Is Homosexuality a sin?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Now, does the Bible think homosexuality is a sin? Sure it does.

I think the Bible is such a tangle of contradictions that to say it "thinks" any one thing is folly.

To think something is a sin and to love doing it is truly depraved and in this it also confirms the worst opinions of those who are homophobes.

Seems pretty easy to reconcile to me. Follow along:

1) I accept that some people have need for a category of actions they label "sinful".
2) To them, homosexuality falls into that category.
3) There is some overlap between what they would consider "sinful" and what I would call "wrong", but that overlap is not complete.
4) Homosexuality is not in that overlap.
5) Therefore I can accept that homosexuality is "sinful" (a category which means nothing to me) while not thinking it morally wrong, and enjoy it as I will.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To think something is a sin and to love doing it is truly depraved and in this it also confirms the worst opinions of those who are homophobes.

Seems pretty easy to reconcile to me. Follow along:

1) I accept that some people have need for a category of actions they label "sinful".
2) To them, homosexuality falls into that category.
3) There is some overlap between what they would consider "sinful" and what I would call "wrong", but that overlap is not complete.
4) Homosexuality is not in that overlap.
5) Therefore I can accept that homosexuality is "sinful" (a category which means nothing to me) while not thinking it morally wrong, and enjoy it as I will.

Bleh.  Playing with semantics doesn't in the least affect the point you perfectly well knew (or should have known) that I was making.  It doesn't matter what you call it, sin, wrongness, blameworthy, etc.  To think that something is something that should not be engaged in is nevertheless something you enjoys doing is completely depraved.

[Slander and/or Libel]

And I'm saying that I see no reason to believe that the poster to whom you were responding shares the conception of "sin" that he's saying he enjoys doing. I might employ "sin" facetiously, as in, "I know it's a 'sin' to take the Lord's name in vain, but I enjoy doing it." The semantics aren't obscuring the point, they are the point.

[afleitch]

To think something is a sin and to love doing it is truly depraved and in this it also confirms the worst opinions of those who are homophobes.

Seems pretty easy to reconcile to me. Follow along:

1) I accept that some people have need for a category of actions they label "sinful".
2) To them, homosexuality falls into that category.
3) There is some overlap between what they would consider "sinful" and what I would call "wrong", but that overlap is not complete.
4) Homosexuality is not in that overlap.
5) Therefore I can accept that homosexuality is "sinful" (a category which means nothing to me) while not thinking it morally wrong, and enjoy it as I will.

Bleh.  Playing with semantics doesn't in the least affect the point you perfectly well knew (or should have known) that I was making.  It doesn't matter what you call it, sin, wrongness, blameworthy, etc.  To think that something is something that should not be engaged in is nevertheless something you enjoys doing is completely depraved.

First of all, it's clear that the posters were simply having fun. It's a good way to deal with what is a deeply offensive proposition in the first place. Christians have a tendency to take out the 'clicky pen' and label various actions, sexual actions or body choices as 'sinful' (which by definition is 'towards god') and therefore place on it a status that in many ways is quite demeaning, without any concern for the effect that has on anyone but themselves. So if someone says to me 'so sleeping with men must make you a f****t?' I could reply 'well it must mean that I am a f****t then.'

Personally, other than as a turn of phrase, I don't consider anything 'sinful' for it's effect on a deity is of no concern with me. I may however consider things to be good, bad or indifferent which may just happen to dovetail with some of the 'sin' tick boxes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I didn't see the mild humor in this bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I didn't see the mild humor in this bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The humor depends entirely upon the contrast between a theocentric definition and a anthropocentric definition of sin.

[DC Al Fine]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

[afleitch]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

[DC Al Fine]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

But if your in-laws want to get a rise out of you because you keep telling them that their very lives are inherently sinful, maybe it's past time to re-evaluate whose actions are more offensive here.

[bedstuy]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

But if your in-laws want to get a rise out of you because you keep telling them that their very lives are inherently sinful, maybe it's past time to re-evaluate whose actions are more offensive here.

Yeah.  There's a difference here.  People can stop being homophobic or change what you think your God thinks about homosexuality, but gays and lesbians can't become heterosexual.  Or, just keep it to yourself.Honestly, you should get crap about saying hateful things about gay people or saying homosexuality is a "sin."   

And, bringing up these societal "rules" that supposedly have the imprimatur of the Christian God is dumb anyway.  Society changes so it's just going to drive people away from religion and bring up the idea that God is a fictional concept.  It's like with Mormons, it looks kind of bad that God suddenly allowed black people into heaven in the late 1970s.  If you back the wrong horse on a political "social issue," you're going to piss people off and eventually discredit your religion when you tell everyone that homosexuality is perfectly fine in 50 years or whenever that happens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

But if your in-laws want to get a rise out of you because you keep telling them that their very lives are inherently sinful, maybe it's past time to re-evaluate whose actions are more offensive here.

Yeah.  There's a difference here.  People can stop being homophobic or change what you think your God thinks about homosexuality, but gays and lesbians can't become heterosexual.  Or, just keep it to yourself.Honestly, you should get crap about saying hateful things about gay people or saying homosexuality is a "sin."   

And, bringing up these societal "rules" that supposedly have the imprimatur of the Christian God is dumb anyway.  Society changes so it's just going to drive people away from religion and bring up the idea that God is a fictional concept.  It's like with Mormons, it looks kind of bad that God suddenly allowed black people into heaven in the late 1970s.  If you back the wrong horse on a political "social issue," you're going to piss people off and eventually discredit your religion when you tell everyone that homosexuality is perfectly fine in 50 years or whenever that happens.

OTOH, if it be a sin in the eyes of God, a lot of people are going to have some explaining to do, and the same goes for lot of activities that a strict literal reading of the Bible would indicate are sins yet are considered acceptable in today's society.  The major difference between homosexuality and those other activities is that only a small minority of people want to engage in it.

[bedstuy]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

But if your in-laws want to get a rise out of you because you keep telling them that their very lives are inherently sinful, maybe it's past time to re-evaluate whose actions are more offensive here.

Yeah.  There's a difference here.  People can stop being homophobic or change what you think your God thinks about homosexuality, but gays and lesbians can't become heterosexual.  Or, just keep it to yourself.Honestly, you should get crap about saying hateful things about gay people or saying homosexuality is a "sin."   

And, bringing up these societal "rules" that supposedly have the imprimatur of the Christian God is dumb anyway.  Society changes so it's just going to drive people away from religion and bring up the idea that God is a fictional concept.  It's like with Mormons, it looks kind of bad that God suddenly allowed black people into heaven in the late 1970s.  If you back the wrong horse on a political "social issue," you're going to piss people off and eventually discredit your religion when you tell everyone that homosexuality is perfectly fine in 50 years or whenever that happens.

OTOH, if it be a sin in the eyes of God, a lot of people are going to have some explaining to do, and the same goes for lot of activities that a strict literal reading of the Bible would indicate are sins yet are considered acceptable in today's society.  The major difference between homosexuality and those other activities is that only a small minority of people want to engage in it.

You just have to use your common sense.  Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure. 

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

[RR1997]

Of course not.

[°Leprechaun]

I voted for 100% not a sin, but I would clarify with three points.

Something is only wrong if you know you are doing something wrong, so if
someone sincerely believes that they are doing nothing wrong then how
can they really be sinning? If you hurt someone, how do you feel if they
did the same to you? (golden rule), so if you know that you wouldn't want
someone to do something to you, you are being a hypocrite (and sinful) if you
do it to someone else.

2nd point, Anal sex and oral sex -if they are wrong in any way- are equally 'wrong'
if done heterosexually. I'm not saying that they are wrong, but only what's the difference
between homo vs hetero?

3rd in a philosophical sense (until we discovered artificial insemination), since up until now
virtual immorality has not been achieved, our survival as a species is dependent on heterosexuality. (however small a percentage, if 10% of us were heterosexual, heterosexuals would have to average 20 kids instead of 2)

Of course all of this is self evident, and, at least for me 'religion' has nothing to do with it.

[stepney]

Voters for option one are more likely to be trolls, but oh well.

Then why ask the question? Despite the multiple options, it's a yes/no, and you've discounted yes votes as trolling. Congrats when you 'adjust' the result to reveal 100% no!

[DC Al Fine]

You just have to use your common sense. Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure. 

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the "common sense" and "decent human being" are incredibly nebulous things and often defined by the proponent of such arguments as "what I agree with".

[bedstuy]

You just have to use your common sense.  Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure. 

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the "common sense" and "decent human being" are incredibly nebulous things.

I don't understand what you mean by that.  Secular ethics or reasoning isn't black and white like reading a hadith and saying, alcohol is haram.  But, it's in no way nebulous.  Spirituality is the more nebulous things actually, because it's all based on individual's feelings.

That's the problem with being too religious.  You're looking to a religion for black and white answers because it's comforting.  But, there's a very dark side that kind of fundamentalist thinking, which is when your black and white answer is wrong, like it is about gay people.  I don't see what so hard about this one though, sexuality shouldn't be the focus of your religion anyhow.  Couldn't you just take the tact that sexuality isn't your business to make these judgments about?

[GaussLaw]

You just have to use your common sense. Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure.  

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the "common sense" and "decent human being" are incredibly nebulous things.

I don't understand what you mean by that.  Secular ethics or reasoning isn't black and white like reading a hadith and saying, alcohol is haram.  But, it's in no way nebulous.  Spirituality is the more nebulous things actually, because it's all based on individual's feelings.

That's the problem with being too religious.  You're looking to a religion for black and white answers because it's comforting.  But, there's a very dark side that kind of fundamentalist thinking, which is when your black and white answer is wrong, like it is about gay people.  I don't see what so hard about this one though, sexuality shouldn't be the focus of your religion anyhow.  Couldn't you just take the tact that sexuality isn't your business to make these judgments about?

The problem is that without God, it can be difficult to truly say what is right and wrong.  Many secular scientists advocated eugenics in the early 20th century, while those "backwards Bible thumpers" like William Jennings Bryan and those in the Catholic church opposed it.  Advocates of eugenics thought they were acting in people's best interests by preventing the birth of 'defective' children.  


The bottom line is that the Bible has multiple verses against homosexuality, in the Old and the New Testament.  Furthermore, even if someone is "born" gay, that is OK; rather, it is the act of homosexual sex that is sinful.  Gays can still marry the opposite sex, as sexual preference is generally  not truly binary.  Furthermore, homosexual sex is a mockery of God's design for procreation, if one takes the Bible to be the truth of God's word.  Because I do, I believe that homosexuality is wrong.  And while secularists may love to keep making their own moral code, I'll stick with my old time religion, and it's good enough for me.

EDIT:  The idea that a religion must change their views to meet society's changing whims flies in the face of anyone who takes that religious text seriously.  Both the OT and the NT are very critical of the whims of the world; believers are exhorted to trust God and his word, not the capricious views of mankind.

[SWE]

adam and eve not adam and steve

[afleitch]

Why would god create, at all times and in every culture a group of people; whether it's 5% or 10% who mostly have an exclusive attraction to the same sex, not just in a sexual fashion, but in terms of bonding, intimacy, love, commitment and being generally completed as a person by being with that other person...and then condemn it. What a stupid god. And what an even more stupid person you are for accepting that.

[bedstuy]

The problem is that without God, it can be difficult to truly say what is right and wrong.  Many secular scientists advocated eugenics in the early 20th century, while those "backwards Bible thumpers" like William Jennings Bryan and those in the Catholic church opposed it.  Advocates of eugenics thought they were acting in people's best interests by preventing the birth of 'defective' children. 


The bottom line is that the Bible has multiple verses against homosexuality, in the Old and the New Testament.  Furthermore, even if someone is "born" gay, that is OK; rather, it is the act of homosexual sex that is sinful.  Gays can still marry the opposite sex, as sexual preference is generally  not truly binary.  Furthermore, homosexual sex is a mockery of God's design for procreation, if one takes the Bible to be the truth of God's word.  Because I do, I believe that homosexuality is wrong.  And while secularists may love to keep making their own moral code, I'll stick with my old time religion, and it's good enough for me.

EDIT:  The idea that a religion must change their views to meet society's changing whims flies in the face of anyone who takes that religious text seriously.  Both the OT and the NT are very critical of the whims of the world; believers are exhorted to trust God and his word, not the capricious views of mankind.

This is a good example of how you shouldn't be a fundamentalist. 

You have this situation, a kid realizes that they're gay.  They feel worried about it because it's not the "normal" way to be and it can feel very isolating and scary.  Your answer for that person is to pretend that they're heterosexual, marry someone of the opposite sex and ruin two lives with one horrible decision.  Your alternative is, never have sex or any intimate romantic relationships.  That's one life ruined.  My solution is come out, have sex and relationships with someone of the same-sex and be who you are.  That's the right answer.  Anyone with actual life experience with gay family members knows that I'm right.

So, just make that moral insight a part of Christianity.  It's not that big of a deal.  All religions constantly change with society, because they're as surely a part of culture as anything else.  After all, these religious texts were written by people.  They reflect their gaps in knowledge and their often primitive culture.

[GaussLaw]

The problem is that without God, it can be difficult to truly say what is right and wrong.  Many secular scientists advocated eugenics in the early 20th century, while those "backwards Bible thumpers" like William Jennings Bryan and those in the Catholic church opposed it.  Advocates of eugenics thought they were acting in people's best interests by preventing the birth of 'defective' children. 


The bottom line is that the Bible has multiple verses against homosexuality, in the Old and the New Testament.  Furthermore, even if someone is "born" gay, that is OK; rather, it is the act of homosexual sex that is sinful.  Gays can still marry the opposite sex, as sexual preference is generally  not truly binary.  Furthermore, homosexual sex is a mockery of God's design for procreation, if one takes the Bible to be the truth of God's word.  Because I do, I believe that homosexuality is wrong.  And while secularists may love to keep making their own moral code, I'll stick with my old time religion, and it's good enough for me.

EDIT:  The idea that a religion must change their views to meet society's changing whims flies in the face of anyone who takes that religious text seriously.  Both the OT and the NT are very critical of the whims of the world; believers are exhorted to trust God and his word, not the capricious views of mankind.

This is a good example of how you shouldn't be a fundamentalist. 

You have this situation, a kid realizes that they're gay.  They feel worried about it because it's not the "normal" way to be and it can feel very isolating and scary.  Your answer for that person is to pretend that they're heterosexual, marry someone of the opposite sex and ruin two lives with one horrible decision.  Your alternative is, never have sex or any intimate romantic relationships.  That's one life ruined.  My solution is come out, have sex and relationships with someone of the same-sex and be who you are.  That's the right answer.  Anyone with actual life experience with gay family members knows that I'm right.

So, just make that moral insight a part of Christianity.  It's not that big of a deal.  All religions constantly change with society, because they're as surely a part of culture as anything else.  After all, these religious texts were written by people.  They reflect their gaps in knowledge and their often primitive culture.

Look, I want to first say that I don't think that Christianity should dictate a nation's laws, so I am not forcing gays to accept these 2 options.  Rather, I am simply saying that the religion of Christianity, as religions are based on their respective Holy Text, which in this case is the Bible, would give these 2 options.  This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people.  As I recall you being critical of prohibitions against premarital sex, you likely would call those lives "ruined" as well for straight people who don't want to marry.  And to this idea that scripture just becomes outdated, Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love me, obey my commandments."  2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 

While Christians can and do quibble about specific verses, the broader message seen in much of the Bible is that Christians should not march in tune with the world.  There are many, many Bible verses about this, and this would thus apply to people in modern day. 

If you don't agree with Christianity, that's fine.  I'm just making the case for why homosexual sex is a sin from a Bible-believing Christian point of view.

[afleitch]

This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.