• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jay217

Private In the Canadian Armed Forces
Jun 23, 2010
213
6
Southern Alberta
✟22,863.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I wouldn't be TOO seriously troubled about it if I were you. Galileo, while not being entirely accurate about the physics involved in the cosmos, DID know that the sun did not revolve around the earth. He was therefore charged and sentenced by the Church as a heretic. Back then the 'wise ones' of the Church believed that the sun revolved around the earth, thanks to the text in Joshua (10:13) where it claims that the sun stood still.

Were you just as seriously troubled when 'some of the best minds' of the Vatican claimed in the 1990s - some 400 years after the Galileo affair - that Galileo WAS right after all in that the sun DOES NOT orbit the earth ...?

Did you know when Galileo was imprisoned for life he still practiced Catholicism? And if you are at constant warfare with Islam you can't really afford to have the Entire Christian Realm turn upside down.

Autumnleaf said:
I'm having serious trouble following the line of reasoning about how the Biblical meaning of homosexuality went from playing tiddly winks to anal sex over thousands of years.

The Catholic Church has a huge archive containing some of the most ancient texts and artifacts out there. They also happen to have some of the best minds studying those things. They also happen to be a place where homosexuals chose to go to make a living. Do you honestly think that if there was even the slightest chance that homosexuality was okay with God per the Bible, that the Catholic Church wouldn't be shouting it from the roof tops?

Or maybe God inspired you to be wiser than all of them put together so you could come up with a loop hole?

I have trouble understanding why in the entire chapter it talks about not committing sex with animals and family but says not to 'rape' other men.

As i said in an earlier post i've always been told that the Actions of Homosexuality is sinful not the urge. So yes the many Catholic Priests are indeed gay but they are also (should be) all celebrate.

Homosexuality for many is a powerful urge but isn't the suffering of Job much worse? he was forced to bed his kids were killed without reason and here you are complaining its too much to not "keep it in your pants"

Also to the interpretation that its meant for men dressed in women clothing - does that mean its okay to have sex with anyone as long as they are not trans-sexual?:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Merlin

Paradigm Buster
Sep 29, 2005
3,873
845
Avalon Island
✟32,437.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
As one scholar put it: It's hard to quote 2 laws of Leviticus as something that others should follow when the same Christian doesn't follow the other laws, nor have even probably read the whole book.
the context here is Is homosexuality a sin?

not who follows the law
But that said, let's look at the translation according to people who have researched it. Here, chapter 20, when looked at in context with chapter 18, suggests that 20:13 is actually talking about worshipping other Gods. It is important to look at the full context, who was being spoken to, who was speaking, and why. To simple lift a verse fully out of context is irresponsible.
chap 18 verses 1-3 make the context clear
Leviticus 18 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
And since people are known to change their :) eye color, as well as change their :) sexuality, what else :) would you like to learn... :thumbsup:
How does one change their eye color without contacts? The eye color you are born with can't be physically changed. Just like sexuality - you can hide your sexuality and pretend to live the straight life (i.e. wearing contacts), but underneath, you will always be whatever orientation you were born with.
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
KCKID said:
I wouldn't be TOO seriously troubled about it if I were you. Galileo, while not being entirely accurate about the physics involved in the cosmos, DID know that the sun did not revolve around the earth. He was therefore charged and sentenced by the Church as a heretic. Back then the 'wise ones' of the Church believed that the sun revolved around the earth, thanks to the text in Joshua (10:13) where it claims that the sun stood still.
KCKID said:
Were you just as seriously troubled when 'some of the best minds' of the Vatican claimed in the 1990s - some 400 years after the Galileo affair - that Galileo WAS right after all in that the sun DOES NOT orbit the earth ...?


So you are now claiming that God's acceptance of homosexuality is a law of science that somehow got by everyone who ever studied scripture, or science for that matter, until a couple homosexual guys got together who wanted to religiously justify what they were doing?

Almost. Scriptures that had been accepted 'as is' and unchallenged for centuries were simply re-examined and researched when the time had come for scholars to do so. Not necessarily gay scholars either. YOU made the claim that 'the wise ones' of the Church could not possibly have gotten it wrong about homosexuality and the Bible. The point "I" made is that 'the wise ones' certainly DO get it wrong and, probably, many more times than just once (as in the case of Galileo).
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟72,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
How does one change their eye color without contacts? The eye color you are born with can't be physically changed. Just like sexuality - you can hide your sexuality and pretend to live the straight life (i.e. wearing contacts), but underneath, you will always be whatever orientation you were born with.


Actually, eye color can and does change for some people. Though I find the comparison still a good one; we largely know eye color is based on genetics yet it can change over time, though is no known way for a person to force the eyes to change colors. This appears to be similar to sexual orientation where a person's sexual orientation can change over time however there seems no way for a person to force a change in their orientation.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually, eye color can and does change for some people. Though I find the comparison still a good one; we largely know eye color is based on genetics yet it can change over time, though is no known way for a person to force the eyes to change colors. This appears to be similar to sexual orientation where a person's sexual orientation can change over time however there seems no way for a person to force a change in their orientation.
Yeah, that was moreso my point. Barring some rare alteration whereby your eyes change gradually throughout your life, someone who has blue eyes in their teens, will probably still have blue eyes in their 40s. Much like skin color. For practical purposes, skin color doesn't change. That doesn't mean it hasn't or can't. Sexual orientation falls in the same category. While orientation can shift on the spectrum, one can't just choose to change who they are attracted to.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes, not that it's the only one.

I don't see how it can be with all the openly homosexual church leaders we seem to have these days.

You'd think Christians are supposed to be rich with all the prosperity teachers we have today. Oh, and healing doesn't come through the Holy Spirit anymore (apparently) now that you can call now and receive your miracle oil or prayer cloth. As for the church leaders, and their flocks, God shows mercy on whom he chooses.

Romans 1:24-32 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
d. Paul uses homosexuality - both female and male - as an example of God giving them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.
ii. Paul doesn’t even use the normal words for men and womenmale and female, using categories that describe sexuality outside of human terms, because the type of sexual sin he describes is outside of human dignity. here; he uses the words for

iii. Paul categorizes the whole section under the idea of vile passions - unhealthy, unholy. Nevertheless, Paul lived in a culture that openly approved of homosexuality. Paul didn’t write this to a culture that agreed with him.

iv. Paul wrote to a culture where homosexuality was accepted as a part of life for both men and women. For some 200 years, men who openly practiced homosexuality, often with young boys, ruled the Roman Empire.

v. At times, the Roman Empire specifically taxed approved homosexual prostitution and gave boy prostitutes a legal holiday. Legal marriage between same gender couples was recognized, and even some of the emperors married other men. At the very time Paul was writing, Nero was emperor. He took a boy named Sporus and had him castrated, then married him (with a full ceremony), brought him to the palace with a great procession, and made the boy his “wife.” Later, Nero lived with another man, and Nero was the “wife.”

vi. Homosexual practice truly is an abomination in our present culture. Statistics tell us that on average 43% of homosexuals say that they have had 500 or more sexual partners in their lifetime, and only 1% of homosexuals say they have had four or less sexual partners in their lifetime.

vii. According the Unites States Department of Health and Human Services, 77% of homosexuals say they have met sexual partners in a city park; 62% in a homosexual bar, 61% in a theater, 31% in a public restroom. Only 28% of homosexuals said that they had known their partners for at least a week before participating in homosexual sex.

viii. Homosexuals often seem to specialize in anonymous sex with no emotional commitment. At one time, London AIDS clinics defined a woman as promiscuous if she had more than six partners in her lifetime. They gave up trying to apply a workable definition to male homosexuals when it became clear that they saw almost no homosexual men who had less than six sexual partners a year.

The above commentary is from 2006. I haven't verified the statistics, so if anyone has conflicting data, do bring it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nChrist
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Tortoise, would you give the source for those statistics? (And not "according to HHS -- the actual resources you got them from.) Based on the suspiciously familiar numbers you're quoting, I have a hunch you are being duped by a particular anti-gay campaigner who circulates fraudulent 'statistics'. I'm not maing any accusation against you personally in seeking this; I'm asking for the sources in order to check them and if necessary refute them. Thanks in advance.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟924,660.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Tortoise, would you give the source for those statistics? (And not "according to HHS -- the actual resources you got them from.) Based on the suspiciously familiar numbers you're quoting, I have a hunch you are being duped by a particular anti-gay campaigner who circulates fraudulent 'statistics'. I'm not maing any accusation against you personally in seeking this; I'm asking for the sources in order to check them and if necessary refute them. Thanks in advance.

The majority of his post was Biblical, and you won't be refuting that. Further, the commentary on the Scripture was mild compared to what the Bible actually says about same sex acts. "Beastly" would be a more accurate word. So, attacking a few statistics that he furnished a disclaimer for would be ignoring the majority of the post that can't be refuted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JediMobius
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The majority of his post was Biblical, and you won't be refuting that. Further, the commentary on the Scripture was mild compared to what the Bible actually says about same sex acts. "Beastly" would be a more accurate word. So, attacking a few statistics that he furnished a disclaimer for would be ignoring the majority of the post that can't be refuted.

The only way it is 'irrefutable' is if we take a highly literalist interpretation of Scripture. And there is no compelling reason why we should do that.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Unfortunately, the commentary didn't cite the source of statistics other than HHS. I've always been useless with keyword searches. The internet presents a certain needles in haystacks issue. Further, there is no guarantee that HHS website provides all its surveys, statistics, etc. I'm still looking, but it would help if you could happen to track down the fraudulent statistics you've seen.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The only way it is 'irrefutable' is if we take a highly literalist interpretation of Scripture. And there is no compelling reason why we should do that.

Why should scripture be taken at anything other than its apparent meaning?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why should scripture be taken at anything other than its apparent meaning?

You mean literally? Because while the authors themselves may have taken what they wrote literally, it doesn't mean it happened exactly as they explained it to themselves. Case in point, 7 day creation and the Flood.
What's more, the authors were not immune from cultural bias.
 
Upvote 0

Jay217

Private In the Canadian Armed Forces
Jun 23, 2010
213
6
Southern Alberta
✟22,863.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You mean literally? Because while the authors themselves may have taken what they wrote literally, it doesn't mean it happened exactly as they explained it to themselves. Case in point, 7 day creation and the Flood.
What's more, the authors were not immune from cultural bias.

You can't really take it much less than literal in the romans quote. how else are we supposed to take it when it says so explicitly?

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful

natural use of women - sex for reproduction,
lust - no definition needed.
men with men = 2 men
2 Men +lust + unnatural use of what you would use a woman for = 2 men having sex.... don't see how else it could really be explained
 
  • Like
Reactions: JediMobius
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You can't really take it much less than literal in the romans quote. how else are we supposed to take it when it says so explicitly?

It also explicitly says that we ought to stone people for particular sins, and yet we don't do that.

But even so, as I said before, the authors were not immune from cultural prejudices, as is evident from their work.
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You can't really take it much less than literal in the romans quote. how else are we supposed to take it when it says so explicitly?

It may very well say so explicitly but what is the text ACTUALLY referring to? It's all well and good to grab a text here and a text there but without the WHOLE set of circumstances explained surrounding the who and the what and the why of the text what are we to make of it? Was Paul referring to Kevin and John, for instance, having sex in the local park? Or how about Darren and Tony who were caught in the act under the bleechers? Or, how about . . .

Please explain the entire scenario to us instead of grabbing at bits and pieces that don't make any sense.

natural use of women - sex for reproduction,

So, Sex is just for reproduction ...right? Casual or recreational heterosexual sex is a sin ...is that what you're saying?

lust - no definition needed.

And only gay men lust ...right? Furthermore, a committed relationship with a partner by either heterosexual or homosexual can hardly be construed as 'lust' ...now can it? Do you really know what the texts you raise are talking about?

men with men = 2 men

Clearly two heterosexual men if they 'left the natural use of women' ...? Gay men have no need for the 'natural use of women'.

2 Men +lust + unnatural use of what you would use a woman for = 2 men having sex.... don't see how else it could really be explained

Well, I think you need to explain it since you brought it up. Are you sure this is not describing pagan temple rituals involving heterosexual men who would normally have 'natural' relations with a woman? Again, please give us a complete rundown on what Paul is addressing so that we can all be informed appropriately as to what was actually going on.

Thanks.

Oh, one more thing. Paul is not God. He was a sinful mortal, just like the rest of us. :)
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You mean literally? Because while the authors themselves may have taken what they wrote literally, it doesn't mean it happened exactly as they explained it to themselves. Case in point, 7 day creation and the Flood.
What's more, the authors were not immune from cultural bias.

Not only is time relative, time is God's creation - I'm pretty sure he can set the celestial bodies in motion how he sees fit. More than once. Still, the apparent meaning of each day of creation is God's day, not earth's. I mean, there was no sun shining on the earth's rotation on the first day - no 24 hour cycle. We don't know how long God's day really is; his sabbath might have lasted all of Adam's life, or longer. At the very least, I think it's safe to say God created the universe in less time than the great minds of man would say it must have taken. (Not that if it took a hundred billion years, any other entity could have done it.) God's mysterious, and humanity is full of itself.

We don't know what the earth was like before the flood, but it was different, perhaps fundamentally.

Now, what's the problem with the literal account of the flood? How else was God supposed to get rid of the Nephilim? (and Lilith? lol)

There is, of course, inherent in the word 'literal' the problem of its meaning. The first meaning being 'not figurative or metaphorical', which sometimes the bible isn't, obviously doesn't allow for the stories and teachings that are. However, more appropriately, the 2nd and 3rd meanings are 'following the original closely' and 'true to fact', the latter in this case more like true to the spiritual facts. Everything in the bible should be found true when held in its context, assuming divine inspiration.

As for cultural bias, I'd like to see any instances you have in mind. One example contrary to the notion, the law given to Moses started with laws concerning fair treatment of slaves. That was unheard of at the time. I'm sure the Israelites would much rather have had a taste of how their Egyptian masters enjoyed slavery, instead of the concessions the law gave.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It also explicitly says that we ought to stone people for particular sins, and yet we don't do that.

But even so, as I said before, the authors were not immune from cultural prejudices, as is evident from their work.

The law, which highlights God's holiness, called for death as a punishment for many sins. The gospel, however - which would be what Romans is chiefly about - calls for mercy. Paul was speaking to an audience who had no doubt that homosexuality was a detestable sin, yet he even turned it around on them to say their sin was no better.

Also, the whole not stoning people thing isn't a change in God, but a change in culture, and that has little bearing on what is sinful or not, what is light or dark, what is Godly or ungodly. That God doesn't bring down judgment on the heads of sinners for their actions, and often didn't throughout the bible, is nothing but mercy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.