Homosexuality = sin

I believe it is totally wrong for people to judge that kind of stuff.

 

No, it's something that's in the religeon and it clearly says it's looked down upon. I wouldn't say that people should cry about this and change the religeon, then they might as well change everything to meet their needs.

 

Then someone should have told Jewsarse, who lived the "Old Law" to the letter all his life!

P.S. Paul The Interloper wrote the so called New Testament, not Big Jewlie.

(snip)

 

What the hell are any of you talking about here anyway?

 

Yes ! I agree

 

Things that G-d refuses to acknowledge exist, like arseholes, manholes, and the things that get shoved in them. :love:

 

It's still judgemental regardless of whether or not it's part of the religion, when they start trying to change others and force their thinking onto someone else.

In my opinion people can believe whatever they want, but what will irritate me is when they expect others to think in the same way, or will try to change someone who is gay.

 

Lets get your opinion stated in your own words, just leave yer god stuff out of the equation...Do you have problems with gay people and how they live their lives?

 

actually, reading his other posts elsewhere

i'd say he has a bigger problem with religion.

 

You can't "leave" the "god stuff out of the equation" unless you change the original question.

For if I had to decide what's right from what's wrong basing only on the preferences of my (or somebody else's) heart, I'd never be even that sure to call things "sin" or "not sin" -- seeing that folks do whatever they want and seem to get on pretty well.
Really: who of humans knows precisely what we are and what is good for us?

It is only the Maker who can define what is "sin". He's the Maker, he knows HOW he made us. Whether we feel happy, excited, drawn to somebody, in love with somebody, satisfied, happy -- he knows precisely what we feel. Was it not Him who invented our bodies with these abilities in them? When one's having sex, can you imagine that God wouldn't know precisely how it feels having sex? He, who designed our bodies with that amazing ability and all the feelings that go along with that?
Granted, He knows even more than just that: he knows the end result of every such thing and can't be deceived by how it feels just right now.
So, finally, when God says something is "sin", it means a person practising such thing will fair badly IN THE END OF IT. It equally means, that God can't and won't change it in order to comply with them who don't care.
Choosing the wrong way is also bad in that in the end of it there's often no heart left in them to change their lives over, even though they now see it all very well...
How kind of God to tell me in advance, which is good and which is disastrous! That I may not waste my time and endure pains for nothing.

Sorry for that long explanation, but this is what's behind the idea of "sin" and you see now why people can't help including "god stuff" when asked whether it is "sin" or not? So maybe modify the original question into something one REALLY wanted to ask?

 

I think its fairly safe to assume that the vast majority of Christians who use the bible (which has been altered by man several times over the centuries) as an excuse to condemn homosexuality as a "sin", either regularly partake in sins mentioned in the same portion of the bible, or do not regard them as sins at all. Most "Christians" are what I like to call, pick n' mix Christians.

The section of the bible most often quoted by Christians to condemn homosexuality, also condemns things like trimming beards, condones murdering your child if they "curse" you, refferring to consumption of shellfish as an "abomination", and a host of other things that would be considered as ludicrous to be applied to any "moral" code by most people. Including ironically, most Christians. Why are Christians not so outspoken (or even outspoken at all) about these things which are classed as sins just as much as homosexuality is? The truth is, most Christians just use their religion as a shield to hide behind their own bigoted views towards homosexuality.

 

That's exactly what I've found. And, it's one of the things that annoys me most about it.

 

I'm not religious.
Though there are still things that I would call 'sin'

However being homosexual is not one of them.

People who think otherwise fail at critical thinking.

 

Using religion as an excuse does not take away the responsibility of your beliefs.

Definitely judgmental.

But at the same time; though I'm sure we can both agree that we'd prefer a world that was post-religion, wouldn't the world be so much worse if Christians did follow their book's beliefs?

 

Perhaps, but at least they wouldnt be hypocrites, and charlatans then. Which is exactly what most people who profess to be "Christians" are.

 

Yes, although in some ways in really annoys me when Christians do pick and choose. At least if they all followed the books beliefs it would be 'one whole' religion - not hundreds of different denominations, all having their own opinion on it.

It's more the interpretation that some Christians choose that bugs me.

 

Have you read "their book"?

For example, do you feel Jesus meant to maltreat homosexuals or anybody else, when he said the following:
"For God sent forth his Son into the world, NOT FOR HIM TO JUDGE THE WORLD, but for the world to be saved through him."(John 3:17)

Jesus taught a lot about the sure and effective way to apply God's standards -- in one's own personal life.
When others were concerned, however, his true followers were to "love his neighbour as himself" and "treat others the way he wanted to be treated by them".
What if somebody would continue judging those of different life style? "Stop judging that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1) "...if you don't forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:15)
It is true, that Jesus' followers had to preach their teachings to others. But in what manner? "... let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens." (Matthew 4:16)

This is all written in "their book". So how much worse would our poor world become, if they really followed all these teachings?

...Obviously, 1st century Christians did. That is why later on even some of the Greeks, who were also homosexuals, were drawn to Jesus' teachings and even decided to change their lives (1 Corinthians 6:10-11). Why should they do that? They could feel quite comfortable with their own religion, which didn't treat homosexuality as any kind of "sin"? Perhaps, because this new teaching offered them something better, and not something worse??
Whatever be the answers, this would hardly have happened, if those 1st century Christians had been practising any sort of intolerance or haughtiness towards them "unbelievers".

 

You only picked nice ones

 

Precisely. And so my point is illustrated...

 

You put this forth as though it's some kind of evidence.

I looked up this passage.
Not only did it fail to support your contention in the slightest, there were 20 or so translations - these just being recent, english translations.

They varied varied on whether 'the effeminate' were blacklisted to the kingdom of heaven, and it is even unclear as to what the effeminate refers to.

There is a whole bunch of historical and etymological that you could benefit from,

perhaps if you read about it
you would not be trying so vainly to convince gays not to be gay. =(