Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Imaginary_Friends]

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.

I believe that if you look at Judges 19:22 it will give weight that my interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorra story is correct. Here you have almost a identical story but without angels. That being said the victim here does get raped...to death. Here's a snippet ( I am putting this in English since Sojourner disregards Greek literature) :

surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him." 22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 22While they were enjoying themselves, all of a sudden, perverted men of the city surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man who was the owner of the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him!"

23The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this outrageous thing. 23And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 23Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. 23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 23The owner of the house went out and said to them, "No, don't do this evil, my brothers. After all, this man has come into my house. Don't do this horrible thing.

24Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don't do such an outrageous thing." 24Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing.” 24"Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man." 24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 24Here, let me bring out my virgin daughter and the man's concubine now. Use them and do whatever you want to them. But don't do this horrible thing to this man."

25But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 25But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and made her go out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 25But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they raped her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn. 25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Do you see how my interpretation makes more logical sense?

Again - There is NO mention of homosexuality in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.*

Well, you are half-correct here if you disregard homosexual intent. Thankfully for the Angels power to blind the mob, they were to able to escape. Otherwise I think the outcome would have been similar to Pulp Fiction where Zed throws poor ol' Marcelus Wallace over that gym horse.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Christians do not stone people to death, we don't refrain from eating pork and shellfish, we don't refrain from having sex during menstruation

I almost spit my coffee out reading this lol. You don't refrain from having sex with menstruating women lol?

Even as a non-believer I try to avoid pork for health and most women don't want to have sex on their period...not saying I haven't, but I Do try to avoid it. Red wing shoes...ewww

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Jesus said, "God is a spirit." Spirits don't write. People write. In fact, we know that a man who refers to himself as Paul wrote part of the bible. To believe that God wrote the bible, or to assume that human beings are capable of understanding revelation outside their own lens of understanding is completely ludicrous. Why don't you prove otherwise, since both common sense and observable results are on my side.

If god tells me do not lie are you saying humans are too dumb to write that or anything else God tells them. I can agree that SOMEtimes things can be misunderstood but first prove it was misunderstood and then show what did God actually reveal. He has shown his cruelty before so why should i believe he is will alwsys do what we think is in our best interest? f How do you know that God factors in sexual orientation when making his rules on marriage? Even the all-graceful Jesus had the chance to do that but instead did the opposite and reinforced how women are stuck in marriages no matter what. Only the man can initiate a divorce..Apparently only adultery is harmful enough to warrant ending a marriage.

So far all i see from you is that you ignore the parts of the bible that you want to ignore which shows a lack of reason. I'm not here to talk about your personal opinions and denial of CLEAR passages in a Debate

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Then understand this:
1) The biblical writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation. so the verses aren't condemning homosexuality. They're condemning acts that they (in their scientific ignorance) thought were "unnatural."
2) Our faith is a living faith -- not a faith in stasis. The texts are correctly understood in the context of how they apply to us in our time -- not how we conform to them in their time. Otherwise, we'd still be braying about a flat earth and a 6000 year old earth.

Why is so hard to grasp that Yahweh would be against homosexuality? As a racist he chooses one group over others. He is a mass murderer including infants and children. He can't come to earth for one human lifetime without being convicted of a felony. He plans on coming back with a sword coming out of his mouth to commit genocide and torment.... and you think that for him to be against homosexuals is beyond the scope of plausibility? Even when being presented with texts that support that?

You also discarded Jude because its from Greek ( the real reason is that it proves my point) so I assume you disregard the New Testament since that's from a latter period with Greek influence and written in Greek? Shalom.

The bible and culture at that time considered men having sex with men a sin. Plain and simple. Whether the "gay" men were in love or lustful or "partners" was irrelevant. That's the part you don't understand. You are trying to distort biblical morality to justify what it considers sin. Plain and simple.

There is a intellectually dishonest trend to make Yahweh something he is not. Assigning attributes that do not exist or are even diametrically opposite from what the bible says, which is the conceptual source of who the god Yahweh is.

So my point is you can believe in a god that accepts homosexuals. You can believe in a god that has endless compassion, that is unknowable in the grandest sense, that is beyond space and time, that is gentile and has nothing but love. You can believe that god like that exists. But if you do it means one important thing. You're not a Christian. That is not who Yahweh is.


Yahweh likes animal sacrifices. He drowns people and their civilizations when they anger him. (Gen 6) He hands down laws prohibiting gay sex (Lev 18:22) He concerns himself with primate males removing excess skin from reproductive organs (Gen 17:9 After engineering DNA what else do you think about with your freetime ) He gets so angry and jealous he goes by a alias Jealous (Exo 34:14 think twice when you use the word God) Says he is merciful yet burns the devil forever (Rev 20:10 To be merciful requires the suspension of punishment)

If you **** him off enough he'll make you eat your sons and daughter (Jer 19:9 He is a raw foods kinda guy) If you are a priest and don't listen to him he is gonna smear your face with poop. ( Mal 2:3 Origins for -Nanny nanny boo boo stick your face in doo doo?) He has a lengthy conversation to himself before he sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself (Ps 22) He knows all and sees all and the great eye is ever watchful !(Ps 139:7)

Spoiler

 

[sojourner]

If god tells me do not lie are you saying humans are too dumb to write that or anything else God tells them. I can agree that SOMEtimes things can be misunderstood but first prove it was misunderstood and then show what did God actually reveal. He has shown his cruelty before so why should i believe he is will alwsys do what we think is in our best interest? f How do you know that God factors in sexual orientation when making his rules on marriage? Even the all-graceful Jesus had the chance to do that but instead did the opposite and reinforced how women are stuck in marriages no matter what. Only the man can initiate a divorce..Apparently only adultery is harmful enough to warrant ending a marriage.

So far all i see from you is that you ignore the parts of the bible that you want to ignore which shows a lack of reason. I'm not here to talk about your personal opinions and denial of CLEAR passages in a Debate

So far, all I see from you is a propensity to take the texts too seriously at face value, without taking under consideration 1) language, 2) culture, 3) how the texts were written, 4) why they were written, 5) the sociological and scientific understanding out of which the texts arose, 6) the nature of the texts as archival and not judgmental or moral, and allegoral/symbolic nature of the texts 7) the mythic nature of the texts, 8) the theological value and underlying theological thrust of the texts, etc. In other words, your exegetical skills are obviously infantile at best and negligent at worst.

I'm not here to talk about your at-a-glance opinions of what the texts say and what they mean, and clear denial of the layers of meaning and multivalent nature of the texts in a a debate. Why don't you leave the debate, engage in several years of graduate bible exegetical studies, and let me know when you actually know what you're talking about and are ready to pose a real argument? I'm weary of suffering through vapid and scholastically irresponsible "arguments."

 

[sojourner]

Why is so hard to grasp that Yahweh would be against homosexuality?

Why is it so hard to grasp that God created us how God created us (both heterosexual and homosexual), that the bible is clear that humanity was created "very good," and that it simply doesn't make sense that God would create some people to be an "abomination?" Why is it so hard to grasp the fact that the biblical writers did not know of homosexuality as an orientation?

The bible and culture at that time considered men having sex with men a sin. Plain and simple. Whether the "gay" men were in love or lustful or "partners" was irrelevant. That's the part you don't understand. You are trying to distort biblical morality to justify what it considers sin. Plain and simple.

The bible and culture of the time didn't have the knowledge of the human psyche that we have now. What you don't understand is that you're trying to distort the bible into some sort of immutable, morally-absolute entity, which it clearly is not.

The rest of your post is meaningless opinion without basis in reality and not worth my time.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So far, all I see from you is a propensity to take the texts too seriously at face value, without taking under consideration 1) language, 2) culture, 3) how the texts were written, 4) why they were written, 5) the sociological and scientific understanding out of which the texts arose, 6) the nature of the texts as archival and not judgmental or moral, and allegoral/symbolic nature of the texts 7) the mythic nature of the texts, 8) the theological value and underlying theological thrust of the texts, etc. In other words, your exegetical skills are obviously infantile at best and negligent at worst.

Good job on listing methods but if only you could give me some reason and logic by showing consistency on what you consider literal and non-literal of the 613 rules of God. I also question the importance of #5 from a philosophical standpoint of an all-knowing God unless all of the rules are subject to change which can brings in relativism and makes the Bible more useless than what I previously thought in terms of moral guidance (like in 2 Timothy 3:16). Is there a scholarly peer-reviewed consensus that God revealed NO laws in the Bible as you claimed earlier?

I'm not here to talk about your at-a-glance opinions of what the texts say and what they mean, and clear denial of the layers of meaning and multivalent nature of the texts in a a debate. Why don't you leave the debate, engage in several years of graduate bible exegetical studies, and let me know when you actually know what you're talking about and are ready to pose a real argument? I'm weary of suffering through vapid and scholastically irresponsible "arguments."

Can you show me the justification for changing God's rules based on current scientific understanding? Is there an agreement that this should be an exegetical approach, if so, by who or what is the logic and reason that shows that its valid as opposed to what the Catholic Church says?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why is it so hard to grasp that God created us how God created us (both heterosexual and homosexual), that the bible is clear that humanity was created "very good," and that it simply doesn't make sense that God would create some people to be an "abomination?" Why is it so hard to grasp the fact that the biblical writers did not know of homosexuality as an orientation?

Pre-Fall, what God created was "good". Are you saying people born with missing limbs, with inherited diseases, etc, are all good? I thought God finished creating and everything now is working from natural processes? We are also born with a sin nature, so naturally we ALL (not just homosexuals) can't live up to God's standards.
Did you go to school to come up with your conclusions?

The bible and culture of the time didn't have the knowledge of the human psyche that we have now. What you don't understand is that you're trying to distort the bible into some sort of immutable, morally-absolute entity, which it clearly is not.

And should I say that you are trying to distort the Bible by trying to make it into some mutable, morally-relative entity when clearly it's not. Rather than just throwing around unsupported statements, can you show with logic and evidence how is the Bible supposed to be taken in terms of its moral standards?

The rest of your post is meaningless opinion without basis in reality and not worth my time.

Got Evidence? Got Logic?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I almost spit my coffee out reading this lol. You don't refrain from having sex with menstruating women lol?

I've never had the chance. But if I did and she wanted to, I would. It doesn't bother me at all.

Even as a non-believer I try to avoid pork for health

I eat pork pretty much everyday and it's a staple food in many cultures.

and most women don't want to have sex on their period

It varies by individual. Orgasms are good while menstruating because it helps with cramps.

Anyways, moving on...

 

[sojourner]

if only you could give me some reason and logic by showing consistency on what you consider literal and non-literal of the 613 rules of God.

You're not getting what I mean by "literal." By "literal" I mean "at face value." Jesus shows that the 613 laws are not to be taken at face value (and Judaism has historically not taken them at face value, either, FWIW) when he makes statements such as, "The sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath." You're simply taking everything you see at face value, without applying any sort of mitigatory reasoning. Plus, the laws were meant for Jews, not for everyone.

I also question the importance of #5 from a philosophical standpoint of an all-knowing God unless all of the rules are subject to change which can brings in relativism and makes the Bible more useless than what I previously thought in terms of moral guidance (like in 2 Timothy 3:16).

The importance of #5 is that it takes into consideration the world as we know it to be. Since God didn't write the texts, and since the texts were written through the filter of the writers' understanding, the texts are simply not as immutable as you'd like to think. Everything always has been subject to change, which is one reason why there are several instances of multiple accounts of the same story, all of which differ in detail. to give a good example of the changeability of things, we no longer take into consideration the injunctions to treat our slaves well. the injunction has become meaningless in our culture.

Since the bible was never really meant to be a "moral guide," it's relativism changes nothing about its usefulness. Maybe you're just trying to use a hammer to paint a wall?

Is there a scholarly peer-reviewed consensus that God revealed NO laws in the Bible as you claimed earlier?

Absolutely there is! There's a HUGE difference between an exegetical treatment of the texts and a theological application of the texts.

Can you show me the justification for changing God's rules based on current scientific understanding? Is there an agreement that this should be an exegetical approach, if so, by who or what is the logic and reason that shows that its valid as opposed to what the Catholic Church says?

Sure! Circumcision is a good one. Not only from a scientific standpoint, but from a cultural (and biblical) standpoint. The early church came to the conclusion that Gentile converts didn't have to be circumcised (as "God's law" insisted). The laws are only useful inasmuch as they point us toward God -- not hinder us from God. when the latter happens, the law needs to change or be thrown out.

Are you saying people born with missing limbs, with inherited diseases, etc, are all good?

Yes.

I thought God finished creating and everything now is working from natural processes?

The creation myth is one theological construction. That creation continues as we continue is another. It's a "both/and" situation, in which we use disparate constructions in order to more fully talk about a God who's too big for us to wrap our minds around completely.

We are also born with a sin nature, so naturally we ALL (not just homosexuals) can't live up to God's standards.

Only if you buy into the fallacy of Original Sin. Which I do not.

Did you go to school to come up with your conclusions?

Graduated with high honors from an accredited graduate seminary.

And should I say that you are trying to distort the Bible by trying to make it into some mutable, morally-relative entity when clearly it's not.

"Clearly?!" Only by trying to force a round bible into a square hole of preconceived notions do we distort it. The bible was not seen as an immutable, absolute document until the heretical sola scriptura crowd showed up during the Reformation.

ather than just throwing around unsupported statements, can you show with logic and evidence how is the Bible supposed to be taken in terms of its moral standards?

The bible is simply a repository for the baseline documents that are "OK to read in church." That's what it was conceived as, and that's how it should be treated. For centuries, there were no texts -- only oral transmission. Since it's that kind of document, it was never meant as a "text book for morality." People simply didn't get their morals from the bible. They got their morals through cultural expectations and the teachings of the religious authorities.

Got Evidence? Got Logic?

Yeah. I do. His tirade (like your arguments) are obviously constructed from an eisegetical rather than an exegetical premise. He takes very disparate stories, accounts, instructions, and cobbles them together into some kind of assumptive, Frankenstein's monster that only pretends to be cohesive. He fails to treat each of his references in a stand-alone, responsible fashion. I could pick it apart point-by-point, but it's simply not worth the time.

 

[Ingledsva]

I see that the word 'yada' has several means and what you've highlighted so far is just one meaning. As mentioned before, to "know" is also a biblical idiom that refers to sex. That's the sense it's used in Genesis 4:1:
"Now Adam knew (Hebrew word is 'yada') Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”


ING - What is your point here? I told you it had multiple meanings. The meaning here is not sex - it says nothing about homosexuality.

I agree that the angels did go to the city to know about the city of Sodom and apparently the Sodomites knew about their arrival to the city. I"m not sure how the Sodomites would've known about the purpose of the angels but Genesis 19:9 does indicate they may've known something about the angels' (although the Sodomites did not know they were angels) purposes.


ING - We have the same word YHVH uses in this teaching story - used by the men. There is a reason for that in storytelling. Bringing home the point. The angels came to Judge and punish, and the men wanted to get there hands on them first - to Judge and punish. They lose!


What source are you using to define 'enosh'? So far, I found the 'enosh' only refers to men or mankind when used in a collective sense. There's no mention of females and all of the English translations that I've seen so far mention "men". Hypothetically-speaking, even if women were involved and sex was intended, then sex acts with either gender would've been a sin, i.e. fornication and same-sex sex between males and possibly rape.


ING - LOL! Dude! Mankind means men and women. It goes on to say ALL the people.


So far I see your choice of definition for yada as an assumption. I see no reason why a mob of men would be forcing their way into someone's house just to get a chance to judge someone as opposed to wanting sex. And then the response of Lot is to offer his daughter and specifically specify that they have not known any man which is reference to virginity - an appeal to sex. Also, Lot called the Sodomites actions as being wicked and I don't see why wanting to judge someone would be wicked, otherwise, the angels would've been just as wicked for wanting to judge the Sodomites.


ING - It is an "assumption" to say they want gay sex with nothing to back it up!

You have got to be kidding? You don't think turning the tables, dragging them from the house, holding a kangaroo court, and then PUNISHING - perhaps killing them - isn't "wicked?"

Big difference between the LAW enforcing, - and the crooks enforcing - against the sent cops!


Genesis 19:9 does not say that the Sodomites were there to judge. They made reference to Lot's two houseguests as being the judges. And again, Lot bringing up his daughter's virginity would only appeal to men sexually, so by Lot's actions we know what the Sodomites were looking for. Also, Jude 1:7 indicates that the Sodomites were known for sexual immorality.


ING - Did you even read what I wrote? I said YHVH sent the angels to JUDGE, the men found out, and wanted them - so they could Judge (and punish/kill) them - first

They are there to Judge and Punish the angels - so - He offers his - PURE - (free of sin Judgment) - daughters as a sacrifice in place of the angels.


Genesis 19:9 does not even mention the Sodomites being there to judge anyone. Interestingly I found the 'nagash' can also refer to sexual intercourse or to commit other physical acts. Again, this also goes with Jude 1:7 where the Sodomites were known to engage in sexual immorality.


ING - LOL! See above.

As for Jude. It is NT and we know these later Christians got a lot of Tanakh WRONG. With that said - note that they are talking about Sacred Temple Prostitutes, not homosexuals. Read Jude 1:4-9 carefully. We are told in several places that they kept turning back to their old Gods, turning the worship of God into Sacred Sex at the Temple.


Only if we go by your ASSUMPTION as to which meaning for "yada" was being used. Your explanation about "nagash" makes no sense or you had so many words jumbled up I couldn't decipher what you were trying to say. I find it likely that people known for sexual immorality (Jude 1:7) would be there for sex.

ING - LOL! It makes no sense what so ever for the whole town to angrily surround a house with two strangers - because they want to have sex with them!!!


It makes perfect sense for them to have somehow found out that the two have been sent to "YADA" perceive/judge and pass judgment, and angrily gather the whole city to drag them out to turn the tables and "yada" judge/pass judgment on them first.


I see that "asah" just means "to do", as in the men can do whatever they want to them and Lot specifically put it in their mind that his daughters were virgins.


ING - Obviously do with them what you will also means whatever judging/punishment you were going to do to the men.


I fail to see why a sacrifice would need to be made let alone where it says that the Sodomites just wanted to judge or for what reason they would need to judge or why would Lot call that judgement "wicked". Perhaps their verdict would involve rape and humiliation.


ING - The sacrifice is offered by the father to save the men from HARM - not sex!

Again - judging/punishing/ perhaps killing the angels would have been wicked.


In all, you did not do anything significant to show why or how most of the Bible translations are wrong when it comes to Genesis 19. But we can also go by how Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19, and reference to same-sex acts in Leviticus or Numbers (can't remember at the moment), etc.

LOL! No one has shown how one mistranslated sentence turns a story into homosexual sex! The cry of the people doesn't mention Gay sex, YHVH doesn't mention Gay sex, the whole rest of the story says nothing about gay sex! One mistranslated line is used to turn the whole story into what it is - NOT - about!


Jesus does not define marriage in Matthew 19.


He was asked a SPECIFIC question concerning HUSBANDS and WIVES, - ONLY.


What is said there has nothing to do with homosexuals - nor are they condemned there, or banned from marriage, etc!





*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You're not getting what I mean by "literal." By "literal" I mean "at face value." Jesus shows that the 613 laws are not to be taken at face value (and Judaism has historically not taken them at face value, either, FWIW) when he makes statements such as, "The sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath." You're simply taking everything you see at face value, without applying any sort of mitigatory reasoning. Plus, the laws were meant for Jews, not for everyone.

Yes, I can agree that SOME laws were not to be taken at face value and the only reason I can say that is because of Jesus' teaching. But there were laws that Jesus took literally and applied them accordingly, like when he told one adulterous woman "to go and sin no more". You say these laws were just for the Jews but then the Apostle Paul also reiterated in his epistles to not sin, to abstain from sexual immorality, including adultery.

The importance of #5 is that it takes into consideration the world as we know it to be. Since God didn't write the texts, and since the texts were written through the filter of the writers' understanding, the texts are simply not as immutable as you'd like to think. Everything always has been subject to change, which is one reason why there are several instances of multiple accounts of the same story, all of which differ in detail. to give a good example of the changeability of things, we no longer take into consideration the injunctions to treat our slaves well. the injunction has become meaningless in our culture.

God did not need to write anything if he was able to reveal to the Jews what to write, at times. And there is biblical reference that is what occurred. I question why you ignore what the Bible says on the issue and seemingly deny the possibility of divine revelation. So that is one problem with your view.

So far, you have not shown any logical reasoning that convinces me (due to my above objection) that everything is subject to change. Even if things were subject to change then I'd question the basis and time and who gets to do the changing since there is not always a consensus on what we know, scientists sometimes change their position, and you close the door on divine revelation which seems unreasonable to do towards a 'personal' God that supposedly revealed things from time to time.

As for slavery, I wouldn't say that the injunctions are irrelevant but rather they're rarely applied because the practice is largely non-existent in Western society.

Since the bible was never really meant to be a "moral guide," it's relativism changes nothing about its usefulness. Maybe you're just trying to use a hammer to paint a wall?

You say that the Bible was never meant to be a moral guide and how do you know that? I see evidence to the contrary both theologically (2 Timothy 3:16) and historically. Notice that the Catholic Church actually base their moral teachings on the Bible, especially in terms of marriage?

Absolutely there is! There's a HUGE difference between an exegetical treatment of the texts and a theological application of the texts.

I asked you for a peer-reviewed scholarly consensus that validates your claim that God did not reveal any of the rules to the Jews. Can you provide that source?

Sure! Circumcision is a good one. Not only from a scientific standpoint, but from a cultural (and biblical) standpoint. The early church came to the conclusion that Gentile converts didn't have to be circumcised (as "God's law" insisted). The laws are only useful inasmuch as they point us toward God -- not hinder us from God. when the latter happens, the law needs to change or be thrown out.

Actually, the NT also mentioned that circumcison was no longer needed and it didn't mention that it was due to science or culture.

Yes.

You didn't answer my objection. You said that God creates what's good and that God created gays. I told you that God no longer creats humans since we are now made through natural processes which leaves room for BAD things to happen (like diseases, genetic abnormalities, etc). So now if you want to insist that God is still creating people, can you explain how the pain and suffering of those who are born with disease, genetic abnormalities, missing limbs, is a "GOOD" thing or a good creation? Even society can tell the difference between the two scenarios so I'm not sure why you and your God can not.

The creation myth is one theological construction. That creation continues as we continue is another. It's a "both/and" situation, in which we use disparate constructions in order to more fully talk about a God who's too big for us to wrap our minds around completely.

Not sure what you're saying after your 1st sentence but I already know your view from your previous comments.

Only if you buy into the fallacy of Original Sin. Which I do not.

Without any logical reasoning to support your view I can only view it as an unsupported statement. The NT has plenty of areas of support that man has a sinful nature, commonly referred to as the "flesh". Also goes into why we need God's SPIRIT which implies that we naturally can't meet God's standards.

Graduated with high honors from an accredited graduate seminary.

Congrats! By chance have you published anything related to the topic here in any reputable peer-reviewed journal?

"Clearly?!" Only by trying to force a round bible into a square hole of preconceived notions do we distort it. The bible was not seen as an immutable, absolute document until the heretical sola scriptura crowd showed up during the Reformation.

Yes, and by that I mean that the Bible does clearly say that God revealed some things to man. I also don't agree with Sola Scriptura but whatever extra-biblical teaching that comes out should also not contradict the Bible either and that would include God's reveal laws unless you can give me a logical reason for why those would change, despite what the Catholic Church and the bible text itself says. And if you resort back to methods that you listed before, even those I want a logical justification for.

The bible is simply a repository for the baseline documents that are "OK to read in church." That's what it was conceived as, and that's how it should be treated. For centuries, there were no texts -- only oral transmission. Since it's that kind of document, it was never meant as a "text book for morality." People simply didn't get their morals from the bible. They got their morals through cultural expectations and the teachings of the religious authorities.

Which centuries? The Jews at least had a fixed OT canon during Josephus' time - that's 1st century. Probably earlier than that if we factor in the Essenes. Another indication is that is 2 Timothy 3:16. The Bereans talked about in Acts had access to Scripture which is what they used to test the apostle Paul. The Septuagint Greek text existed around 2nd Century.

ANd even if it were just "oral" transmission, that would just mean it wasn't as a "text" book of morals (or not yet!), but the morals could be passed down through oral tradition, e.g. the tradition of the Oral Torah.

Yeah. I do. His tirade (like your arguments) are obviously constructed from an eisegetical rather than an exegetical premise. He takes very disparate stories, accounts, instructions, and cobbles them together into some kind of assumptive, Frankenstein's monster that only pretends to be cohesive. He fails to treat each of his references in a stand-alone, responsible fashion. I could pick it apart point-by-point, but it's simply not worth the time.

You may not have the time but hopefully you can compensate with consistency and logic. I do agree with the forum member you're referring to, Imaginary Friends, on the Sodom and Gomorrah story and his willingness to engage with logic and evidence rather than your liberal ideology and unsupported claims.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe that if you look at Judges 19:22 it will give weight that my interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorra story is correct. Here you have almost a identical story but without angels. That being said the victim here does get raped...to death. Here's a snippet ( I am putting this in English since Sojourner disregards Greek literature) :


Do you see how my interpretation makes more logical sense?


Well, you are half-correct here if you disregard homosexual intent. Thankfully for the Angels power to blind the mob, they were to able to escape. Otherwise I think the outcome would have been similar to Pulp Fiction where Zed throws poor ol' Marcelus Wallace over that gym horse.

ING - NO - actually. Judges 19 is also obviously misinterpreted. Read it from the beginning. First we are told his concubine went to her father's/chief's house/temple where she played a harlot. Hmmm! Sacred Sex anyone?

he went after her - among the Benjamites -


They want him using the same word - yada - however obviously not meaning gay sex - as he tells us in 20:5!


He chops her into pieces and sends her parts to the different tribes, raising them to war,

HE SAYS -

Jdg 20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh.) Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, how was this wickedness?

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.

Jdg 20:5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.


Not have sex with him - SLAY HIM!

Jdg 20:6 And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel.


This is the same story were they commit genocide against Benjamin - feel bad - but have vowed before YHVH to not give daughter to Benjamin -


So - they tell them to Kidnap and RAPE the daughters of Shiloh.


A very interesting conclusion to a story of war triggered by - threat of death - and the RAPE of a concubine. - Death, Kidnaping, and RAPE! -


*

 

[Son of The Gods]

The concept of "ergi" says otherwise.

And as YOU stated it's a concept not a fact.

 

[Britedream]

Yes it is.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes it is.

Yes it is - what?


Whom are you replying to?



*

 

[Britedream]

Yes it is - what?


Whom are you replying to?



*

is being gay a sin according to your Religion?.

 

[sojourner]

is being gay a sin according to your Religion?.

So, "being gay." In other words, who one is, is a sin?

 

[Britedream]

So, "being gay." In other words, who one is, is a sin?

if God in your religion Prohibits an action then it is a sin if you do it,you would be disobeying your God. God prohibits such action in my religion.

 

[sojourner]

if God in your religion Prohibits an action then it is a sin if you do it,you would be disobeying your God. God prohibits such action in my religion.

Hold on a second! We're not talking about "action." If that were the case, the question would be, "Are homosexual acts sinful?" But that wasn't the question. The question addresses, not "action," but identity -- who one is at heart. The question specifically says, "Is being -- not 'acting' -- gay a sin?"

I'm asking you for clarification: Does Islam regard who one is as a sin? That is, created outside of God's favor?