NationStates Jolt Archive

What makes catholicism not christian? Without them, you wouldn't have protestants. They were the first christians and are the most accurate of any church when it comes to the scriptures and traditions. Protestants on the other hand focus on one piece of scripture they like and base their whole church around that passage. Assembly of God focuses on Revelation, Mormonism focuses on the teachings of Joseph Smith (yes Mormons are considered Protestant.) Pentecostals focus on the teaching of speaking in tongues, you get the idea.

Read your church history buddy before spewing your biased opinion.

Thank you! Also, don't forget about the Orthodox; there wouldn't be any of them, either, had it not been for Catholicism. I may not totally agree with it, but it's my religion, and it IS Christian.

Suffice to say I don't believe Catholicism is Christianity.


This is the kind of thing that pisses me off. There are more Christians than just some little snake-kissing, strychnine-drinking church in the swamps, or one of those Wal-Mart Megachurches. I suppose since it's a free country you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make your belief correct.

Suffice to say I don't believe Catholicism is Christianity.
That's a pretty daring position in Ireland.

It's also obviously false. All Christian churches are splintered from Catholicism (either directly or indirectly). Taken even more broadly, it would include any religion which worships Christ, which would include the Mormons, for example.

You can say that you don't think Catholicism reflects the values you think best describe what you think Christianity should be, but that's about as far as you can go without sounding like a lunatic.

Since its not a choice, it can't be a sin. Sins are BS anyway.

I, as a Catholic, don't see anything wrong.
Tell him it's not wrong, that the rules of Christian religions are two:
1. Love God above all.
2. Love your Neighbor as yourself.
He's not breaking any.

First you said that it's disqualified because God gave them up to it so it's not homosexuality in the normal sense, and then you said about its use elsewhere that it's disqualified because the word now means a child molester...

So are you saying we should not hold child molesters at fault because God gave them up to it? No, of course you are not saying that. What gets you in trouble with your translation is your adamant opposition to the idea that the word might actually mean male-on-male sex (in any form, adult male-young boy, prostitution or adult consenting homosexual relations), but it does mean all of them, even if you don't wish it to.

Your mixing up the quotes and twisting the meanings of the Bible here. In my FIRST quote (from Romans), the people to whom Paul refers to are heterosexuals who have decided to forsake God and avoid praising Him. In revenge, God has given up on them; therefore, they become “consumed with passion,” that is to say, they act in a lustful way. Both men and women were overtaken by lust, and became preoccupied with obtaining sexual self-gratification with whomever they pleased. Homosexual sex (in that it is herein had by people who are heterosexual by nature) was God’s punishment for the sin of failing to praise Him, and not the sin itself.

The word used in the later quotes, originally arsenokoitai, does not appear in Romans, and thus Paul is obviously not referring to the same thing. There are several other words that Paul could have used to describe homosexuals, and he didn't use them. The word he used is more closely correlated to pedophiles. I think you're the one with the adamant definition here, trying like so many others to force the Bible to support your views.[/QUOTE]


Against your claims, if you read the message in it’s entirety and do not obfuscate the issue with the spellings of words you don’t like, it is apparent that Paul, like historical Judaism before him, identified homosexuality (a word itself that didn’t exactly exist until recent time) or homoeroticism (the physical act of same on same gender sex) is the same as any other type of sexual immorality. It IS included in this list of ‘wrongs’ and are one of many immoral sexual practices. Christians must treat it in that regard.
...

I'm sorry, but the original texts just don't support this.

As for the rest of your rather massive post, I will agree with the hypocrasy of most Christians to focus so much on homosexuals when there's so much divorce and promiscuity. However, you contradict yourself in your conclusion. The church is currently perfectly willing to wed, say, a 27 year old girl who's currently marrying her 5th 90+ year old millionair. Yet two men who love each other truly are turned away. Who's the most immoral, really?

Your mixing up the quotes and twisting the meanings of the Bible here. In my FIRST quote (from Romans), the people to whom Paul refers to are heterosexuals who have decided to forsake God and avoid praising Him. In revenge, God has given up on them; therefore, they become “consumed with passion,” that is to say, they act in a lustful way. Both men and women were overtaken by lust, and became preoccupied with obtaining sexual self-gratification with whomever they pleased. Homosexual sex (in that it is herein had by people who are heterosexual by nature) was God’s punishment for the sin of failing to praise Him, and not the sin itself.

If homosexual acts were not an inherently wrong thing to begin with, or a hard thing to endure, why would it be used as a punishment? It would not. From the homosexual acts is ‘okay’ philosophy, then it would be like saying some people don’t like eating ice cream and so people that don’t like it are being punished by God into thinking they like it and then they are making themselves eat it. It’s silly, it’s not a punishment unless they don’t like it, it would be more like getting a reward and it would make for a very bad story lesson because the punishment of eating Ice Cream doesn’t really scare or make people think they don’t want to be punished (if what you say about the passage is was the intended method of the passage).

Rather (if you idea that it is punishment is in fact valid), homosexual acts would have to be equated along the lines of something like a whipping, although it may be true that some people like being whipped the vast majority of people do not like it and it could then be used as a punishment example for bad actions and everyone would understands that it is a punishment when reading the passage/lesson. However, if this is right then homosexual acts would have to be viewed as a whipping and not at all like eating Ice Cream and clearly the “homosexual acts is okay position” cannot argue that homosexual acts are both a punishment and something they love with God’s blessing and still be taken seriously.

I point out the above only as an example to show the error of your position. More to the point though, the act of ‘giving them up to it’ is not itself indicative of what you think it is.

The example from the passage is actually more like this: a good college professor finds themselves in a class of hooligans who have no intention of learning the subject and they have determined to do their best to not learn it. Once the teacher discovers that there isn’t a single student in the class that actually wants to learn the course they realize that it is a waste of their time and efforts to try teaching it anyway and so they “give them over to their antics” and moves onto another classroom where the students do want to learn the course, abandoning the old classroom of students but not actually ‘punishing them’ outside of them not being rewarded with credits for the course. The passage is talking about hooligans that have been left to their own resources because they are a waste of God’s time. They are “given over” to their lustful desires and are left alone until Judgment day.

In no way can it be inferred from that passage that the people in question were ‘raped’ and or otherwise being molested or punished via homosexual acts, as you suggested. No, it says clearly that they learned to ‘desire’ it and that there was a lust for it in their hearts. Therefore it must be deduced that they themselves would disagree with your analyses that they were heterosexuals first and foremost. Unless you are trying to suggest that everyone is a heterosexual first and foremost and people can be punished into falsely believing that they like homosexual acts when in fact they do not, like they are self-induced brainwashed, and if you think about for a few minutes and what that would mean about people today that say they are homosexuals; someone could say, no, you only think you are as punishment of your gullibility … I’m quite sure you are not trying to say that.

The word used in the later quotes, originally arsenokoitai, does not appear in Romans, and thus Paul is obviously not referring to the same thing. There are several other words that Paul could have used to describe homosexuals, and he didn't use them. The word he used is more closely correlated to pedophiles. I think you're the one with the adamant definition here, trying like so many others to force the Bible to support your views.

More than once I’ve seen this argument made and it comes from the same position that previously or simultaneously claims that Paul didn’t understand modern day loving homosexual relationships because they didn’t have them then and wasn’t therefore talking about the same thing we are talking about now, will then turn around and say that Paul would have used one of the many other words for homosexual relationships if that is what he meant. It usually ends with, “He didn’t use those other words because he didn’t mean them, thus I must be right that he was NOT talking about homosexual loving relationships.”

The error of this argument is of course that there can’t be a bunch of other words to be used because words are made for things that exist, or else there wouldn’t be words. There are no words in ancient Greek that mean two people of the same sex having a lifelong Homosexual loving relationship together, and we need to dismiss as silly the position that simultaneously says Paul could have used another word for it but then also says that to the Ancients, as this pro-Gay interpretation of the scripture site agrees with both of your arguments says; “Homosexuality as in a relationship was something unknown to the ancient’s minds. They all assumed that the “natural way” was to be heterosexual. These are primitive people with limited knowledge and understanding of sexuality. “Normal” to them was heterosexual, plain and simple” (http://www.trinitymcc.com/worship/sermon_God_gays4.htm) . However, as I already pointed out, that doesn’t make any sense and in fact, can’t make any sense, and that sort of thing happens when you are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. You might be able to get it in, but you needed a very large hammer and you couldn’t be concerned about collateral damage, because to the rest of us we can plainly see that it simply doesn’t belong there.


As for the rest of your rather massive post, I will agree with the hypocrasy of most Christians to focus so much on homosexuals when there's so much divorce and promiscuity. However, you contradict yourself in your conclusion. The church is currently perfectly willing to wed, say, a 27 year old girl who's currently marrying her 5th 90+ year old millionair. Yet two men who love each other truly are turned away. Who's the most immoral, really?

I understand and agree with this section, but I would note and disagree with your accusation that the 27 year old girl who is currently marrying her 5th 95 year old millionaire, does not in fact actually get married in a regular Christian Church that I know of so that is not a valid argument about which is more ‘moral’.

The minister that married me and my wife wouldn’t have agreed to perform the marriage until we attended and passed several pre-marriage counseling courses with him, and the church I attend in another state now does the same thing. And I know of several church denominations that won’t marry non-members or non-Christians without similar conditions simply because of the likelihood of divorce and non-believers abusing the institution of Christian marriage.

I think secular Americans confuse Las Vegas style quickie marriages and spur of the moment or non-religious Justice of the Peace marriages with “Christian Marriages,” lumping them together like there is no difference.

I would even speculate that most Christian ministers will require more proof of devotion and dedication to the marriage and not just accept fifty bucks and meal to perform a marriage with Christian vows in the name of Christ. Secular marriages in America are not an example of Christian Marriages in America. (but there are problems with Christian Marriages as well, that was already addressed in my previous post).

If homosexual acts were not an inherently wrong thing to begin with, or a hard thing to endure, why would it be used as a punishment? It would not. From the homosexual acts is ‘okay’ philosophy, then it would be like saying some people don’t like eating ice cream and so people that don’t like it are being punished by God into thinking they like it and then they are making themselves eat it. It’s silly, it’s not a punishment unless they don’t like it, it would be more like getting a reward and it would make for a very bad story lesson because the punishment of eating Ice Cream doesn’t really scare or make people think they don’t want to be punished (if what you say about the passage is was the intended method of the passage).

Rather (if you idea that it is punishment is in fact valid), homosexual acts would have to be equated along the lines of something like a whipping, although it may be true that some people like being whipped the vast majority of people do not like it and it could then be used as a punishment example for bad actions and everyone would understands that it is a punishment when reading the passage/lesson. However, if this is right then homosexual acts would have to be viewed as a whipping and not at all like eating Ice Cream and clearly the “homosexual acts is okay position” cannot argue that homosexual acts are both a punishment and something they love with God’s blessing and still be taken seriously.

I point out the above only as an example to show the error of your position. More to the point though, the act of ‘giving them up to it’ is not itself indicative of what you think it is.

The example from the passage is actually more like this: a good college professor finds themselves in a class of hooligans who have no intention of learning the subject and they have determined to do their best to not learn it. Once the teacher discovers that there isn’t a single student in the class that actually wants to learn the course they realize that it is a waste of their time and efforts to try teaching it anyway and so they “give them over to their antics” and moves onto another classroom where the students do want to learn the course, abandoning the old classroom of students but not actually ‘punishing them’ outside of them not being rewarded with credits for the course. The passage is talking about hooligans that have been left to their own resources because they are a waste of God’s time. They are “given over” to their lustful desires and are left alone until Judgment day.

In no way can it be inferred from that passage that the people in question were ‘raped’ and or otherwise being molested or punished via homosexual acts, as you suggested. No, it says clearly that they learned to ‘desire’ it and that there was a lust for it in their hearts. Therefore it must be deduced that they themselves would disagree with your analyses that they were heterosexuals first and foremost. Unless you are trying to suggest that everyone is a heterosexual first and foremost and people can be punished into falsely believing that they like homosexual acts when in fact they do not, like they are self-induced brainwashed, and if you think about for a few minutes and what that would mean about people today that say they are homosexuals; someone could say, no, you only think you are as punishment of your gullibility … I’m quite sure you are not trying to say that.

Let's look at the quotes in question, shall we? (Romans 1:20-31)

“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

Possible translation mishaps aside, I think it's rather obvious from the passage, especially the emphasized part, that God forced them into this behavior as punishment. It's also obvious that the people were heterosexual to begin with. Imagine it yourself: If you suddenly found yourself unable to control to yourself and started having wild homosexual sex (I assume you're straight), all the while perhaps with a part of you feeling that it is very wrong (because you are going against your straight nature). I think that's a rather cruel punishment.


More than once I’ve seen this argument made and it comes from the same position that previously or simultaneously claim that Paul didn’t understand modern day loving homosexual relationships because they didn’t have them then and wasn’t therefore talking about the same thing we are talking about now will then turn around and say that Paul would have used one of the many other words for homosexual relationships if that what he meant. It usually ends with, “He didn’t use them because he didn’t mean them, thus I must be right that he wasn’t talking about homosexual loving relationships.”

The error of this argument is of course that there can’t be a bunch of other words to be used because words are made for things that exist, or else there wouldn’t be words. There are no words in ancient Greek that mean two people of the same sex having a lifelong Homosexual loving relationship together, and we need to dismiss as silly the position that simultaneously says Paul could have used another word for it but then also says that to the Ancients, as this pro-Gay interpretation of the scripture site agrees with both of your arguments says; “Homosexuality as in a relationship was something unknown to the ancient’s minds. They all assumed that the “natural way” was to be heterosexual. These are primitive people with limited knowledge and understanding of sexuality. “Normal” to them was heterosexual, plain and simple” (http://www.trinitymcc.com/worship/sermon_God_gays4.htm) . However, as I already pointed out, that doesn’t make any sense and in fact, can’t make any sense, and that sort of thing happens when you are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. You might be able to get it in, but you needed a very large hammer and you couldn’t be concerned about collateral damage, because to the rest of us we can plainly see that it simply doesn’t belong there.

I honestly have no idea what you're really trying to say here. You claim it makes no sense, but give absolutely no reason as to why it makes no sense. There were words for homosexual acts, even if there were none for life-long relationships (Why would he even want to condemn that, specifically, and not irresponsible loveless gay sex?), which he didn't use. Why?


I understand and agree with this section, but I would note and disagree with your accusation that the 27 year old girl who is currently marrying her 5th 95 year old millionaire, does not in fact actually get married in a regular Christian Church that I know of so that is not a valid argument about which is more ‘moral’.

The minister that married me and my wife wouldn’t have agreed to perform the marriage until we attended and passed several pre-marriage counseling courses with him, and the church I attend in another state now does the same thing. And I know of several church denominations that won’t marry non-members or non-Christians without similar conditions simply because of the likelihood of divorce and non-believers abusing the institution of Christian marriage.

I think secular Americans confuse Las Vegas style quickie marriages and spur of the moment or non-religious Justice of the Peace marriages with “Christian Marriages,” lumping them together like there is no difference.

I would even speculate that most Christian ministers will require more proof of devotion and dedication to the marriage and not just accept fifty bucks and meal to perform a marriage with Christian vows in the name of Christ. Secular marriages in America are not an example of Christian Marriages in America. (but there are problems with Christian Marriages as well, that was already addressed in my previous post).

Unfortunately, your personal experience does not equate with the world in general. The truth is, that quickie Las Vegas chapel marriages are viewed exactly the same as other marriages by the state, the church (as an institution), and people in general. They're married. There aren't different 'levels' of marriage. Yet the gold-digger's marriage is still regarded as more pure and holy than two men that have loved each other exclusively for 40 years.

I must sound really awful, or brainwashed or stupid, but believe me I'm not.

Well you are walking and quacking awfuly like a duck . . .

Possible translation mishaps aside, I think it's rather obvious from the passage, especially the emphasized part, that God forced them into this behavior as punishment. It's also obvious that the people were heterosexual to begin with. Imagine it yourself: If you suddenly found yourself unable to control to yourself and started having wild homosexual sex (I assume you're straight), all the while perhaps with a part of you feeling that it is very wrong (because you are going against your straight nature). I think that's a rather cruel punishment.

You see, that's the rub of it. Your position concludes with an irrational and unrealistic result. You exchange the long unacceptable explanation of their 'bad behavior' with The Devil made me do it, and instead have them say, God made me do it, resulting in an unbelievable excuse for their behavior. God did not turn them into robotons and use them like puppets and it doesn't say that, it's reader misunderstanding.


I honestly have no idea what you're really trying to say here. You claim it makes no sense, but give absolutely no reason as to why it makes no sense. There were words for homosexual acts, even if there were none for life-long relationships (Why would he even want to condemn that, specifically, and not irresponsible loveless gay sex?), which he didn't use. Why?

First, it makes no sense because they can't have a word for something that the position claims didn't exist, and with that I agree, it didn't exist, they didn't have words for it, so Paul was influence by the Leviticus words to invent a word in Greek to mean the same thing. But your position claims both that he could have used other words and that what we are talking about didn't exist then, in the end, that makes no sense. He had to invent the word himself or use an obscure word little referenced at that time to say exactly what it has always been translated to mean. We've only invented the word "Homosexuality" ourselves very recently, it wasn't an available option for old Bible translations and they couldn't have been influenced by the modern debate and they thought it was referencing same-sex sexual acts.


Unfortunately, your personal experience does not equate with the world in general. The truth is, that quickie Las Vegas chapel marriages are viewed exactly the same as other marriages by the state, the church (as an institution), and people in general. They're married. There aren't different 'levels' of marriage. Yet the gold-digger's marriage is still regarded as more pure and holy than two men that have loved each other exclusively for 40 years.

You are still doing it, why call a secular marriage holy?

You see, that's the rub of it. Your position concludes with an irrational and unrealistic result. You exchange the long unacceptable explanation of their 'bad behavior' with The Devil made me do it, and instead have them say, God made me do it, resulting in an unbelievable excuse for their behavior. God did not turn them into robotons and use them like puppets and it doesn't say that, it's reader misunderstanding.

Unacceptable explanation to you, acceptable explanation to others. This passage is generally complex and controversial. I'm not sure that I have the correct interpretation, but that's the meaning I decipher from the text. It comes off a tad arrogant of you to seem to "know" the exact meaning of the words, when even biblical scholars debate it.

Regardless, whether God forced them into their behavior or not, it doesn't change the fact that homosexual acts wasn't the sin they were being punished for, but worshipping of false idols.


First, it makes no sense because they can't have a word for something that the position claims didn't exist, and with that I agree, it didn't exist, they didn't have words for it, so Paul was influence by the Leviticus words to invent a word in Greek to mean the same thing. But your position claims both that he could have used other words and that what we are talking about didn't exist then, in the end, that makes no sense. He had to invent the word himself or use an obscure word little referenced at that time to say exactly what it has always been translated to mean. We've only invented the word "Homosexuality" ourselves very recently, it wasn't an available option for old Bible translations and they couldn't have been influenced by the modern debate and they thought it was referencing same-sex sexual acts.

"My" position does not claim that homosexual sex didn't exist then. Did you read my post?


There were words for homosexual acts, even if there were none for life-long relationships

Upon doing some additional research, I'm amending my meaning of the words he used, having found more accurate sources.

The first word, "Malakos" (literally "soft") was not commonly used by Greek speakers of Paul's time in sexual contexts (nor is it today). In Paul's usage, it may be suggestive of some kind of effeminacy or weakness, but it is not a word which other speakers and writers of Greek used to refer to homosexual behavior or practitioners. "Malakos," indeed, is used in several other places in the New Testament in ways that have nothing to do with sex (e.g., Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25). The word's usage overall is uncommon.

As for arsenokoitai, it's generally odd that he would make up a word at all.
There are lots of words he could have used: "erastes," "eromenos," "paedika," "paederastes" and others. If Paul intended unequivocally to condemn all manner of sex between males, it is extremely puzzling that he didn't use words which his Greek-speaking audience would find familiar and unambiguous. He could have taken it from the Greek translation of Leviticus, but those passages are mainly ritual cleanliness. If Paul is using the term arsenokoitai to refer to homosexual behavior at all, he is not prohibiting all homosexual behavior, only some type of male homosexual behavior that produced ritual uncleanness in the mind of the first century church, most likely a Canaanite sacred sex ritual.


You are still doing it, why call a secular marriage holy?

A marriage isn't secular if it takes place in a church and is performed by a minister. Like it or not, irresponsible marriages do take place under such circumstances, in Las Vegas and other places. Also (the point you smoothly dodged) in the end, their marriage is regarded exactly the same as everyone else's.

So you guys are saying that gay intamcy is wrong only if your not gay...If you are strait and you do that then its wrong...Right?:confused:

So you guys are saying that gay intamcy is wrong only if your not gay...If you are strait and you do that then its wrong...Right?:confused:

That is what Cromotar is saying, and is trying to show, he thinks the scripture says that it was used as a punishment against heterosexual men, forcing them to have homosexual relations.

I am not saying that. I am saying that the modern interpretation that says it is implied to mean heterosexual men having homosexual relations is too modern a concept for it to have even been attempted to say that then. I do NOT believe that the ancient Greeks/Jews/Gentiles/Christians had any concept that there was such a thing as homosexual or heterosexual only men and therefore the passage can NOT be addressing itself to mean such a modern concept unknown to them then.

The scripture was against homosexual acts altogether, it does not discern itself between heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

O i see now:D

That is what Cromotar is saying, and is trying to show, he thinks the scripture says that it was used as a punishment against heterosexual men, forcing them to have homosexual relations.

I am not saying that. I am saying that the modern interpretation that says it is implied to mean heterosexual men having homosexual relations is too modern a concept for it to have even been attempted to say that then. I do NOT believe that the ancient Greeks/Jews/Gentiles/Christians had any concept that there was such a thing as homosexual or heterosexual only men and therefore the passage can NOT be addressing itself to mean such a modern concept unknown to them then.

The scripture was against homosexual acts altogether, it does not discern itself between heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

Your belief on this particular aspect is incorrect. Homosexual relations were actually well known to ancient Greek society. Even Science Illustrated told me that much. There's even a Wikipedia entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Just because the word homosexuality is new does not mean that the concept of it is new. To think that it didn't even exist in the ancient times is just naïve.

Markiria: What I was trying to say was that the acts of homosexual sex was one of the punishments of the people described in Romans (as they were originally not homosexual), not that it was a sin in and of itself. My point is that sins described in the Romans passage are idolatry, not gay sex.

Your belief on this particular aspect is incorrect. Homosexual relations were actually well known to ancient Greek society. Even Science Illustrated told me that much. There's even a Wikipedia entry on it:
...

To think that it didn't even exist in the ancient times is just naïve.

I did not say that homosexual acts were not done then, I said the concept of homosexual only orientation was not a concept then. In fact, if you want to try and utilize the Greeks for examples, the Spartan soldier are said to have had homosexual relations with other soldiers, but they were obligated to attend to their wives at home to have more Spartan babies for the community.

The Greeks can be used for examples to show they understood bi-sexuality but I fail to see how they can be used to suggest that they had any concept of a modern homosexual relationship/orientation. It does not show that they think men can be heterosexual OR homosexual, they just thought men were men and could have sex with nearly anyone or anything.

I did not say that homosexual acts were not done then, I said the concept of homosexual only orientation was not a concept then. In fact, if you want to try and utilize the Greeks for examples, the Spartan soldier are said to have had homosexual relations with other soldiers, but they were obligated to attend to their wives at home to have more Spartan babies for the community.

The Greeks can be used for examples to show they understood bi-sexuality but I fail to see how they can be used to suggest that they had any concept of a modern homosexual relationship/orientation. It does not show that they think men can be heterosexual OR homosexual, they just thought men were men and could have sex with nearly anyone or anything.

Apologies, I misunderstood. But if we can come to the conclusion that life-long, monogamous homosexual relationships did not exist (as a concept) in that era, can we then also come to the conclusion that such relationships are not condemned as sin in the (original) Bible text?

Apologies, I misunderstood. But if we can come to the conclusion that life-long, monogamous homosexual relationships did not exist (as a concept) in that era, can we then also come to the conclusion that such relationships are not condemned as sin in the (original) Bible text?

How can doing "more" of a thing not allowed turn it into something permissible?

If I said to my children, stop doing this thing you do sometimes, and then I left the room and came back later and found that the thing I told them not to do was now the only thing they were doing at all anymore, I don’t think I would suddenly change my mind and think it was be a good thing that they were doing.

It doesn’t matter what it is, I would have no reason to assume that this would be true about the scripture message either. If doing it a little is bad, doing it a lot is likely worse, not better.

How can doing "more" of a thing not allowed turn it into something permissible?

If I said to my children, stop doing this thing you do sometimes, and then I left the room and came back later and found that the thing I told them not to do was now the only thing they were doing at all anymore, I don’t think I would suddenly change my mind and think it was be a good thing that they were doing.

It doesn’t matter what it is, I would have no reason to assume that this would be true about the scripture message either. If doing it a little is bad, doing it a lot is likely worse, not better.

Homosexuality was acceptable until the Abrahamic God followers said it wasnt.

Imagine if someone came to your town and started saying "If you sit down you shall be put to death"

Homosexuality was acceptable until the Abrahamic God followers said it wasnt.

Imagine if someone came to your town and started saying "If you sit down you shall be put to death"

I have since the beginning of talking about this concept at all tried to differentiate between Christian ideology and secular community. I have even differentiated between secular marriage and Christian marriage.

But the topic is Gay = Sin? and it that regard I have to assume the OP and topic is Christian interpretation of what Sin is. So that is the only type of Sin I have been talking about. If we start talking about what the Greeks believed and used and ridiculed etc., then the answers will be different.

How can doing "more" of a thing not allowed turn it into something permissible?

If I said to my children, stop doing this thing you do sometimes, and then I left the room and came back later and found that the thing I told them not to do was now the only thing they were doing at all anymore, I don’t think I would suddenly change my mind and think it was be a good thing that they were doing.

It doesn’t matter what it is, I would have no reason to assume that this would be true about the scripture message either. If doing it a little is bad, doing it a lot is likely worse, not better.

I feel we are going in circles here. I claim that nowhere in the Bible is homosexual sex per se condemned, and you claim otherwise. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, and show once again that the Bible is open to many different interpretations.

I understand that everyone is allowed to believe what they want, but, last time I checked, Catholicism is a form of Christianity. What's your reasoning?

Edited to Add: I'm still trying to get coding down, so until I do, I won't put any in.
Right, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I thought it was kind of stupid to post and not be around to reply (which is what I did, but anyway I couldn't get back on after I posted).

Enough of excuses, what I meant was that Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestantism are all branded as 'Christianity'. So if you say that you're Christian it can mean any of the millions of people that fit under these branches and their sub-divisions. It can get very confusing. I don't consider Catholics to be Christians, i.e. to be saved, because they don't follow the basic principle that it is Jesus who saves people not priests or how many "Hail Mary"s you say etc. That's about as simply as I can put it.

Right, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I thought it was kind of stupid to post and not be around to reply (which is what I did, but anyway I couldn't get back on after I posted).

Enough of excuses, what I meant was that Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestantism are all branded as 'Christianity'. So if you say that you're Christian it can mean any of the millions of people that fit under these branches and their sub-divisions. It can get very confusing. I don't consider Catholics to be Christians, i.e. to be saved, because they don't follow the basic principle that it is Jesus who saves people not priests or how many "Hail Mary"s you say etc. That's about as simply as I can put it.



And I can put it no more simply than to say you are wrong, that's not what we believe, and I'll thank you to not speak on things you know nothing about and can't seemed to be bothered to learn the truth of.

Ok I see the point know..You guys dont have to ramble on lashing out at eachother but hey more post the more popular my tread becomes

No, it's not a sin.
No, it's not wrong.
No, it's not filthy.

Although some people would have him believe so, you must tell him those people are simply trying to use God and Religion as an excuse to further push their prejudices and bigotry upon others.
Check out my post a couple of pages back. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin, but bigotry, hatred and assault are even greater sins.

Let's not forget that homosexuality is mentionned about 5 times only in the Bible, and not a word about/against it is spoken by Jesus. By comparison, adultery is mentionned 200+ times, many of which are admonitions by the Son of God(tm) himself. Seems to me some fundies are trying to justify their own bigotry by making homosexuality a "pet sin".
I'm a Christian and I agree 100% here. The people who elevate homosexuality to being "the ultimate evil sin" tend to be bigots.

It's expressly forbidden by God, mostly his servants on earth have articulated that. So unless you don't accept God's servants (a grave error that one only need follow the Old Testament to figure out) it is a sin.
Careful about that. When the anti-Christ comes he will also claim to be a servant of God.

Check out my post a couple of pages back. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin, but bigotry, hatred and assault are even greater sins.


I'm a Christian and I agree 100% here. The people who elevate homosexuality to being "the ultimate evil sin" tend to be bigots.


Careful about that. When the anti-Christ comes he will also claim to be a servant of God.

but only after the rapture right?

What does scientology have to say about homosexuallity?

What does scientology have to say about homosexuallity?

Maybe the aliens did some kind of morphing of the human mind?

Check out my post a couple of pages back. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin, but bigotry, hatred and assault are even greater sins.


I'm a Christian and I agree 100% here. The people who elevate homosexuality to being "the ultimate evil sin" tend to be bigots.


Careful about that. When the anti-Christ comes he will also claim to be a servant of God.
Well, do you consider eating seafood a sin as well? And wearing clothes of more than one fabric? If those fit under your definition of a "sin", then saying homosexuality is a "sin" as well is at least consistent in your views.

I'm glad you agree about the bigotry issue, though. Too many so-called christian are judgemental and seem to focus on homosexuality more than any other sin, claiming moral superiority over gays and lesbians while some of them cheat on their spouses, or cheat or steal. Ultimately, I feel they're just using homosexuality as a scapegoat in order to turn other's eyes away from their own sins and actions that hurt others.

In my eyes, a sin without a victim doesn't exist. Stealing takes something away from someboby. Being lazy or greedy makes other work hard for your own benefit. Swearing or worshipping false idols take something away from God.

But wearing clothes from two different kinds of material, or entering a committed, long-term and loving relationship with a person of the same gender takes nothing away from anyone.

Anyway, those were my two cents.

What does scientology have to say about homosexuallity?

They originally considered it a mental disorder that stemmed from engrams, but changed that once they realized the profit opportunities from reaching out to homosexuals. LRH was no fan of gays by any stretch.

They originally considered it a mental disorder that stemmed from engrams, but changed that once they realized the profit opportunities from reaching out to homosexuals. LRH was no fan of gays by any stretch.
See? capitalism does fight for equal opportunity.

Ask God if gayness is a sin.
http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Ask God if gayness is a sin.
http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html
This link pwns. You win this thread.

Ask God if gayness is a sin.
http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html
No way

http://awesomefag.ytmnd.com/

The Bible quotes that "Ye shall not lie with a male as ye lie with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." Lev. 18:22 Note that nowhere does it say that homosexuality is a sin. Just as being attracted to a woman outside of wedlock is not a sin, so too is homosexuality not a sin. However, the act of homosexual sex is a sin, according to the Bible. As to your friend, I would say that since he is rather young, he should talk to a psychologist, but even if he is gay, God will never stop loving him. Your friend will seperate himself from God if he has homosexual sex, but he will not cease to be loved by God. This is what the Bible states, but your friend has to understand himself for himself.

If homosexual acts were not an inherently wrong thing to begin with, or a hard thing to endure, why would it be used as a punishment? It would not.

By that logic, since heterosexual acts are supposedly the 'right' way of things, being made to have straight sex couldn't possibly be a punishment. But as a gay man, if you forced me to go down on a woman I'd probably be wondering what the hell I did to deserve that. Being made to perform contrary to your orientation-- whether it's gay men with women or straight men with other men-- could be seen as punishment. So if your boys in the bible considered being turned 'gay for a day' punishment, perhaps the qualifying factor was that they were straight and it went against their nature, not that being gay is inherently wrong in and of itself.

Or-- here's a wacky idea-- maybe people in general could dispense with the invisible-voice-from-the-sky worship, as though in all the age and vastness of the universe, the 'creator' of it all was fixated on 6 billion people on a chunk of rock in some unextraordinary part of the universe; maybe they could stop slavishly depending on authority figures and books written in an obsolete, practically alien context to provide meaning in their lives; maybe the human race could stop living with superstition and fear of the unknown, and embrace reason as a moral guide and concrete studies like science to answer their questions about the nature of reality, and maybe then-- without the boorish trappings of religion-- people will finally stop killing each other, and themselves, in order to appease the invisible voice from the sky.

Thats not even the correct context. The actual verse is "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." Translation: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

Noone has any clue what the hell that means. Some even think it means you shall not lay with a male in the bed of a woman. This is a disgrace to the males, as women were seen as property.

One commonly accepted meaning of that verse is that a man is not allowed to sleep on anything a menstruating woman has slept on, but that's mostly inference, as the surrounding passages deal with menstruation.

Because there is no definitive work on what is a sin and what isn't (and there never will be), my suggestion is to stop worrying about it. If he believes in an all-loving, all-knowing deity, then he's got nothing to worry about besides mortal IDIOTS who think they know the will of a perfect being. Verses can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.

Careful about that. When the anti-Christ comes he will also claim to be a servant of God.

Maybe he already did and thinks its completely wonderful that some Christians are fucked up in the head. Makes him feel all tingly inside.