Are homosexual relations sinful?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4269
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #1

Post by Mithrae »

In Australia we're currently enduring a postal vote about gay marriage, and the Christian rhetoric which has inevitably been cropping up has reminded me of some thoughts I'd initially had back in 2006.
  • Tuesday, 9 May 2006
    It occurs to me that Christianity may very well have the wrong end of the stick in their view of God. If nothing else, surely what the old testament and the gospels teach us is that God is a covenant God. Jesus said that his blood was the blood of the new covenant; looking back, the Mosaic law is described as the old covenant; he made covenants also with Abraham and David. Perhaps we should not think of God as one who simply sits in the clouds handing out laws. Rather, he is a God who makes covenants with his people; fellowship in return for blessing. . . .

    With the people of Israel God made two covenants. The first was at Sinai, beginning with the ten commandments covering chapters 20 to 23 of Exodus. These are almost exclusively commandments of worship for God and social justice amongst the Israelites, with very little about sacrifical specifications or ritual purity. Chapter 24 describes the confirmation of this covenant and the people's agreement to abide by the terms written within the 'book of the covenant.' The second covenant was made in the lands east of the Jordan River, before Moses died and the people crossed over (Deuteronomy 29:1), and covers chapters 5 to 28 of Deuteronomy (with the earlier chapters being the preamble). Laws concerning such things as legal cases, the king, cities of refuge and warfare regulations (chapters 17 to 20) make it clear that this is essentially the constitution of the new nation of Israel.
The bible does not say that God gave any rules or commandments at all to Adam and Eve, except the bit about the tree; and similarly, Jeremiah clearly states that the new covenant to come would be "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer. 31:31). In commenting on that passage the author of Hebrews writes "In that he says, “A new covenant,� he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).

How can it be that at one time it was "sinful" to sow a field with two kinds of seed, or wear a garment made of two kinds of cloth (Leviticus 19:19), yet Christians now would almost universally consider these to be silly and outdated concepts? Why did commands like that exist in the first place? I believe they were intended to ingrain into the Israelite people the concept of their separateness from the nations around them, to reinforce and strengthen their own national identity. But then, that same kind of practical purpose seems to obviously underlie the prohibition against same-sex relations too (or the exclusion of anyone who'd suffered genital injuries in Deut. 23:1): A small nation surrounded by enemies would likely need all its people breeding to maintain its strength. Crude and even cruel though those laws may have been, at least we might be able to glean a worthy intention behind them.

But the Christian concept of "sin" as it is usually expressed seems to be utterly blind to the fact that these were part of a covenant - an agreement - between God and Israel, one which the author of Hebrews declared to be obsolete. And according to Jeremiah the new covenant is not to be found in letters of stone or ink in a book; instead "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer. 31:31-34). (See also my earlier thread Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?)

Likewise Paul - though he himself remained hung up on homosexuality - captures the more individual nature of the New Agreement perfectly, even as he downplays the everlasting covenant of circumcision:
  • Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. . . .
    13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.


    Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’�
    12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
Have Christians got the wrong idea of "sin"?

And if the essence of God's will is simply that "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," as Paul says, isn't homosexuality one of the most obvious examples in which freedom in Christ replaces the situational rules of Israel?

An example in fact where Christian attitudes often seem to be almost the opposite of love?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #231

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #230]
How sad it is that some still allow themselves to be controlled by the opinions of long gone ancient, superstitious and ignorant people.
How sad so many still try to distract from the issue with the strawman argument that people only claim same sex relations are wrong because it says so in the Bible.

I only brought up Scripture in my post above because Miles did. All men can know the wrongness of engaging in homosexual acts via observation of this world we live in and acknowledgment of form/function/shape/biology/science/reason.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3337 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #232

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:47 am [Replying to brunumb in post #230]
How sad it is that some still allow themselves to be controlled by the opinions of long gone ancient, superstitious and ignorant people.
How sad so many still try to distract from the issue with the strawman argument that people only claim same sex relations are wrong because it says so in the Bible.

I only brought up Scripture in my post above because Miles did. All men can know the wrongness of engaging in homosexual acts via observation of this world we live in and acknowledgment of form/function/shape/biology/science/reason.
OK, we can agree that scripture is irrelevant. That aside, there is no compelling reason to regard homosexual acts as wrong, certainly not from a distorted view of so-called form/function/shape/biology/science/reason. It works. It gives pleasure. If you don't want to engage in it you don't have to. What's the big deal?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #233

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #232]
OK, we can agree that scripture is irrelevant.
Well, not exactly. Scripture doesn’t contradict what we can also know via natural law. One can heed Scripture or Natural Law reasoning and would arrive at the same conclusion. So, unless one wants to render Truth irrelevant, I wouldn’t consider Scripture irrelevant.
That aside, there is no compelling reason to regard homosexual acts as wrong


Of course there is. And just as compelling as the usual reasons we would say certain sexual acts/relationships are off limits.

For example, we can know via reason, biology, logic, observation of the world we live in that it is wrong for man to have a sexual relationship with animals. Can they? Sure. Should they? No. And we can know this via form/shape/function/biology/reason. It is unnatural or contrary to the natural law. Using the same logic and reason we can know two people of the same sex were not ‘designed’/’intended’ for one another, just like man and animals were not ‘designed’ for one another. Our sexual organs have a role/function. They also have a shape/form. The vagina was literally designed/ordered for the penis. The penis was not designed to enter the anus. To do so is actually unhealthy and even flagged as risky sexual behavior according to the CDC. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. It’s the elephant in the room, the intellectually dishonest continue to ignore. We don’t get to determine our own truth. Then there is the social research that shows those in same sex relationships suffer higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, depression, and suicide (and with everyone waving the rainbow flag these days, it is becoming harder and harder to blame this on 'social stigma').

It works. It gives pleasure.
The man-boy love association (MBLA) advocates say the same thing. So does the couple having an affair. Someone into bestiality could say the same thing. So could a polygamist. So could a 45 year old Dad hooking up with his 21 year old daughter. “It works for us.” “It makes us happy”. “It’s our life”.

None of those, IMO, are compelling reasons to justify immoral behavior. And just because someone can say something “works” for them, obviously doesn’t mean said thing is right/good.
If you don't want to engage in it you don't have to. What's the big deal?
It’s only a big deal in that Truth matters. Again, we could make the same argument to justify a multitude of immoral acts. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. Of course, that isn’t very helpful to the dead baby. If you don’t want to view pornography, don’t watch it, doesn’t protect those used and abused in industry or protect marriages and relationships destroyed from porn addiction. None of us live on deserted islands. Our behaviors affect others. Our children are affected, and society pays the price for these attacks on marriage and family. And we already see how now simply saying/thinking homosexual acts are immoral can be seen as bigoted and even a hate crime. It doesn’t really work to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t engage in it.” Living in community, it affects everyone, regardless.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3337 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #234

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am [Replying to brunumb in post #232]
OK, we can agree that scripture is irrelevant.
Well, not exactly. Scripture doesn’t contradict what we can also know via natural law. One can heed Scripture or Natural Law reasoning and would arrive at the same conclusion. So, unless one wants to render Truth irrelevant, I wouldn’t consider Scripture irrelevant.

Biblical truth is for the believer. If you want to follow ancient scriptures, that is your prerogative. It is not relevant to the rest of us.
That aside, there is no compelling reason to regard homosexual acts as wrong

RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am Of course there is. And just as compelling as the usual reasons we would say certain sexual acts/relationships are off limits.

For example, we can know via reason, biology, logic, observation of the world we live in that it is wrong for man to have a sexual relationship with animals. Can they? Sure. Should they? No. And we can know this via form/shape/function/biology/reason. It is unnatural or contrary to the natural law. Using the same logic and reason we can know two people of the same sex were not ‘designed’/’intended’ for one another, just like man and animals were not ‘designed’ for one another. Our sexual organs have a role/function. They also have a shape/form. The vagina was literally designed/ordered for the penis. The penis was not designed to enter the anus. To do so is actually unhealthy and even flagged as risky sexual behavior according to the CDC. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. It’s the elephant in the room, the intellectually dishonest continue to ignore. We don’t get to determine our own truth. Then there is the social research that shows those in same sex relationships suffer higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, depression, and suicide (and with everyone waving the rainbow flag these days, it is becoming harder and harder to blame this on 'social stigma').

Why is it that the argument quickly introduces bestiality and incest and other irrelevancies. We have laws to protect the innocent and those who are not consenting adults. The function of the penis does not dictate what people do with it. If risky sexual behaviour is an issue, how is it that a very high percentage of heterosexual couple engage in anal sex? Why is the Bible belt in the US one of the largest consumers of porn? How is it that substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, depression, and suicide are so prevalent in heterosexual relationships, not to mention Christian ones. Why are you even concerned with what other couples are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms?
It works. It gives pleasure.
RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am The man-boy love association (MBLA) advocates say the same thing. So does the couple having an affair. Someone into bestiality could say the same thing. So could a polygamist. So could a 45 year old Dad hooking up with his 21 year old daughter. “It works for us.” “It makes us happy”. “It’s our life”.

None of those, IMO, are compelling reasons to justify immoral behavior. And just because someone can say something “works” for them, obviously doesn’t mean said thing is right/good.
Of course that was not presented as a lone argument for allowing any sexual activity. It was simply there to illustrate that within the same sex relationship of consenting adults the practice is not seen as abhorrent or ugly as you seem to imply. If it doesn't work for you or give you pleasure then your option is clear. You might be surprised to hear how many heterosexuals seek out some same sex activity for pleasure. When sexual reproduction evolved it came with a package of hormones and pleasurable stimuli that drives people to engage in the activity without the accompanying need to procreate.

If you don't want to engage in it you don't have to. What's the big deal?
RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am It’s only a big deal in that Truth matters.
There's that capital T truth again. Really, who cares what religion says about it? If the answer is you, then follow the good book and leave everyone else alone.
RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am Again, we could make the same argument to justify a multitude of immoral acts. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. Of course, that isn’t very helpful to the dead baby.
We need to distinguish between what is moral and what is legal for starters. If abortion offends you then certainly never have one. Babies are not aborted by the way. That's just a misrepresentation to make an emotive argument.
RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am If you don’t want to view pornography, don’t watch it, doesn’t protect those used and abused in industry or protect marriages and relationships destroyed from porn addiction. None of us live on deserted islands. Our behaviors affect others. Our children are affected, and society pays the price for these attacks on marriage and family.
That's a different issue again. Heterosexuals consume porn. How is any of it relevant to same sex relationships? The advise is certainly valid nonetheless. I still don't see the attacks on marriage and family here either.
RightReason wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 am And we already see how now simply saying/thinking homosexual acts are immoral can be seen as bigoted and even a hate crime. It doesn’t really work to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t engage in it.” Living in community, it affects everyone, regardless.
It is really obvious that you disapprove and you are fishing around for ways to defend your position. Religious dogma seems to be at the heart of the matter. All the other ills you ascribe to same sex relationships can also be pinned on any relationship. Every time some lessening of the stranglehold of religion has occurred we have heard the wailing and cries of "society will crumble". But it doesn't happen. Prohibition failed and we are no worse off. The Christians in the US seem to be trying to drag everyone back to the dark ages by clamping a chastity belt on those who want to enjoy sex without having to pay homage to God.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #235

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #234]
Biblical truth is for the believer. If you want to follow ancient scriptures, that is your prerogative. It is not relevant to the rest of us.
My point was you think it is irrelevant, but heed Scripture or don’t heed Scripture regarding moral truths, either way moral truth is the same. You happen to be among those who think they are smarter than those who came before them and that ancient is equivalent to irrelevant. I do not share such a belief, but that is your prerogative.
Why is it that the argument quickly introduces bestiality and incest and other irrelevancies.
Why is it people always try to cry ‘conflating to unrelated issues’ in an attempt to avoid discussion. It’s right up there with the one you already used, “the Bible is irrelevant, so end of discussion”, even though like I said pointing to the Bible is not my argument. In fact, I said all men can know moral truth, regardless of the Bible, as it is written in the world we live in. The Bible simply reflects that truth. It’s also right up there with the accusation of calling anyone who speaks about the immorality of homosexual acts as homophobic. That is simply another attempt to avoid actual discussion.

It is perfectly legitimate to bring up bestiality or incest or polygamy or adultery when discussing immoral sexual acts because many of the very same reasons the above are “frowned upon” is for the same reasons homosexual acts are. Also, whenever anyone tries to say, “What’s the big deal? #LoveisLove. You can’t tell someone who they can or cannot love.” I should be able to bring up all of the above sexual scenarios in which we do just that. We basically tell people who/what they can or cannot love. And rightly so.
We have laws to protect the innocent and those who are not consenting adults.
Right. But the argument can be made that animals, even though they cannot speak, could certainly express consent. And so could a 21 year old woman consent to having sex with her 45 year old dad, but we would still say No! That is wrong. Because it isn’t simply about consent. Two adults can agree to cheat on their spouses with one another and it isn’t right or good or moral just because they both are consenting adults. A group of 20 women could also agree to marry one man and be a part of his harem, and yet we all can say this doesn’t sit well with us – we can do better.

So, see we have laws against certain sexual acts because we can all recognize what is right and good and in man’s best interest vs. that which is a violation of the moral law.
The function of the penis does not dictate what people do with it.
Yes, to a degree, it does. Anyone who acknowledges science recognizes we have parts of our bodies that have a role/function and it is right and good and ordered to not block/hinder these roles/functions or consider them irrelevant or arbitrary or unnecessary. In fact, when one tries to do so, the result is usually not good and could even mean death.
If risky sexual behaviour is an issue, how is it that a very high percentage of heterosexual couple engage in anal sex?
I’m not sure I would say a very high percentage. Where are you getting your information? But yes, of course anal sex is wrong whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. BTW, studies show over 90% of men who have sex with men engage in anal sex. So, basically if you are a gay man, it most likely means you are engaging in sodomy.
Why is the Bible belt in the US one of the largest consumers of porn? How is it that substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, depression, and suicide are so prevalent in heterosexual relationships, not to mention Christian ones.
Again, those statistics are higher for those in same sex relations. Does domestic violence occur in heterosexual relationships? Of course. But the percentage is even higher in same sex relations. That’s just the facts. It should cause us to pause and process why that is?
Why are you even concerned with what other couples are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms?
LOL! I forgot to mention this usual comment that always comes out when I mentioned the other tactics above. Look, again, we are talking about whether truth matters. Do I advocate barging into people’s bedrooms and policing what goes on? Of course not, but we all make moral judgments about what goes on in people’s bedrooms. Like I said, we all instinctively know adultery is wrong and react and judge negatively when we know it is going on and rightly so. We all would be repulsed to know brother and sister were hooking up or to hear John is screwing his dog. It matters because such behavior is beneath the dignity of man and the person engaging in such immoral acts will never find peace/happiness this way – the person deserves better. Sex trafficking doesn’t directly affect me, but knowing this is going on should not be brushed off as ‘overly concerned about what goes on behind closed doors’.

Of course that was not presented as a lone argument for allowing any sexual activity. It was simply there to illustrate that within the same sex relationship of consenting adults the practice is not seen as abhorrent or ugly as you seem to imply. If it doesn't work for you or give you pleasure then your option is clear. You might be surprised to hear how many heterosexuals seek out some same sex activity for pleasure. When sexual reproduction evolved it came with a package of hormones and pleasurable stimuli that drives people to engage in the activity without the accompanying need to procreate.
I’m not sure what you mean by evolved? Sexual reproduction works the same way today that it did over 2000 years ago. And yes, people engaged in immoral sexual acts then just like they do now. Of course, this has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

There's that capital T truth again. Really, who cares what religion says about it.
I never mentioned religion. Truth is something all men can know via acknowledgment of the way the world works and observation of man and his relationship with this world.

We need to distinguish between what is moral and what is legal for starters.
Do we? Whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with whether it is moral. Slavery was legal.
Babies are not aborted by the way. That's just a misrepresentation to make an emotive argument.
You must be completely unaware that right now abortion in this country is legal up until the moment of birth, as well as partial birth abortion, as well as killing the baby after it is born. All of these things occur here in the U.S. and yes, I can assure you that body they leave to die on a table after a botched abortion is in fact a baby. And so is the 3 month old killed in utero. Saying we are talking about a clump of cells or worse as is sometimes described a parasite, is in fact a massive misrepresentation to make an emotive argument.

That's a different issue again. Heterosexuals consume porn. How is any of it relevant to same sex relationships?
You comment was the usual ‘live and let live/how does this affect you’ response. To which I demonstrated that we do not live in isolation and our behaviors often involve many other people and affect society at large.
I still don't see the attacks on marriage and family here either.
That’s the objective of those doing the attacking. It’s the slowly boiling the frog. He doesn’t notice the water continues to get hotter and hotter until it’s too late. You’ve been desensitized and you aren’t meant to notice.
It is really obvious that you disapprove and you are fishing around for ways to defend your position.
I would actually turn that around on you. It is obvious you want to defend homosexual acts and are fishing around for ways to do so.
Religious dogma seems to be at the heart of the matter. All the other ills you ascribe to same sex relationships can also be pinned on any relationship. Every time some lessening of the stranglehold of religion has occurred we have heard the wailing and cries of "society will crumble". But it doesn't happen. Prohibition failed and we are no worse off. The Christians in the US seem to be trying to drag everyone back to the dark ages by clamping a chastity belt on those who want to enjoy sex without having to pay homage to God.
Wow you even got the ‘religious people are sexually repressed in there.’ Well, this has been an impressive post -- you hit all the stereotypes. But again, it is you who keeps bringing up religion. I mentioned no religious dogma. And I also never said ‘society will crumble’, I merely pointed out that what individuals do does affect the larger community, so the ‘live and let live’ argument has little merit, especially since I already pointed out how as a society we already have many rules/laws/and just outright disapproval of a great many immoral acts because we know they aren’t good for the individual or society.

And no, religious people do not hate sex or want to take everyone’s fun away. On the contrary, we recognize the beauty and awesomeness of it and would love to see everyone experience love. But this can’t happen living contrary to the natural moral order and it is illogical to think otherwise.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3337 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #236

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to RightReason in post #235]

You haven't really made a case for homosexual acts between consenting adults being immoral. All that stuff about bestiality, incest, abortions and so on is just a lot of smoke and mirrors. As to them being sinful, that's an issue for the religious who are obsessed with sin.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #237

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #236]
You haven't really made a case for homosexual acts between consenting adults being immoral. All that stuff about bestiality, incest, abortions and so on is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I appealed to science, logic, and reason. Not sure what would convince you. Form/function/purpose/design is what any good scientist observes in this world to know what makes sense. I also appealed to the social research demonstrating the increased risk in mental health issues as well as domestic violence. These physical and psychological symptoms point to the inherent disfunction of engaging in homosexual acts.

I also pointed out how anyone can say, “You haven’t made the case . . .”, or “There is no compelling reason . . .” for any number of other sexual immoral acts as well (which is why I brought them up). They often use the same arguments you wish to use to justify homosexual acts – “What’s the big deal?”, “As long as there is consent”, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”, “People can’t help who/what they are attracted to”, etc.

By your own standards, one could easily argue a case has not been made as to the immorality of polygamy, adultery, incest, or bestiality.
As to them being sinful, that's an issue for the religious who are obsessed with sin.
I didn’t start the thread or use that term. I also have not appealed to religion. I have used the terms immoral and wrong, just like all other reasonable human beings do. Do you think polygamy, bestiality, incest, and adultery are wrong?

Man can know what is right and good vs. wrong and bad by observing the world we live in and acknowledging the way this world works and man’s relationship with this world. Something isn’t wrong or bad because God says so. We don’t need God to know polygamy, bestiality, incest, adultery, and homosexual acts aren’t in man’s best interest. They are disordered and violations of the natural moral order. It isn’t that one must believe there is a God waiting to punish you if you engage in such behavior. We can know from the natural world the consequences of such behavior and the lack of fulfilment/peace.

It’s not personal for the universe. The universe doesn’t care that you were in a loveless marriage, didn’t intend for anything to happen between you and your married coworker. The universe cannot prevent the pain your decision causes to your children, extended family, and society at large. The universe isn’t trying to punish you with an STD. Things simply happen based on the way this world works. The universe can’t take into account it was your first time having unprotected sex. There are natural laws that all men are subject to and it is these natural laws that show us right/wrong/good/bad.

There is an old saying:

God always forgives
Man sometimes forgives
Nature never forgives

So, no this isn’t about some religious obsession. If this were about God, we would know God loves us very much and wants what’s best for us and isn’t out to get us and can forgive us for anything. Unfortunately, the world we live in can only do what it does in accordance with its natural laws. God is actually there to pick up the pieces when we realize living contrary to natural law is lacking and incomplete. Peace/happiness/fulfillment/and authentic love are possible. And we are actually more free in living in accordance with the laws of this world than trying to live contrary to them. It’s beautiful and amazing really.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3337 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #238

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:56 am So, no this isn’t about some religious obsession.
Of course it is. You raised scripture from the beginning. The rest was just an attempt at rationalisation.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #239

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #238]
Of course it is. You raised scripture from the beginning. The rest was just an attempt at rationalisation.
Miles was the one who brought up Scripture and who missed that the Bible in fact does refer to the wrongness of both men and women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. So, I had to point it out. Otherwise, I didn’t mention Scripture. If you don’t want to read what I actually posted, don’t read it. But don’t respond with your prepared talking point pretending you read my post.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3511
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 990 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #240

Post by Miles »

RightReason wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:07 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #238]
Of course it is. You raised scripture from the beginning. The rest was just an attempt at rationalisation.
Miles was the one who brought up Scripture and who missed that the Bible in fact does refer to the wrongness of both men and women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. So, I had to point it out. Otherwise, I didn’t mention Scripture. If you don’t want to read what I actually posted, don’t read it. But don’t respond with your prepared talking point pretending you read my post.
Just to be clear here, I never said or implied that practicing homosexual women weren't committing a wrong in god's estimation, only that god doesn't really seem to care that much. He never mentioned that they should be punished much less put to death as men were. At least not as the English Standard Version Bible tells it.


.

Post Reply