So the bible says homosexuality is a sin? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 06:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
Koalamom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Help me understand this in the NICEST way possible. I was talking with my MIL about gay marriage and I am for it but she is totally against it because it is a sin. I asked her why and she said the bible says so in the story of sodom and gumorah and the man sinners wanted the angels to perform gay sex acts with them. What!? Is this what the bible says and is this why people are freaking out about gays because of this story? I just don't get it? Is this the reason christians think it is a sin? If you are a christian and are for gay rights, do you believe in the Sand G story?
Please enlighten me without blowing up about it as this could be a touchy subject.
Koalamom is offline  
#2 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 07:17 AM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Yes the bible does say that it is wrong. Sodom and Gumorah is found in Genesis 19. It also says that it is wrong in the Law. BUT many other "things" are wrong. WHY the christian single out GAYS is BEYOND me. It gives Jesus a bad name.

 

God/Jesus loves all. Jesus can to die for EVERYONE. Not just the "good people". We are all sinners we have all done wrong. Gay, porn stars, drug dealer and the everyday man are all loved by God!!!!!!

hjdmom24 likes this.
Nazsmum is online now  
#3 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 08:07 AM
 
Rani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Skokie IL
Posts: 909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Um actually that is the prevalent interpretation but is actually incorrect, that was not the sin of Soddam and Gomorrah, if you go back to the original translations, their sin was being self centered, arrogant and not humble.  That instead of helping his visitors, he pawned it off. 

 

Just like "suffer not witches to live" is a mistranslation of the original greek that should have been translated "suffer not POISONERS to live"...big difference

 

Rani is offline  
#4 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 09:30 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I probably wouldn't use the S&G story as my foundation for the Bible's approach to homosexuality.

 

There is enough, both in old testament and new testament that specifies sexual relations between same-sex people as wrong.  Further, it is not *being* homosexual that is a sin, but the sexual behavior.  Heterosexual sex, outside of marriage, is sin. I do think the church has lost any leg to stand on when it comes to homosexuality, given the statistics that exist regarding premarital sex, adultery, and divorce among professed Christians.  Can't tell you how many of my "Christian" peers in highschool were flagrantly promiscuous, but saw not contradiction in calling homosexuality sin. It was very odd.

 

As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.

cappuccinosmom is offline  
#5 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 03:29 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Yeah that...


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#6 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 04:14 PM
2xy
 
2xy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
....I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.


....and so long as gays who join in civil unions are afforded the same rights under the law as married couples enjoy.

 

Why Not Civil Unions?

 

2xy is offline  
#7 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 04:35 PM
 
Cyllya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I believe homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity (though not because of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, see Ezekiel 16:49-50), but the USA is not a Christian theocracy. Legal marriage is used by everybody, not just Christians. It is against the First Amendment and against our country's "separation of church and state" ideal to outlaw anything just because the Bible says people shouldn't do it.

shantimama, Alenushka, 2xy and 1 others like this.
Cyllya is offline  
#8 of 43 Old 06-20-2011, 10:20 PM
 
Wolfcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
In Sodom & Gamorrah, the problem was not about homosexual sex. it was about rape; the men wanted to rape the angels. additionally, the host offered his daughters in their place.
shantimama and Funny Face like this.

Check out my business, Pangaia Metaphysical Store, and radio blog, Pagan Musings.
I'm a witchy mama to DS ('06) and DD ('10) with DH, Stormie, a heathen homemaker daddy.

Wolfcat is online now  
#9 of 43 Old 06-21-2011, 05:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
Koalamom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow thanks for all the thoughts. It is really nice to hear all the view points. Off to check out Ezekiel. Any other scripture references?
Koalamom is offline  
#10 of 43 Old 06-21-2011, 09:13 AM
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

1 Timothy 1 mentions homosexuality in a list of things that are unlawful.

Quote:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Romans 1 also mentions homosexuality as if it should be known that it is a sin. It doesnt mention the word 'homosexual' but words it like this:

 

Quote:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

When I find others Ill post them

genifer is offline  
#11 of 43 Old 06-22-2011, 07:24 PM
 
obscureepiphany's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In addition to what Genifer posted, there is I Corinthians 6:9, 10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

obscureepiphany is offline  
#12 of 43 Old 06-23-2011, 01:22 AM
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

That is the one I was thinking of looking for. Thank you.

 

Now, along with what I posted I wanted to add that I personally agree with pretty much everything Cappuccinosmom said. We dont live in a theocracy and Im SO glad we dont, bc humans just cant impliment God's law/standards. However...

 

 

Quote:

There is enough, both in old testament and new testament that specifies sexual relations between same-sex people as wrong.  Further, it is not *being* homosexual that is a sin, but the sexual behavior.  Heterosexual sex, outside of marriage, is sin. I do think the church has lost any leg to stand on when it comes to homosexuality, given the statistics that exist regarding premarital sex, adultery, and divorce among professed Christians.  Can't tell you how many of my "Christian" peers in highschool were flagrantly promiscuous, but saw not contradiction in calling homosexuality sin. It was very odd.

 

 

 

 

...The underlined/bolded: Im not sure I would word it like that. I think we/humans have an innate nature towards sinning as the fallen human race. I think it is sinful to have homosexual thoughts/tendancies as well as the act itself being sinful, just like Jesus said it is sinful to have lustful thoughts was as bad as having committed adultery (it can become a habit, a 'stronghold' which leads to 'sinful' behaviour'), or the fact that even being angry with someone is as bad as having murdered them. I think it is the nature of humans to be sinful. To go our own way, to love things that go against God and His ways. Homosexuality is no different, as far as what *I* understand (scripturally speaking). It is true that there are christians who view the subject and biblical interpretation of the subject differently, but I guess we're voicing the opinion of those who believe it is a sin.

 

 

Quote:
As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.

The above, I completely agree with especially the bold.

genifer is offline  
#13 of 43 Old 06-23-2011, 06:37 AM
 
melissa17s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ia
Posts: 2,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfcat View Post

In Sodom & Gamorrah, the problem was not about homosexual sex. it was about rape; the men wanted to rape the angels. additionally, the host offered his daughters in their place.


This is consistant with how I understood the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I have heard these called Clobber passages because the passages cited often are either mistranslated or taken out of context.  I found this information useful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

melissa17s is offline  
#14 of 43 Old 06-24-2011, 08:23 PM
 
Wolfcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.


Wait, which religion? Cuz MY religion allows for anyone to marry anyone they want, so long as all parties are consentual (and of a reasonable age). And since the "definition" stuff is all about LEGALITY, not religion, the definition of word "marriage" IS a secular thing...

 

*ponders serving up some Jim Crow pie*


Check out my business, Pangaia Metaphysical Store, and radio blog, Pagan Musings.
I'm a witchy mama to DS ('06) and DD ('10) with DH, Stormie, a heathen homemaker daddy.

Wolfcat is online now  
#15 of 43 Old 06-24-2011, 10:08 PM
 
haleyelianasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Have her check out this: http://www.themarinfoundation.org/  

My parents get involved in this stuff, are evangelical Christians, and they are going to pride next weekend with their gay daughter (my sister) if that says anything about where they stand :) 

haleyelianasmom is offline  
#16 of 43 Old 06-25-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.



 

The state's (as in government) gonna do what it's gonna do. I, however, wish that the clergy (of whatever faith tradition) could get out of the business of being the gov't agents for performing marriages. I wish that here it the States, we had the set-up that they have in France - I'm sure other countries do it, not sure which ones - where you have a civil ceremony. If a couple wants a religious ceremony, that's separate.


lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
#17 of 43 Old 06-25-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

For me, Pope John Paul IIs talks on the theology of the body and the natural created order are what made it make sense to me. I think one of the best sources on the subject is A Body of Truth on Catholic radio international ( and itunes). Father Loya just makes it all pretty easy to understand IMO. It's not specifically about homosexuality, but about who is man and who is woman and who are they to each other. Of course he does address homosexuality too, but that isn't the primary focus of theology of the body. Really need to listen to it from the first podcast though ( the oldest one in 2008 called Your Body Speaks to Me), because he starts with the basics and then builds on it and later podcasts cover peripheral stuff. 

Arduinna is offline  
#18 of 43 Old 06-25-2011, 06:00 PM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

First of all, what kind of  sexual act people performed does not make up their sexual orientations.

 

More straight than gay male couple engage in anal sex now.

 

A straight man and straight women who are having oral and dildo assisted anal sex only are not gay (but according to your MIL logic they would be

 

Secondly, who cares what Bible says? It has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by people for hundreds of years. If someone wants to follow it literally and do things like cutting off their left hand if they wiped their butt with it, or have 700 concubines or sell their children into slavery , it is between  them and the local jurisdiction. As long as they do not trample on my freedoms, I do not care what bible followers do.

 

Thirdly, I am so sorry that your MIL is bigot.

 

 

Alenushka is offline  
#19 of 43 Old 06-25-2011, 10:08 PM
 
LynnS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW longing for the Midwest
Posts: 12,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone should have the right to a civil union. This civil union is what the government should recognize, and it should confer upon the partners the same legal/tax rights that 'marriage' currently does. Those who choose, can then also receive a religious marriage blessed by their religion. But everyone who wants the legal benefits needs to do the governmental union. That way, the religion is then free to put whatever restrictions on that marriage that it will. But there's no reason that the government should adhere to a Biblical tradition of marriage = man+woman.

 

And whenever this issue comes up, I'm constantly reminded of the passages from the Gospels about the greatest commandments:

(from Matthew 22:36-40)

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

I just can't reconcile banning gay marriage with these passages.


Lynnteapot2.GIF, academicreading.gif,geek.gif wife, WOHM  to T jog.gif(4/01) and M whistling.gif (5/04)
LynnS6 is offline  
#20 of 43 Old 06-26-2011, 01:34 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Really do we need governmental sanctioned unions at all?  I mean really, half of all "marriages" end in divorce anyway.  Why shouldn't it just be every man for himself rather than special privleges for people who are officially paired up in someways but not others.  I don't think it should matter in a custody issue if the parents were married.  We have science to determine paternity.  Shouldn't anyone living together have some kind of protection  and some legal rights?  I say screw it all and just put the government out of the relationship business.  And no benefits or penalties for people who are married/single/what have you.


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#21 of 43 Old 06-26-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

First of all, what kind of  sexual act people performed does not make up their sexual orientations.

 

More straight than gay male couple engage in anal sex now.

 

A straight man and straight women who are having oral and dildo assisted anal sex only are not gay (but according to your MIL logic they would be

 

Secondly, who cares what Bible says? It has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by people for hundreds of years. If someone wants to follow it literally and do things like cutting off their left hand if they wiped their butt with it, or have 700 concubines or sell their children into slavery , it is between  them and the local jurisdiction. As long as they do not trample on my freedoms, I do not care what bible followers do.

 

Thirdly, I am so sorry that your MIL is bigot.

 

 


This is the religon forum. I think the OP actually specifically asked why Christians (most of whom do have faith in the written word) are against homosexuality and asked about a specific passage. Do you have anything positive to add, or are you just going around the boards arguing with everyone everywhere? For the record, I am neither Christian and I am pro gay marriage. But, I do understand that a lot of people put a lot of stock in the Bible and it is rude to say things like "Who cares what the Bible says?"



OP, My father is a Presbyterian minister who is pro gay marriage. He explained it to me in the same way that Genifer posted. I think there are a lot of people that believe that it isnt a sin to be homosexual, just to act upon it. I've never understood this, because it is a sin to commit adultery, but its also a sin to covet thy neighbor's wife. Therefore, how could it be a sin to engage in homosexuality, but not a sin to think about it? It just doesnt make any sense to me.

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
#22 of 43 Old 06-26-2011, 04:08 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazsmum View Post

[...] BUT many other "things" are wrong. WHY the christian single out GAYS is BEYOND me. It gives Jesus a bad name.


I think the obsession some denominations have with homosexuality muddies the issue a great deal. Traditional Christianity has always been strong on sexual restraint and chastity. That means it is generally opposed to all forms of fornication and sexual excess, including adultery, multiple partners, pornography, masturbation, orgies, bestiality, and anything else except relations within an opposite-sex, monogamous marriage. That would include same sex partners by definition. However, there is a world of difference between noting that my particular religion forbids me from having two husbands, sleeping with another woman, and looking at dirty pictures, on the one hand; and singling out homosexual acts while brushing aside other kinds of fornication.

It becomes even harder to defend when the issue is secular law (same sex marriage or civil unions) rather than religious principles. Churches may be right to maintain their traditional interpretation of sexual morality, but it should not apply to the public at large, most of whom do not share the same religious convictions. 

The passages from 1 Timothy and Romans which Genifer quotes are good examples of the Biblical view of this question, allowing for the fact that all forms of fornication would have been considered a serious sin. So yes, it is safe to say that homoerotic acts were included among the acts considered sinful by the early Church. How that relates to the law in a largely secular society is another matter, unless your MIL wants to place a legal ban on every sinful sex act (which has been tried before, by the way, and was not wildly successful).

 

mamabadger is offline  
#23 of 43 Old 06-29-2011, 08:55 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So basically, even among Christians the statement "homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so" is up for A LOT of interpretation and debate.

 

I grew up an evangelical because "the Bible tells me so" about many issues. I've learned so much of it was misinterpreted, based on human bias, culture, etc etc.

 

I highly recommend this documentary: http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexe.htm . I'll admit when I watched it a couple years ago I still wasn't completely convinced (though I long took a libertarian stance of being fine with gay marriage as a government thing, because that was separate from my religious beliefs), but over two years this issue is resolved in my mind. Not to brag, but I have studied the Bible several times over, was an evangelical missionary, most of my church, family and friends still believe this way, etc...so I know all the arguments and scriptures about homosexuality being a sin, and I just don't buy it any more.

 

As some PP have pointed out some of these points:

#1: Soddom and Gomorrah's sin was neglecting the poor (watch out USA haha)

#2: the only sexual sin mentioned was gang rape, had nothing to do with the sexual behavior of consenting adults

#3: interestingly, female homosexuality is never mentioned in the Old Testament (my Mom likes to point out she thinks that's because God understood those poor lonely women who dozens of them were forced to marry the same man, of course He would let them find some fulfillment in each other haha)

#4: All Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality are ceremonial and smack dab next to not eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, etc. Why dismiss the latter two but keep the former?

#5: Jesus NEVER talked about homosexuality, so I doubt it was of great importance to Him. Homosexual acts were very prevalent in that society as well.
(Side note: this is my biggest reason for leaving evangelicalism (though I still claim Christianity, albeit a Univeralist/mystic/gnostic interpretation): the church claims to follow Christ but actually has become a Paul cult. Everything Jesus said is filtered through or expounded upon by Paul in our opinion. I dunno, if I personally am going to claim Christ, I am going straight to the source)

#6: New Testament passages dealing with homosexuality are very sketchy about the word interpreted, etc

#7: Paul, bless him, though inspired was still human...contradicted himself an awful lot and we shouldn't take the things he said as infallible. We can draw from him that he was ok with slavery, not ok with homosexuality and ok with oppressing women. Oh, also for the evangelicals who think the Bible is all about family values so work to legislate such, he was not all about family. He highly discouraged marriage all together. But he didn't sound exactly against Old Testament style polygamy. See, where he said elders should be "the husband of one wife" it was an issue of having enough time to devote to church ministry, he never actually said that it was a sin to be polygamous, even in his infamous list of sins including "homosexuality" that keep you out of the kingdom of God. On that note, remember culturally that "homosexuality" included man-boy forced relationships...I could go on and on.....

 

So my personal conclusion is that if you believe that the Bible is the 100% inerrant, infallible word of God AND that church history/tradition is authoritative then yes, you MIGHT be able to reason that homosexuality is a "sin". Even then, your case is weak. When you look at the modern science that proves it is NOT a choice, realize what a weak "case" the Bible has against it, if you believe in any form of a loving God...then well, you end up doing a 180 on the matter like I did =). God bless my homosexual sisters and brothers!

 


Happily married to DH for 6 years, in process to foster-adopt 3 children DD4, DS3 and DS2. We may be bringing half brother age 9 one day as well! We are not infertile, we just have decided that since there are precious children who need homes there is no need for us to have biological children.

nicolelynn is offline  
#24 of 43 Old 06-30-2011, 04:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
Koalamom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Great post Nicole! Interesting points you made.
Koalamom is offline  
#25 of 43 Old 06-30-2011, 03:51 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolelynn View Post

So basically, even among Christians the statement "homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so" is up for A LOT of interpretation and debate.

 

 

What is pretty clear is that the Bible/Church has always maintained that fornication is a sin. It could be argued that same sex couples are exempt from this law for one reason or another, but otherwise what the Old or New Testaments say specifically on the subject of homosexual acts is more or less irrelevant. 
 

 

mamabadger is offline  
#26 of 43 Old 07-03-2011, 10:07 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Right, and under old testament law one would be stoned for fornication. And again, according to Paul, fornication=bad, slavery=ok, etc. According to church tradition for ages until maybe hopefully not so much now: ok to own a wife as a piece of property. Many contradictions, are these things "God's way"? Just because we've "always" interpreted certain things one way doesn't mean that's "the truth". Besides, "fornication" in the New Testament mostly had to do with (and is translated as) temple prostitution and incestuous relationships ("someone has their father's wife"!). Polygamy is never called a sin in the Bible (in fact, it says that God gave all things into David's hand and that if he asked for more, including wives, He would have given it to him), masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, etc.

 

Again, if church tradition is authoritative to you I don't have much to argue there, I would be considered a heretic to orthodoxy (strong gnostic leanings). What the Bible actually says, a bit more of a discussion there if you take it out of church tradition and current Christian culture. 


 


Happily married to DH for 6 years, in process to foster-adopt 3 children DD4, DS3 and DS2. We may be bringing half brother age 9 one day as well! We are not infertile, we just have decided that since there are precious children who need homes there is no need for us to have biological children.

nicolelynn is offline  
#27 of 43 Old 07-03-2011, 10:56 PM
 
LynnS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW longing for the Midwest
Posts: 12,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolelynn View Post

(Side note: this is my biggest reason for leaving evangelicalism (though I still claim Christianity, albeit a Univeralist/mystic/gnostic interpretation): the church claims to follow Christ but actually has become a Paul cult. Everything Jesus said is filtered through or expounded upon by Paul in our opinion. I dunno, if I personally am going to claim Christ, I am going straight to the source)


Side note to your side note: You might find the book: Saving Jesus from the Church interesting. It was written by a Methodist minister, and that's one of his major points. For me, this book has been very thought provoking and really helped me reconcile some of the things about religion that bother me with the things that I feel deep down are true. I grew up Catholic, which had a heavy reliance on tradition; when I met dh I switched to liberal Lutheran (same service, more or less). But the Lutherans are really big on Paul because of Martin Luther's experiences while reading Paul's letters. I've never been part of a religion that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible (and indeed, can't fathom that), so if you're a strong evangelic Christian, this book will probably not sit well with you.


Lynnteapot2.GIF, academicreading.gif,geek.gif wife, WOHM  to T jog.gif(4/01) and M whistling.gif (5/04)
LynnS6 is offline  
#28 of 43 Old 07-03-2011, 11:22 PM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolelynn View Post
I would be considered a heretic to orthodoxy (strong gnostic leanings).



 



Orthodoxy not orthodoxy.

 

Pet peeve. Makes my teeth itch.orngtongue.gif

 


lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
#29 of 43 Old 07-04-2011, 08:04 PM
 
LoriBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm a devout Christian, and I do believe in the Bible.  I also think it's rude to call people bigots simply because their beliefs differ from your own.  It's my belief (and it's a complicated, nuanced belief) that homosexual acts are sinful.  They are sinful in the same way that premarital sex, lying, adultery, gossip, rudeness, name-calling, and hatefulness are sinful.  And guess what?  We are all sinful beings.

 

As for the law, personally, I would prefer it if the government kept its nose out of our bedrooms.  Basically, that means that the government shouldn't care who is having sex with whom.  Ideally, we would have a system that allowed people to declare unions whether they are sexual partners or not, with more than one person if they so desire.  For instance, my widowed grandmother lives with her widowed sister.  Why should these two widows not reap the same tax benefits as an opposite-sex married couple of their same ages?  No, nothing hinky is happening between Grandma and her sister, but why should the government care?  I also favor legalizing polygamy (and allowing the laws we currently have to guard against any supposed attendant problems, such as welfare fraud, child abuse, underage marriage, etc.).  Why is it the government's business?  It's just not!

 

Also, I think we should be very careful about legislating morality when a person's actions don't affect anyone other than him/herself and possibly a willing partner.  For instance, I think premarital sex is morally and Biblically wrong.  That doesn't mean I think that people should be prosecuted for premarital sex!  I think lying is wrong, but that doesn't mean I favor throwing liars in jail and tossing the key (unless they lie to a government official or something).  I don't understand the evangelical seeming hatred toward gay people (and mind you, I'm an evangelical).  It just seems like people tend to use Scripture to conveniently deride what they would already have disapproved of in the first place. 

 

There's also the problem that if we try to illegalize what we perceive to be immoral behavior, we would only be impacting outward behavior (if at all), and not the heart within.  God cares deeply about what goes on inside, and if we want people's behavior AND heart to change, that's a change that really only comes through Christ, and not through the secular government.

 

As far as marriage, I believe I've already made myself clear as to my feelings about the government delving into the sexual or asexual nature of a union.

 

You will find Christians on all sides of this issue.  It is possible to be a Christian, to believe in the Bible, to feel that the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, AND to be unbothered by the advent of same-sex marriage in our secular government.  If the government was supposed to be run according to the Bible, it failed from its inception.  And maybe it did, I don't know...but this is what we have.  Yes, there are some Biblical principles incorporated into our laws (bankruptcy/jubilee, for instance), but by and large the legal system has never been about codifying the Bible.  That's as it should be.  Christians who are so keen on making their religious beliefs law need to think long and hard about how they would feel if they were a religious minority.  For instance, wouldn't it rub them the wrong way to be legally required to wear Muslim headcoverings or even a burqa?  Or if the public school teacher led their children in saying a Muslim or Pagan prayer each morning?  I'm getting off topic here, but I really do appreciate the need for separation of church and state, both to keep God out of government, and to keep the government out of God.

CarenSwan likes this.
LoriBelle is offline  
#30 of 43 Old 07-07-2011, 09:03 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh, thank you I appreciate that, but I DO know the difference, and I did mean orthodoxy lower case not the Eastern Orthodox church. There is orthodox Orthodoxy, orthodox Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. As many differences as Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants have they ALL consider gnostics and Universalists heretics. They all teach their interpretation of the gospel is the only way to salvation and path to Christ and God. winky.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post





Orthodoxy not orthodoxy.

 

Pet peeve. Makes my teeth itch.orngtongue.gif

 

 



 


Happily married to DH for 6 years, in process to foster-adopt 3 children DD4, DS3 and DS2. We may be bringing half brother age 9 one day as well! We are not infertile, we just have decided that since there are precious children who need homes there is no need for us to have biological children.

nicolelynn is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off