. When Christ spoke of marriage he only spoke of men and women. If homosexual marriage was to be acceptable, why didn't he speak of it ? He didn't speak of it because he considered it wrong. Further, Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, who much more than Jews were involved with homosexuality, made it very clear how Christians should view the practice.

Bull! You are trying to put words in Jesus' mouth.

He only spoke ONCE about actual marriage - and it was an ANSWER to a QUESTION about SPECIFICALLY a heterosexual marriage - and if a man could just toss away his wife.

Paul said nothing about homosexuals.- He was against Sacred Sex RITES.

*

 

[InChrist]

Yes. Our own St. Frank, for example, is a female-to-male transsexual. His brain has always been far more like that of a typical male than that of a female, even before he began hormone treatment (which involves testosterone injections).
For us, it's not any sort of thing comparable to thinking oneself is an alien. We know, from a very young age, that we are members of the opposite sex. In my case, this involved playing with girls toys, asking for girls things for Christmas, and playing with girls more than boys (and a ton of yelling and scorning from my mom over it). Long before I was even old enough to know of all the physical differences between males and females, I considered myself a girl. But that is because my brain more resembles that of a female than a male (actually, it's a bit trickier than that and not quite that simple since I also have Asperger's syndrome, and there is a high comorbidity between gender dysphoria and Asperger's syndrome).
But, anywho, I tended to avoid looking at myself in the mirror, and hated what I saw, until I accepted myself, allowed myself to be female, and the first time I saw a woman looking back at me in the mirror in the first time I could ever stand to look at myself.

When I was a kid, although I'm female, I wanted to be a boy. I would spend hours in the creek area where we lived pretending I was Davy Crockett or Huck Finn. My parents .never made a big deal about this, yet, because I had three brothers they did in many ways treat me like a girl, their only daughter. Sometimes they may have light-heartedly joked that I was a tomboy, but they never mocked my feelings or hindered my imagination. My son used to like to play and pretend he was Maria from the Sound of Music. We did not hinder his play. I remember once casually telling him he couldn't really be Maria because he was a boy. No big deal. He played with dolls and lots of girl toys because he has sisters.
I think our culture is really messed up and confused concerning gender now. Too many children have lacked adequate and loving role models. And it is a problem when children or people are stereotyped and certain activities are considered not feminine or not masculine. Many men are great chefs or very nurturing nurses, teachers, counselors, so maybe playing with dolls or baking sets was an indication of their innate gifts or future vocations. Many women excel in sports, outdoor skills. etc. that are usually considered guy things. I believe God has created each person uniquely and as such, there is much room for a wide degree of expression of so-called feminine or masculine qualities within each person while retaining and accepting who they are as they were born, either male or female. Yet, I think the culture we live in today has departed from God and become so warped that children and adults are confused, don't know who they are, and feel pressured to attempt to change their even gender to find themselves.

 

[JoStories]

I have never spoken of irrefutable proof on this issue, we are dealing with evidence that leads to a reasonable conclusion, your claims are just evidence as well. "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the NT after about AD 80. two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical NT critics of today" William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, p.136 "In my opinion, every book of the NT was written by a baptized Jew between the 40's and 80's of the first century" William F. Albright, "Towards a More Conservative View" p. 3 "Thanks to the Qumran community discoveries the NT proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be; the teachings of Christ and his followers between ca. 25 and ca. AD 80 ( William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p.23. As you should know Albright has impeccable credentials as a Bible Scholar. The founder of the "Death of God" movement John A.T. Robinson dates Matthew at 40-60 AD, Mark, 45-60 AD, Luke 57 AD to after 60 AD, John 40 AD-65 AD "Redating the New Testament" The John Rylands payri, an NT manuscript, dated from 117-138. " Since the fragment was found in Egypt and was written in Asia minor, circulation time is demanded, placing the composition within the first century". ibid. p. 52 Jose O'Callahan, a Jesuit Paleographer, identified a manuscript fragment from cave 7, dated, 50 BC- 50 AD, Qumran community, from the Gospel of Mark. He eventually identified nine fragments, as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles, these were dated slightly after AD 50 (http:// biblia.com/bible/esv./Mark%204.28) As I said, I can match you scholar for scholar who attribute the composition of the Gospels at 100 AD or earlier

You are using a Christian apologist as your source? Not to mention that he was writing roughly a century ago. He was a Methodist, meaning that his POV was biased from the start. If you had used more current references, I might be inclined to give your POV thought but not a source from that long ago and furthermore, one that is biased.

 

[JoStories]

Can you cite where Jo claimed to be an expert or an authority? I'm not seeing it, and it seems as if you are being a bit dishonest.

Thank you my dear. What I was responding to was that this poster wrote one post and then responded to his first post. There was no indication that he was speaking to me, such as JoStories..this is for you, etc. But other than that, my word it is so good to see you again. Its been ages my love. How are you??
Kiss kiss darling.

 

[JoStories]

Well, he said he was one of the "scholars" who was involved in Biblical research. Does that make him a ham sandwich ? It seems you are being a bit sloppy in your reading of previous posts.

1. I am not a 'he'.
2. I am not a Biblical scholar but rather, a theological scholar as I have a PhD in this area.
3. If you go back and look at those two posts, you will see that you, in no way indicated that it was intended to me. You seemed to be responding to yourself.

 

[JoStories]

The only thing in the bible homosexuals cant do is marry

Where is this written? Chapter and verse please that clearly states the homosexual couples cannot marry.

 

[JoStories]

Well, there is significant evidence that they were witnesses. As to the other, we agree to disagree

What evidence would that be? Historical evidence that theologians agree to, and that is peer reviewed and published in scholarly publications.

 

[Ingledsva]

In Genesis, the scriptures clearly say that Adam named the animals (nothing about bestiality) and a man was to be joined to his wife = marriage.

...the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

And Adam 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.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2;19-24

Actually the RABBIS didn't come up with that out of the air. The same word choice is used with the animals as with the verse concerning Chav'vah.

And the translation of that RIB story is also not correct - again as noted by RABBIS too - as they say the first HUMAN Adam was half Male, half female - and had to be split in half (real meaning of the word, not a rib) for procreation.

The last words of Gen 2:20 are -

Gen 2:20 ... but Adam didn't find a helpmeet (NEGED) counterpart/MATE. (from the animals)

Gen 21. And then cast YHVH ELOHIYM a TARDEMAH-TRANCE to fall upon man AW-DAWM (being/humanoid,) and he/it slept TRANCED, and He took one ECHAD-of the UNITED/FIRST of his from out of sides TSALAH-(meaning one half of something that needs both to stand/exist,-Door posts, ribs of a boat, etc,) and He closed the flesh in its place.

Gen 22. And the TSALAH-(Half of a whole) which YHVH Elohiym had DRAWN and RESERVED from AW-DAWM being/humanoid BANAH-surely was ISHSHAH -woman BO EL-Brought forth from AW-DAWM-first being/humanoid.

Gen 2:24 By reason of, thus a man relinquish his father and his mother, and (debak) abide with the woman: to become flesh united.

The following is an excerpt from Genesis Rabbah 8:

"Rabbi Yirmeyah ben El'azar said: When the Holy One, blessed be he, created the first humanity (adam), he created it an androgynous, for it is said, "Male and female created he them and called their name 'humanity' (adam)".

Rabbi Shmuel] answered: It means "one of the two sides [of the double being]". As Scripture says, "For the tsela of the Sanctuary..." - where the translation of tsela is "side".


According to Midrash Aggadah He created him with two faces at first, and afterward He divided him."

It is merely telling us the UNITED-ONE was split apart for procreation purposes, and thus comes back together for those procreation purposes.

It doesn't say anything against other arrangements.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Once again, part of it proves it. It also, had you paid any actual attention, repeated my rebuttals, showing my refutations to your posts to be equally as true and acceptable. Well, 50% ain't bad, enh? Though, more importantly, the information teaches us that the issue of slavery in Ancient Israel, like the injunction against homosexuality today, was actually more layered than either of us had initially believed, wouldn't you agree? So, Ingledsva, although agreement concerning this matter is in no way established between you and myself, in a display of humility and to maintain the thread's civility, I hereby concede victory in this aspect of the larger debate to you. May God grant you many blessings!

That is NOT correct.

It proves what I said -period.

The extra material you posted was not about the subject we were discussing - about actual slavery.

In other words posting that they perhaps treated their slave well, doesn't negate actual slavery, - as I said. They held actual slaves, bred them, inherited them, etc. The links PROVED that.

And the other part of your post, - listing HEBREW INDENTURED servants? - I had already posted that information - to show the difference between indentured HEBREW, - and real slavery of ALL other people - by them.

The extra material you posted from that site, - had nothing to do with the actual debate, which is why I didn't post it in the first place. Just clumps of irrelevant material, muddying the waters.

*

 

[Pudding]

No, being gay is not a sin according to my religion.

But let me explain what is sin according to my religion.
The sin in my religion's eye are:
- eat chocolate, pasta, bread, spinach, jelly, noodle, soup, rice, biscuit, sugar, salt, cereal, shushi, ice cream, ketchup, pizza, waffles, mushroom, potatos, coconut, onions, bananas, orange, pepper, marshmallows, carrot, cucumber.
- swimming, watching tv, reading book, talking, sleeping more than 8 hours a day.

People who condone or guilty of the above sins will be consider to be an abomination and be send to hell to get an eternally punishment of tickling his soles while force to watch boring tv ads unstoppable.

Those who sincerely adhere to my religion will get the reward of unlimited food, money, gem, happiness and life.

My religion have many other rules as well.

Now! Everyone should repent and bow down to my religion! Because ONLY my religion is the truth religion. The evidence is so evidently presence in front of everyone, how to obtain it?
To obtain it, you must sincerely try to channeling with my religion's true god, once success my god will enlighten you the Truth he had shown me.
If the Truth you receive is different than the Truth i had received, then you're wrong or misguided or insincere. Try again until success.
Repent now! Don't regret when it's too late!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, being gay is not a sin according to my religion.
The sin in my religion's eye are:
- ice cream,

Blasphemy!

 

[shmogie]

Actually the RABBIS didn't come up with that out of the air. The same word choice is used with the animals as with the verse concerning Chav'vah.

And the translation of that RIB story is also not correct - again as noted by RABBIS too - as they say the first HUMAN Adam was half Male, half female - and had to be split in half (real meaning of the word, not a rib) for procreation.

The last words of Gen 2:20 are -

Gen 2:20 ... but Adam didn't find a helpmeet (NEGED) counterpart/MATE. (from the animals)

Gen 21. And then cast YHVH ELOHIYM a TARDEMAH-TRANCE to fall upon man AW-DAWM (being/humanoid,) and he/it slept TRANCED, and He took one ECHAD-of the UNITED/FIRST of his from out of sides TSALAH-(meaning one half of something that needs both to stand/exist,-Door posts, ribs of a boat, etc,) and He closed the flesh in its place.

Gen 22. And the TSALAH-(Half of a whole) which YHVH Elohiym had DRAWN and RESERVED from AW-DAWM being/humanoid BANAH-surely was ISHSHAH -woman BO EL-Brought forth from AW-DAWM-first being/humanoid.

Gen 2:24 By reason of, thus a man relinquish his father and his mother, and (debak) abide with the woman: to become flesh united.

The following is an excerpt from Genesis Rabbah 8:

"Rabbi Yirmeyah ben El'azar said: When the Holy One, blessed be he, created the first humanity (adam), he created it an androgynous, for it is said, "Male and female created he them and called their name 'humanity' (adam)".

Rabbi Shmuel] answered: It means "one of the two sides [of the double being]". As Scripture says, "For the tsela of the Sanctuary..." - where the translation of tsela is "side".


According to Midrash Aggadah He created him with two faces at first, and afterward He divided him."

It is merely telling us the UNITED-ONE was split apart for procreation purposes, and thus comes back together for those procreation purposes.

It doesn't say anything against other arrangements.

*

You are using a Christian apologist as your source? Not to mention that he was writing roughly a century ago. He was a Methodist, meaning that his POV was biased from the start. If you had used more current references, I might be inclined to give your POV thought but not a source from that long ago and furthermore, one that is biased.

Albright discussed Qumran, you know when that was, so as a source, his research is not as old as you imply. I see how it works, If you are believer, your research cannot be trusted because you are biased. If you are not a believer, that stance contains no inherent bias, means total objectivity..................That, sir, madam, whatever, is utter nonsense. Shall we play dueling scholars, and I will choose only those that meet your very narrow, nonsensical, standard for acceptability?? If your qualifications are what you say they are, and to this point I have no reason to doubt that they are, you know it can be done

 

[shmogie]

What evidence would that be? Historical evidence that theologians agree to, and that is peer reviewed and published in scholarly publications.

I have already posted material for the dating of the Gospels at 100 AD or earlier, as much as you did for your date of 140 AD or later. Many, many thousands of Theologians accept the dates I posted. Everything I posted has been peer reviewed and published. So, if that is true, and I believe it is, what reason do you have to doubt they were firsthand accounts , other than just wanting it not to be so ?

 

[shmogie]

Actually the RABBIS didn't come up with that out of the air. The same word choice is used with the animals as with the verse concerning Chav'vah.

And the translation of that RIB story is also not correct - again as noted by RABBIS too - as they say the first HUMAN Adam was half Male, half female - and had to be split in half (real meaning of the word, not a rib) for procreation.

The last words of Gen 2:20 are -

Gen 2:20 ... but Adam didn't find a helpmeet (NEGED) counterpart/MATE. (from the animals)

Gen 21. And then cast YHVH ELOHIYM a TARDEMAH-TRANCE to fall upon man AW-DAWM (being/humanoid,) and he/it slept TRANCED, and He took one ECHAD-of the UNITED/FIRST of his from out of sides TSALAH-(meaning one half of something that needs both to stand/exist,-Door posts, ribs of a boat, etc,) and He closed the flesh in its place.

Gen 22. And the TSALAH-(Half of a whole) which YHVH Elohiym had DRAWN and RESERVED from AW-DAWM being/humanoid BANAH-surely was ISHSHAH -woman BO EL-Brought forth from AW-DAWM-first being/humanoid.

Gen 2:24 By reason of, thus a man relinquish his father and his mother, and (debak) abide with the woman: to become flesh united.

The following is an excerpt from Genesis Rabbah 8:

"Rabbi Yirmeyah ben El'azar said: When the Holy One, blessed be he, created the first humanity (adam), he created it an androgynous, for it is said, "Male and female created he them and called their name 'humanity' (adam)".

Rabbi Shmuel] answered: It means "one of the two sides [of the double being]". As Scripture says, "For the tsela of the Sanctuary..." - where the translation of tsela is "side".


According to Midrash Aggadah He created him with two faces at first, and afterward He divided him."

It is merely telling us the UNITED-ONE was split apart for procreation purposes, and thus comes back together for those procreation purposes.

It doesn't say anything against other arrangements.

*

Bull! You are trying to put words in Jesus' mouth.

He only spoke ONCE about actual marriage - and it was an ANSWER to a QUESTION about SPECIFICALLY a heterosexual marriage - and if a man could just toss away his wife.

Paul said nothing about homosexuals.- He was against Sacred Sex RITES.

*

More inane bull from you. You are brainwashed by marginal and spurious translation that allows some justification for yourself, so be it., Virtually NOBODY accepts that translation accept fellow travelers on the same bus. Don't respond, I shan't

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Where is this written? Chapter and verse please that clearly states the homosexual couples cannot marry.

Sorry to put it to you, but it says marriage is only between man and woman. I dont agree with it; and, I (and no one else) cant change scripture just because we disagree.

If you dont believe me, ask a Jew native in Hebrew language. Most cultures marry couples as man and woman. Many husbands are chosen for many woman. Culture doesnt change just because its (same sex marriage) not in scripture.

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Not wives shall leave to wives, mates to mates, person to person.

These verses (above and below) specifically tall about man and woman.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And no its not all in context. No verse in scripture makes the union between man and woman ananymous so that there isnt descrimination as we do in the states. Quran, Torah, and Bible just isnt like that.

Ephesians 5:25-33 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

Hate to put it to you but where in jewish culture do they say "it doesnt say 'homosexuals cant marriage' in those exact words, so it must bs okay."

Thats like saying "It doesnt say murder is okay in the bible (though it says love thy neighbor) so it must be right. Like husband and wife verses above, loving they neighbor excludes murdering them.

Ephesians 5:25-33 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

This one is used a lot. You know, not all christians disagree with same sex marriage just in some denomi they cant get blessed by their church.

There is a gay church around where I live and I dont know what scriptures they use to bypass marriage and its cultural surroundings that it is between man and woman.

Maybe find that for me?

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

In the states, I was looking up my family and searched the 1940 census. Husbands or sons were usually head of house. Wives did not take care of the property unless it was inherited to them. Yet, none said to the census guy "yes, Im male and this is my husband".

Down in South Carolina, bible belt that would get you nearly killed. Culture has a lot to do with how the bible is interpreted. Many non denomi and some denomni dont get that.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

No where in the bible does it say

"Hey, we got an exlusion to the rule. Men can marry each other in X circumstance."

No. Man and woman. I disagree and it is what it is.

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.



I put these verses because there is no "same sex marriage" in the bible. Id like to assume based on text and culture that such things are not looked good upon because they focus directly on opposite gender.

Is it wrong, yes. That doesnt mean its not in scripture.



I have to find it. I dont read the bible anymore. It says each of us have callings and not all people are called to marriage. As such, the Church says that gay people are called to celibacy.

Yes. The bible does not promote same sex marriage. They dont mention same sex love. It only reffers to lust (too much scripture to quote)

I guess you can go with it by saying "its not there, its okay." But think about it. The culture and the bible promotes opposite sex love and matrimony. There arent exclusions. Why would it be so specific rather than trying to be politically correct to please everyone especially when there is no evidence that homosexuality was a problem in those countries?



This is like you asking me show in the math book where it says 2 and 2 is 45. Its not there. Does it make it right?

Whats your point?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@JoStories Also, since it doesnt mention it but specifically the opposite, does it makenit right? Or are you pulling my leg with asking for specifics? What do they call it...knit picking. Please dont do that.

Im not a specialist in biblical studies and one doesnt need to be to know what the bible teaches regardless of our interpretation.

That, and if I went into scripture study, Id study hebrew text and ask native Jews about context. Language cannot be translated one hundred percent to another. I know that because I teach language, studied it in college, as well as study for career in interpretation.

Problem is people think that the english version of the bible is a perfect source. I dont believe it for a second.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think our culture is really messed up and confused concerning gender now. Too many children have lacked adequate and loving role models. And it is a problem when children or people are stereotyped and certain activities are considered not feminine or not masculine. Many men are great chefs or very nurturing nurses, teachers, counselors, so maybe playing with dolls or baking sets was an indication of their innate gifts or future vocations. Many women excel in sports, outdoor skills. etc. that are usually considered guy things.

This I do agree. We put way too much emphasis on things that are masculine or feminine, and put way too much effort into trying to keep kids things sex-segregrated. Generally, boys will gravitate towards boys things and girls will gravitate towards girls things, but of course there is heavy over lap. But even parents who try to raise their children in a gender neutral environment often find their children behaving typically for their sex.

Yet, I think the culture we live in today has departed from God and become so warped that children and adults are confused, don't know who they are, and feel pressured to attempt to change their even gender to find themselves.

I am not confused about who I am. And transgender people have existed throughout our species history, and we even have evidence of them that is ancient. The Hijra of South Asia/India, for example, are described in the Kama Sutra.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The sin in my religion's eye are:
- eat chocolate, pasta, bread, spinach, jelly, noodle, soup, rice, biscuit, sugar, salt, cereal, shushi, ice cream, ketchup, pizza, waffles, mushroom, potatos, coconut, onions, bananas, orange, pepper, marshmallows, carrot, cucumber.
- swimming, watching tv, reading book, talking, sleeping more than 8 hours a day.

I can agree with the spinach, cucumbers, and especially onions, but no chocolate? No cheddar bay biscuits? No mushrooms? No pizza?
But, then again, the last time I tore my ACL was while I was swimming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, there is significant evidence that they were witnesses.

I don't think there is and I don't even think they claim to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, do they?

As to the other, we agree to disagree

Agree to disagree that the people who wrote the Bible had some kind of superhuman, infallibility powers? I don't think so. That's an extraordinary claim that's going to require some extraordinary evidence. As above, I don't even think they themselves said as much, did they?

 

[viole]

Logic, He was born a Jew, he was trained in the temple, he said he had kept " all his fathers laws" Torah, Jewish believers never accepted homosexuality in any way, shape or form because the law of the Torah told them it was unacceptable

I always wondered why Jesus needed any training at all. He could make prophecies, but did not know about the Law. What?

How about a miracle like in the Matrix? Law know-how download in a few seconds.

Was the trinity a binity before He was born?

Ciao

- viole