the sin of homosexuality

I attended a Catholic elementary school in the 70s/80s. My 4th grade teacher, a nun, forced a classmate to write with his right hand the whole school year. Left handedness was most certainly considered a sin at one time. And it was based entirely on an interpretation of the bible.
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The pastor would indeed call homosexuality a sin but I can guarantee you there is no culture war on homosexuality at this church. We tend to concentrate on giving kids healthy alternatives than getting drunk and making babies on the weekend and after football games, visiting residents of nursing homes and building wheelchair ramps for poor disabled people. Maybe that should get your panties in a wad.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks newdoc, for brining up something that often gets lost in the culture wars. I've met a lot of devout Christians and there wasn't a lot of anger or judgement in them. They were nice folks and even sinners like/liked them. A local writer for a small paper wrote a column about it entitled The Angry Christian -- reality or media contrivance, The Link It's a different viewpoint that you typically see in the mainstream media.
 
Civil conversation = homosexuals sinful, make me fill icky, shouldn't have equal citizenships.

Some calls that out = uncivil conversation.

Please.
brickwall.gif
rolleyes.gif
 
Problem with that is that the study you use - and the argument he produces (if you want to call it an argument) - are based specifically on a very broad definition of the word "homophobia", which in our society is used for anyone who is not wearing a rainbow shirt on Gay Pride week and promoting same-sex marriage. If anyone on this thread was talking about how much they hate gays and how we ought to round them all up, then you might have a point.

Disapproval does not equal fear - and in no other instance is it used as such except by liberals like yourself who want to try to bully people into being quiet. If I don't like being around people who constantly use foul language, does that mean I secretly want to curse like a sailor? If you don't like being around people who tell gay jokes and push handicapped kids down stairways, does that mean that you see that side of them in yourself as well and it makes you confront your own bigotry and hatred?

Actually I think I'm just going to start assuming that you and roger are actually closet conservatives, and that your posts are actually cries for help in confronting your latent conservatism.
 
I didn't say it did. I'm saying it's used on this board and in society in general.

In fact, the study you cite admits clearly that applying the term "homophobe" to someone who disapproves of homosexuality is not accurate, because it doesn't take into account "fight or flight" responses.

If you're trying to say that no one is trying to use the term homophobia in reference to people who disapprove of homosexuality but have no hatred or malice toward them, then you're flat-out lying.
 
Big, you have to remember the more subtle points of doctrine. Being left-handed isn’t a sin — only if you succumb to the temptation to use your left hand do you actually fall into iniquity. One must resist the naturally wicked impulses.
 
Dio I love reading your posts, they always get my endorphins going.

Now back to what you said, you are correct. I fight the urge not to commit suicide everyday for I have sinned a couple punishable by death sins. Let's play a game, see if you can guess which sins those are.
 
people who grab scriptures out of context to try and prove that homosexuality is not a sin fail to read the original passages in the Old Testament in context. Read Leviticus 18 (and 20 if you want). You will notice that just about everything in that passage you agree with. I would venture to guess that even our most ardently liberal (closet conservatives obviously) posters agree with 90% of the passage. The two commandments that people would get hung up on are the following:
1. Vs.19 prohibits sex with your wife during her menstrual cycle
2. vs 22 says "you shall not lie with a man as with a woman"

we could have a long conversation about vs. 19 and how it is covered under the overturning of kosher laws in Acts 10, but regardless, this isn't a bunch of crazy stuff going on here. The remaining laws are entirely reasonable unless you think adultery, incest, sex with your father or mother or any other of a number of listed sins are actually morally ok.

So that leaves us with homosexuality. People who don't know the Bible get almost giddy when they jump a chapter or two backwards and find prohibitions against touching dead animals (leather) etc. But this shows a complete lack of understanding of hermeneutics and an embarrassingly juvenile approach to reading the Bible. Regardless, the rules against homosexuality are clearly reiterated in the New Testament regardless of whether or not Jesus reiterates them. For the record, Jesus also fails to reiterate the commands against incest, child sacrifice, sex with parents (a form of incest obviously) and a host of other commands. Given the cultural context, it is far more reasonable to assume that Jesus assumed his audience was on board with these basic moral teachings. But even if we don't want to assume that, gays and lesbians could rightfully be offended that he failed to overturn rules against homosexuality since he was clearly ok with it right?

Bottom line is that the Bible is very clear in its statement about homosexuality. Is suppose we could demand more of it, but it is an unreasonable request in light of how clearly and uniformly it describes homosexuality as well as how clearly and uniformly it describes marriage. To take from that the opposite position is bizarre beyond words and does violence to the text in ways that are laughable. I still find it amazing every time someone tells me that I just don't understand the context or something. This is not the case.

I also agree with the notion that the angry conservative evangelical is silly. i have been an evangelical my entire life and am 40 years of age. I have been a pastor since 1997 and have only preached a handful of sermons on homosexuality (I think 2) and they were very strong in addressing the need to love gays and lesbians well before condemning their lifestyle. I have been in countless churches and have heard precious few sermons on homosexuality. But somewhere out there is some church where every week the pastor talks about the evils of homosexuality. Trouble is, no one knows where it is. Rather, we all know where it is…it is Westborough Baptist right? ; )
 
ha! yeah, i am fairly certain the Scriptural position on homosexuality is quite uniform. Having said that, I do agree that historically the church has not loved gays and lesbians well and I am quite eager to do so. I don't feel angry or disgusted by homosexuals, instead I want them to know God's love and freedom in Christ. I can say that with complete integrity. I also don't have any latent homosexual leanings. I am a happily married man with 3 children who has never had a homosexual fantasy (not that having one would make someone gay.)
 
None of our devout brethren cared to respond to my question about masturbation. Maybe this is a bit uncomfortable but let’s not shy away from the important questions of morality. Anyway it seems that we have clear biblical positions on homosexuality and marriage. But what else?

Apparently incest is kosher, at least under certain circumstances. Lot and his daughters, e.g. Also Judah had relations with his daughter-in-law (he thought she was a harlot because she covered her face) and she conceived but when Judah was informed of this a few months later he said she should be burnt. Good man, that Judah. And he knew her no more.

Interestingly, Judah had a son named Onan which is the basis of the word ‘onanism’ meaning masturbation. Judah sent Onan in to “lie with” his deceased brother’s wife Tamar and Onan (being perhaps morally superior to his father) chose to spill his seed rather than carry out the act. Yahweh killed him.

I digress. What about masturbation. Does the religious-minded man feel shame at this?

(Personally: I quit smoking a long time ago but I confess to craving a 4mg Nicorette stick right afterwards.)
 
Give it up Dionysus. If you wish to pleasure yourself go ahead and do so. I mean, what good are sins when one can repent for their wrong doings only to repeat said offense. So just be sure to say a few hail mary while you're performing your peccant act and you'll be fine.

You won't get an answer or a satisfactory one from anyone here, just as I've not received any interference from any here when I questioned whether I should cull myself for the two punishable by death sins I've committed from anyone here, so tonight, a whole bottle of cyanide will be ingested by me if no one comes to my rescue. If only there was a better non-fatal way to resolve this...
 
Dion, the passages in Genesis don't make the point you are. What happened with Lot and Judah doesn't amount to an acceptance of incest. In the narrative there is no statement of innocence or guilt. The story is just told as it happened. From context and other parts of the Bible it is clear that what they did or was done to them was sin.

Now on masturbation, I didn't see your original question. Was there something specific you wanted to know? Despite the mentioning of Onan there is really no mention of masturbation in the Bible. Onan didn't masturbate. He pulled out. Maybe he used his had a little but I don't consider it the same thing. Back to masturbation. There isn't a statement of prohibition or allowance. However, Jesus does say that he who looks at a woman to lust for her is guilty of adultery in his heart. So lustful thoughts are a sin. That has some relevance to the topic at hand (pun intended). The main issue is what you are doing with your mind not other parts of your body.
 
Don't do it Big Anakhandha--There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It's not too late!
 
Monahorns is more patient than I am. I'm not afraid of the question at all - it simply has nothing to do with the thread and has everything to do with you trying to find ways to embarrass or ridicule people with whom you disagree. I'm just not interested in stooping to that. If someone wants to know my belief on it in order to actually try and better understand what the Bible says about it, I'm glad to assist with it.

But I find it funny how so many on hornfans play this game where they deflect away from the thread, and then accuse someone else of "skipping over" part of a question after refusing to seriously address the actual subject of the thread. Dionyius deliberately pulled a MSNBC and selectively edited a Bible account because the full account didn't fit as well into the narrative he wanted, and then he demands that his irrelevant question be answered? Yeah, that's pretty much the definitive "pearls before swine" scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top