Is being gay a sin?

I know most people here believe in gay rights but this is a different question. Is it a sin, under Christianity, to be gay (or at least to act on it)? I am asking this as part of gathering facts for discussing this at my church. We are struggling with this issue and am just seeing what the opinion amoung liberal Christians is.

think about it.

NGU.

Stone age at worst and first century at best moral concepts and notions about the world. Religion is a hopelessly backward and superstitious way of looking at life, the world and ethics.

Freedom From Religion Foundation
http://ffrf.org

What is sin?

Smoking pot is a sin.

'Sin' is an ancient Aramaic archery term....it means, litteraly - 'To miss the mark'.

It does not mean or imply 'You are a crappy archer, your bad, you got everything wrong, give up'

It does imply "Hey....ya missed....try again"


Is being Gay a Sin?

Depends on what your wearing.

BTW, you been reading Doublas-Klotz or something?

Hadn't heard of Klotz till now.

Thanks for the link.

Books like Desert Wisdom. His basic schtick is to translate the Gospels from Greek to Aramaic & from Aramaic into English. You get a very different "flavor" when you do that.

Google gave me the Klotz.

I'm all for and enjoy the "very different "flavor"

(But your not going to 'Pass the Dutchie" and "share" are you ;-)

I wonder what the Aramaic is for- "Bogart the Joint"?

but being a puke may well be.

and I believe you could get your tongue cut out. Hummm, homosexuality has been around forever - it's just another wedge to point out differences and superiority and it's been that way for ages. The Greeks and the Romans didn't seem to have a problem with it, wonder why?

NGU.

No such thing as "sin" (except as a concept).

to justify slavery, misogyny, genocide, homophobia and all kinds of horrors. It's a sin that organized religion has fostered and promoted this hate over the years.

pretty close imo

switched to using their right hand; they were considered to be in league with the Devil.

I called her on it and she down-graded to 'some choose' and then starting talking about the gay woman she's friends with on the internet. :eyes:

Because if one's sexuality is a choice, she would have had to have chosen to be straight.

"Then you must be bisexual, because if YOU made a choice not to be gay, then it must have been a real temptation for you..."

I asked her at what age she 'chose' to be heterosexual.
She said she didn't remember,yet she couldn't make the mental connection.
Over the past few years I have watched her mind be programmed down to the point where she seems to revel in ignorance and maliciousness.

Being who you are is not a sin.



Trudy
www.richardpryor.com
www.pryorsplanet.com

He was so gifted a comedian.

I am so honored to have been able to help him and his wife out in his last couple of years.

Trudy
www.richardpryor.com
www.pryorsplanet.com

I also found this book to be a great help:


http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-Says-About-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X

(Oh, this liberal Christian voted No.)

Concensus of most churches seem to be that being gay is not a sin, acting on it is.



Whether I agree with that or not is a different question.

I was in a very conservative church. Very.

Being straight isn't a sin; going around committing fornication or adultery is a sin, and going around *wanting* to commit fornication or adultery is a sin.

Same for being gay. A lot of lay members had trouble with this, so the teachers, the teaching, and the taught aren't always entirely in agreement on the matter. But those taught ran up against the parallel and usually fell silent. Or mumbled slightly. Whatever.

NT!

...and if it's not, I feel cheated.

freeps voting YES........

:banghead:

According to the Bible homosexuality is certainly nothing to be proud of - no matter how one decides to interpret the 'message' or whatever theological leaps they want to make it is there in rather simple to understand langauge. Paul certainly had a massive problem with it.

Fortunately I don't take any stock in ancient myth so I get to make my own mind up.

Reminds me of the pubs.

It's not a "sin" - even according to the Bible. If you believe that sort of thing. It's all a matter of interpretation.

If sin is defined as 'any action against Yahweh's will' then it's pretty difficult to find any sort of scriptural back-up that would imply in anyway that this particular god would be okay with homosexual acts or relationships - hell, he doesn't seem to be that big on sex in the first place, of any kind.

who state definitively that the Bible really isn't against homosexuality.... I don't have the links handy, but if you're interested, I'm sure you can find them easily enough.

For instance - the passage in Paul - refers more to the fact that he was against temple prostitution and "sex for sex sake" rather than for love.

For instance - the Centurion and his "slave" - was probably a homosexual relationship - of which Jesus evidently at least tacitly approved as he healed the slave, etc.

The great thing about theologians is that there are so many of them.

who state definitively that the Bible really isn't against homosexuality

If you go looking for it you can find it, as your quotes adaquately demonstrate. I would maintain that a fairly plain reading of the Bible would indicate that the people who wrote it (on the behalf of their presumed deity) at no point had any particular love of homosex.

These are straws that are being grasped at - trying to prise more socialially enlightened moral stances from more not so enlightened times.

you can "make" the Bible (or any other tome) pretty much say whatever you want it to say.

That said, please DO remember that the "Bible" has underground myriad translations - much of which was done with "an agenda" in mind.

Please also remember that even if some guy named Jesus lived - it's been pretty well proven that the "story of his life" was embellished greatly by a guy who hailed from the center of Tammuz worship - and whose influence caused the rewriting of Jesus "life" with startling similarities to the lives of other "gods" in the area.

That said, please DO remember that the "Bible" has underground myriad translations - much of which was done with "an agenda" in mind.

Indeed - but then no-one has really tried to make a translation without bias. Not much call for it.

Still, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

Please also remember that even if some guy named Jesus lived - it's been pretty well proven that the "story of his life" was embellished greatly by a guy who hailed from the center of Tammuz worship - and whose influence caused the rewriting of Jesus "life" with startling similarities to the lives of other "gods" in the area.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

"Paul"had some pretty weird ideas - one being that Jesus was an actual "GOD" and recycled the mythology of Tammuz and Mithras.....

So to claim homosexuality is a "sin" against God according to Paul's "interpretation" of what is and is not a sin - doesn't hold a lot of water, imo.

I'll let those who believe in gods decide what is or isn't devine. For the time being the Bible retains the writings it retains.

who want to believe in it.

as the measuring standard of the Christian faith, then acting out a homosexual sexual behavior would be considered a sin.

of course being a drunk or prostitute is also a sin according to the Bible.

Then there is the concept of grace and mercy when one sins.

In the word of God, there is no difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of gluttony. God is not a respecter of sins, all are equal.

The thrust is that with certain exceptions, all sin can be forgiven. There are several enumerated unforgivable sins, thought I can not recall them at the moment. IIRC they all revolve around rejecting God, Jesus etc.

The concept of mortal and venal sins are from Catholicism and is not present in the Protestant denominations.

"The concept of mortal and venal sins are from Catholicism and is not present in the Protestant denominations."

Protestantism is based the word of God as solo authority, not the church as a hierarchy or institution authority. So the Protestant Bible plainly says homosexuality is a sin, the Catholic church says homosexuality is a sin. So I see no real hair spitting.

But the question was "is being gay a sin" from a christian context, not will God forgive one for being gay. That's a different question.

I answered "yes" to the poll as it is the correct answer framed as it is, in a Christian context. It does not reflect on my personal opinion on whether the churches position is right or wrong

What about those Christians who interpret it differently from you? Surely you're not saying they're wrong, especially since you don't know for a fact?

(This is why I don't go in for unsupported Bronze Age myths - no evidence, too many interpretations that lead to conflict based on any one believer's personal reading of the re-re-re-re-re-rewritten/edited 'holy' texts.)

1) The ritual purity laws in Leviticus, which also include the basis for keeping Kosher and instructions on what kind of lamb or calf you should sacrifice to atone for what sins

2) A couple of mentions in the Epistles of Paul, in the context of a list of traits that he finds undesirable. He doesn't single it out.

There's no more reason to see homosexuality as a sin than there is to think that Joshua made the sun stand still. Both attitudes are based on an pre-scientific understanding of how the world works.

Although the national church is still saddled with bigots, the majority of Episcopal parishes I know of are very gay-friendly and even perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Bisexuals are just plain greedy, and greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. :)

TlalocW

I'M bisexual. It's offensive. We're not greedy, it's a tired meme, and I'm sick of it.

Please, think next time.

Get over yourself.

TlalocW

Shields up, Mr. Sulu.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why is that?

They started worshiping a red white and blue flag and the next thing you know they were torturing innocent Iraqis and getting aroused by it.

Ever seen "Equus" ?

they all leapt up and had an awesome party;

34: But there were they that partied not hard like the others;

35: Said them, "when the others may be drunk, I might steal their wallets."

36: And Jesus said unto them "Oh yeah peoples who are abstaining for no real reason, (not the non-drinkers because they are cool people and can drive the cart home) from makin' suh-weet lurve, you need to get out more! That pent-up tension is really making you envious of others having a fun time, yet you won't admit it!"

37: And then those that hated others repented unto the Lord, and had a great time, because if anyone can throw a party it is DJ Jesus - all the best bands, miraculously good party tricks, and can feed a crowd at a moment's notice with just a couple of loaves and fishes.

38: And then when the party was over, people cleaned up the place because it is not good to harm the environment, said there merry cheers, made sure everyone was ok (they were), and went on their ways.

39: Except the guy who forgot his hat and came back for it after a few moments. Then he went too.

40: Then Jesus thought a fair bit, told people how they could live in a reasonable manner for a while & for the times, and then got killed.

Admit it, you're hot for man-on-man action.

(Shame for you that I find ignorant bigotry unappealing. Bad bigot! No Z for thee!)

However, going back to the whole 'buncha interpretations based on little-to-no-evidence' - who knows if the religion damns us?

Even the believers can't agree!

Homosexuality is not a sin, because sins do not exist in my mind or, as far as I'm concerned, in the real world. Thats why when people ask me if I think I am "without sin" I say yes. Its quite amazing, actually, how upset this seems to make religious people. One of my christian friends got very upset with me when I would not admit that I have sinned before. Lol...it was even funnier when I compared myself with Jesus, who himself has never sinned.

He seems to be quite fond of violence, disease and death.

Last couple of times I did a play, my posts were deleted. I also got a nasty email for one of my plays. Apparently I offend people....who knew?

Oh..here's my Dialogue with Jesus in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x90584

And I can just imagine what he'd say to what crawled out from underneath the rock and spoke to me above. :evilgrin:

Always crying and complaining about being forsaken. He's not nearly as cool as he sounds in that tidbit.

His immense knowledge about condoms is awe-inspiring, however.

too many DU Christians - my Jesus was a pretty cool guy. :)

Just this discussion after posting it.

And don't worry Evoman, this is not a rip-off, it was just me continueing the Bible verses he was quoting.

Although to be completely honest, if people are offended about my (less than extreme) posts about religion, then I could really care less. Sometimes we try so hard to appease others, that what have to hide what we are...and I'm really not the hiding type.

The funny thing is that, although I'm probably not the most well liked atheist here (to say the least), I'm absolutely certain that if I ever met any of the theists here, we could go out, have a drink, and be good friends. After all my gf is christian, and my best friends are a fundie christian and a mulsim, lol.

to appease others, so I don't have to hide a thing. My bieng nice is not a show, in other words.

:)

Mind you, the last time someone accused me of having a normal mind, they were a singing potato. :)

it appeared that he didn't give a whip one way or the other, didn't consider it an issue worth bringing up, didn't address it all.

Prohibitions about same-sex love occur in Paul's letters, but Paul isn't Jesus.

Your church ought not to be struggling about this. Discrimination is the sin.

and I know they know cuz it was the basis for my annulment.

Every day I THANK GOD we never got married.

It's part of the reason for my rainbow flag here on DU. My very ex girlfriend came from a religious family and she was convinced homosexuality was a sin.

Unfortunately she was homosexual. She swung wildly between punishing herself and deciding she was going to hell so therefore nothing mattered. Basically she picked me up out of a bad situation and dragged me along to prove to herself and her family she wasn't a homosexual. Along the way she used and abused me. Breaking up is the best thing we ever did.

At that point I think she had an epiphany that homosexuality wasn't a sin and she married her best friend. Then, a couple of years later, I met the love of my life and I got married too. More than twenty years past now, it is still happily-ever-after for both our families.

I am absolutely certain that if my ex-girlfriend and I had done what our religions were telling us, we would have created a hell on earth for ourselves. So far as I'm concerned God Himself has told me that homosexuality is not a sin. I don't care what they say in church, because they are wrong.

Well, I don't consider myself gay, but I try to be happy. Is being happy a sin?

And 7 freepers should be ashamed of themselves!

Even when I belonged to a Fundamentalist Church, I believed that homosexuality as a sin was in the same category as eating pork as a sin. There is a verse in one of the post Gospel New Testament books that says that you should let your conscience be your guide in regards to strictly following the Old law. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
As I met more gay people when I went to college, I came to realize that perhaps even this interpretation is not good. A number of people are very much naturually gay and rather religious. Because of how they are raised they might try really hard to act straight in dating and marrying an opposite sex partner or feel intense guilt if they do engage in homosexual acts. In denying their true nature, which was the way they were evidently created, they are actually creating more harm to themselves and others (especially their would be spouses and children) and thus sinning.
Being gay is not a sin and if one truly is than it is not a sin to engage in homosexual acts if such acts are ethical in other ways (which could be another debate). If one is bisexual to some degree or has other reasons for choosing to engage in homosexual acts, those acts are a sin only if the person themselves believes that it is a sin.

I would love to print it out and use it as an example of Christian opinion for my church if you would let me.

Thanks.

I agree with dsc, your post has to be one of he best christian responses to this question I have ever seen.

Very well said. :)

Jesus never mentioned it. I just don't see giving Paul that much power.

who think homosexuality is a "sin."

I didn't vote in the poll, because I don't believe in sin. But if you're intellectually honest about the bible, you would HAVE to say that homosexuality is a sin. Why you can discount gay as being a sin, but still say that stealing is a sin is in no way consistent and in no way makes sense. The only reason liberal christians DONT think its a sin, is because their religion has been diluted with secular notions and scientific thinking.

You need to do some pretty selective cherry-picking to say the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. Or at least engage in some moral relativism, saying that homosexuality was prohibited at such-and-such a time because it was bad then, but it's OK now because things are different. Also true that we have secularism to thank for the progress.

Since xfrodobagginsx is, so far, a one post wonder, we don't know. Maybe it was posted as some kind of irony, since the current Republican leadership sure looks like they've been afflicted with a very toxic form of homosexuality, with people like Foley running around protected and gay prostitutes given free access to the White House.

Yes the vile and utterly corrupt Republican leadership, reveling in their own wickedness, certainly does think the Evangelicals who brought them to power are ignorant fools.



But this has everythingto do with one's own perception of sin and nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Once you've abandoned your own ethical system (maybe it starts when you believe your own homosexuality is a sin) then you are lost. Once you've decided you are facing eternal damnation, well then, why give a damn about anything?

There are two ways of looking at sin, Evoman, one of them archaic, and one not. The archaic version of sin is of something that violates a set of very rigid rules, and these violations are set right by punishment. Drag the adulteress out into the street and stone her to death.

The other version of sin arises from a system of ethics. Things that are heinously unethical can very well be considered "sinful" simply because any other language we might use to describe horrible acts (such as adults sexually abusing children) is inadequate. Most certainly people such as child-abusing Priests are criminal and unethical, but the words "criminal" and "unethical" do not even begin to convey the actual nature of these crimes. We have yet to come up with adequate replacements for language like "evil" and "sin" that are non-religious in their connotations. Perhaps the only possible solution is to slowly chip away at the religious connotations until a day comes when the meanings are entirely secular.

In my own life I tend to think in terms of ethics, and not in terms of sin. The shallow "WWJD?" of the evangelicals is replaced with a more general question of "What would a perfectly ethical person do?" (WWAPEPD? :P )

I've personally experienced the horrible consequences of people believing that homosexuality is a sin. A few of the very worst experiences of my life were caused by people who had internalized a belief that their own homosexuality was a sin. One of my friends killed himself, another tried to kill herself locked in the bathroom of my apartment, and I was used and abused by a woman who kept me around to simply to prove to herself and her family that she wasn't a lesbian.

Within the ethical framework I live by homosexuality is not a sin. The relationships of homosexual couples are rightfully respected and celebrated openly just as the relationships of heterosexual couples are.

Violating the civil rights of homosexuals is quite clearly sinful. Causing children to believe that homosexuality is sinful is, in itself, an actual sin.

I try to keep my own hatreds under control, and to seek the grace of forgiveness, but their are still people I cannot forgive. Any parent who would force their homosexual child out onto the streets or force them to deny their sexuality is a monster.

So I guess I do "believe in sin."

Unless you're of the literalist camp. If you accept what Leviticus seems to say on the subject, you'd also have to accept an awful lot of other rules. Put down that hot dog and take off that poly-cotton shirt.

And St. Paul's words are not clear AT ALL. Unless you're a bigot and want to read them that way. His words (if they're even his) are not all there, context is missing, and he seems to be talking about Roman and other temple practices wherein straight people had sex with same-sex prostitutes.

As I said, the bible is somewhat less than clear on the subject, although a great many people seem to need to believe otherwise -- because it seems to affirm their own prejudices.

And I don't believe it's a sin because of my religious beliefs, not in spite of them. Likewise, science and religion are in no way opposed in my way of thinking. Perhaps it's better to let the liberal Christians here tell you what they think and why, instead of making assertions for them?

camp. I think the whole thing is just a book of lies and mistakes. What I don't get it how you pick and choose what is literal, what is metaphorical, and what is worth following as a rule. Why bother believing in any of the bible. You want me to ask liberal christians..I always ask them, and all I get in return is wishy washy answers..."oh leviticus is the old covenant, deuteronomy isn't supposed to be taken literally, I believe in what jesus says". But why do you believe in Jesus. Couldn't he be metaphorical? IF you can't trust one part of the bible, what makes you trust another. The answer is very clear to me...you just believe whatever you want to believe, and you make the rest up. The bible, if read at all, should be read exactly like the Illiad or any other story about the myriad of gods that don't exist.

The truth is that the homosexuals worked damn hard to get other people to accept them and their rights. 80 or 70 years ago they were being discriminated against in grotesque ways, because EVERYBODY believed homosexuality was wrong, including the most liberal of christians. They FOUGHT for their rights, just like blacks did, and just like women did. If they hadn't, you would be sitting here right now telling us how wrong homosexuality is...hell, so would I most likely. It is not god who makes you tolerant....its simply the secular advancement of rights, and your acceptance of them, that has made you not believe it is a sin.

Or maybe I'm wrong....maybe you can explain to me just how god or Jesus or religion made you not think of it as a sin. Maybe you could tell us why it is you and the only liberals in the 21st century, out of the all the centuries that have passed since Jesus was born and died...why did god decide to enlighten you?

and it boils down to using the brains we've been given.

What's central about our faith? I mean, dead-center, down to the bones central? Love God, love one another. So for me, anything that seems to contradict that seems to me to be either misunderstood/misinterpreted (easily done with all the translations of translations) or sometimes just flat out a product of human fallibility.

In the the Episcopal church, at each baptism, we all promise to:
"...strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"

To me that promise is serious, and most definitely includes speaking out for the equal rights and dignity of my gay brothers and sisters.

As to sin, I think of that as a falling away from the love of God and of others. Hating homosexuals would be a sin, therefore. Speaking up for their equal treatment as full and worth human beings could not possibly be.

The Bible can be a useful tool, as a record of others' experience with and struggles with their faith and with God. But it's not the center of that faith for me, just one tool. As I recognize my own fallibility, I also recognize that of the humans who created the Bible. I also don't claim any particularly superior enlightenment -- just a lot of years in thought. Thinking is a good thing, IME.

"Well, in my church we call it discernment and it boils down to using the brains we've been given."

Do you think that your view is more intelligent than a fundamentalist who hates gays? Do you think that they are not using the brains they were given? How about me? My brain is so discerning that its decided that the bible is not worth the paper its written on and it has nothing important to say. You, me, the fundie....we cannot all three of us be right.

"What's central about our faith? I mean, dead-center, down to the bones central? Love God, love one another. So for me, anything that seems to contradict that seems to me to be either misunderstood/misinterpreted (easily done with all the translations of translations) or sometimes just flat out a product of human fallibility.....As to sin, I think of that as a falling away from the love of God and of others."

Am I sinning then? I have fallen VERY much away from the love of god...so much that I don't believe he exists. I do not love god in the least...seeing as how I hate religion, you could almost say that I hate god (well if he existed I would, but he does not). What is the price for this sin?

"In the the Episcopal church, at each baptism, we all promise to:
"...strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?""

You can do this without god...in fact, its easier. Its probably easier to respect people when you don't think they are god hating sinners. Plus you don't get splashed with water, which is a bonus.

I have to admit, I still don't quite understand why you believe in god at all. Do you worship Jesus? Do your worship god? Why? You just said that there is all kinds of human fallability in the bible...understanding that, what makes you so sure that Jesus ever existed? The bible could have been entirely wrong in all of that. But you must take some of it seriously...you use discernment. But on what basis do you discern? Do you basically just go...ooh, I like this part...oh, this part is way to hard to follow, so nope, don't like that....this other part sounds mean, lets not use that.

In fact...why isn't it likely that god is evil. Why do you automatically believe he is good? Is it because you want to believe he is good...is it because the bible tells you (we have already ascertained that is fallible). When you look around at the harshness of the universe, and life on the planet, why assume god is good. Why assume god even exists?

I know I've asked a lot of questions here. And I don't expect you to answer them all..in fact, I expect you CANT answer them all. Because there is no answer. You, your priests, your reverands, your fellow church goers...each of you believes something different. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any two religous people here who have similar religious beliefs, and lot of them contradictory. You know why? Because each and every religious person here has made stuff up. Thats right, I said it. Just like the ancient greek religions, and the Japanese religions, and the chinese religions, and the middle eastern religions, and the pagan religions, and every religion. ALL MADE UP. And then religious people convince themselves that their beliefs are an actual reflection of reality.

The only sane and intelligent thing to do in a situation like this is just say...I don't know. Go with the default. Start at step one. Assume, because there is no evidence of god, that no god exists. Then, do actual real research. Maybe one day, using science and reason, we will have an answer to the god question. Maybe not. But at least we will be searching for answers in a meaningful way, not just sitting around in a pretty building, asking the air for answers that never come.

Do I think I'm using my brain more than the fundamentalists who use a few biblical passages to affirm their bigotry? Yes, of course I do. I think there are some people attracted to easy answers, and black and white thinking. They accept what they're told and never ask any questions.

I don't believe in God because I've seen incontrovertible proof of God's existence. I do because I do. Because I've felt God moving in the world and in my life. YMMV of course.

And I've got to run now, so I'll try more later!>..

Do I think I'm using my brain more than the fundamentalists who use a few biblical passages to affirm their bigotry? Yes, of course I do.

Bigotry doesn't imply stupidity. It is a mistake to think those who hold fundamentalist beliefs are automatically stupid. There are some very clever arguments using the Bible to 'affirm their bigotry' - and it's not like they really have to look that hard in the source material. It is amazing the lengths to which someone will defend their emotionally laden beliefs beyond all rationality. The non-stupid ones can just do it more cogently - and write books for the less intelligent to feel comforted by.

I think there are a great many people who don't give it a great deal of thought. They take what they're told -- by a pastor or other religious figure, and just go with it. Or they read the Bible literally (picking and choosing, of course -- they're not exempt from that) and simply read it at face value.

Of course, this is a generalization, and as such, will fail in some cases. But generally, I find the black and white, fundamentalist take thoughtless.

Misinterpreted your post sorry.

"I don't believe in God because I've seen incontrovertible proof of God's existence. I do because I do. Because I've felt God moving in the world and in my life. YMMV of course"

This is my point entirely....when it comes down to it, its just a feeling in your head. And your belief, divorced from evidence or reasons, is almost certainly wrong. Our "feelings" cannot tell us anything about the greater universe, especially with the limits placed on us by our human brains. You say you feel god...okay. But thats not all you believe about god...you have all sorts of other beliefs about him. You may believe he is good. You may believe in Jesus. Its funny how peoples "feelings" reflect their parents beliefs.

In the end, you don't really use your head any more than a fundie does. They "feel" the bible is absolutely correct...who are you to criticize what they "feel", when you have no more basis for your opinions than a feeling? You can point at their belief that don't make any sense in the real world..."oh, he really believe Noah could fit all species of animals on the boat, what a dolt. Hes not using his brain".

And when I point out that the beliefs of liberal theists are equally preposterous, because there is no way a man came back to life after dying, or there is no way that heaven or an eternal spirit life makes any more sense, they do EXACTLY what the fundies do. They put their fingers in their ears and block me out.

See, this is the part where YOUR beliefs come in, and you can't possibly know
"And your belief, divorced from evidence or reasons, is almost certainly wrong."

I see God in the beauty of the world -- from the natural world to the arts to the wonder of a child. It's not at all divorced from reason, unless by reason you mean something that can be proven in a scientific experiment. And if you use that criteria, then an awful lot that we now hold to be "true" wasn't at one time. I believe there is a great deal more to this world than what is apparent on the surface.

And bottom line for me is a sort of corrolary to Pascal's wager. For me, life is better because of my belief. It brings me comfort and sometimes joy. It serves to provide at least a basic framework for my choices. If I find that I've been wrong, my life will still have been enriched. That's a win-win for me.

As I said, I'm not in any way attempting to persuade you. Your beliefs are different, and I'm sure the idea that you're being more rational than the next guy brings you all sorts of comfort. Doesn't work for me, because for me it would be negating something I feel to be true.

Rather like love, it's awfully hard to pin down, but you know when you know. You know?

Thats why I used the words "almost certainly". The fact is, there are millions of people who's views are contradictory to yours. I assume that their is nothing special about you, so I conclude that your views, being based entirely on your feelings, are in all probablity wrong. That is the most rational conclusion one can draw, right? We can't all be right. And please don't give me that "we are all right in our own ways, bullshit". Its patronizing and it makes no sense.

"Rather like love, it's awfully hard to pin down, but you know when you know. You know?"

No, I don't know. I think love is "hard to pin down" simply because we have only one word for it...there is a different evolutionary basis for kin "love", passionate "love", and so on. But there is an evolutionary basis for most of the feelings we call love, and a chemical and hormonal basis for it.

She obviously feels she's right about God's existence. If she didn't, she wouldn't be a christian.

She's just not telling you that you're wrong NOT to believe.

I think that's the difference.

We discuss religion here every day and obviously everyone thinks they're right. Atheists are generally more outspoken about what and why we don't believe because in real life, we're constantly bombarded by the message that we ARE wrong. Most of us don't shy away from the debate because we're battle hardened.

But people like Jersey Girl, T. Grannie, hunter, SPK, etc, don't feel comfortable telling us we're wrong because they don't think about atheism/religious belief as an "us against them" issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb and try to explain why I think they won't do that; monotheism is all about one god, one truth, but many liberal christians either don't really believe that their god is the only one (it could be a generic/no brand god that is represented in and worshiped by all faiths), or they don't want to debate the issue with atheists because it's illiberal.

If I'm right about the former, I think liberal christians aren't really practicing traditional christianity anymore, it's morphed into something else.

Whenever we say something is right, that means the contradictory must be wrong. Now, she may not think its MORALLY wrong for me not to believe (although, it apparently is a sin to not "love god"), but she still thinks I am wrong. And, looking at probablilities, she is almost certainly wrong.

"I'm going to go out on a limb and try to explain why I think they won't do that; monotheism is all about one god, one truth, but many liberal christians either don't really believe that their god is the only one (it could be a generic/no brand god that is represented in and worshiped by all faiths), or they don't want to debate the issue with atheists because it's illiberal."

It doesn't matter if they believe in the christian god, or a no-brand god. They still MAKE UP assumptions about this god...he is good, he cares about us, she wants us to love each other. And, with my own personal experience with liberal christians (in real life, not necessarily here), they HAVE to ultimately pull from the christian god back to this generic god. Because the christian god is completely illogical and non-sensical. If you give it any thought at all, then your forced to believe in no-name pantheististic god, because believing in the other god is plain embarassing. Its the only thing even semi-defensible.

But its still made up bullshit....because there is no one here that is special enough for god to actually talk to, and lacking any real evidence, your basically just believing in what your parent and society taught you to believe.

As to debating with atheists...well, I have had some contact with some of the theist here by IM and I have made it known that it is not personal, either way. I sincerely like the theists here, including Jerseygirl. Arguing with me is not at all unliberal. I relish debate...and the the internet is the only place I can do it. God knows that everybody in my real life know better than to argue with me....even on my off days I'm pretty damn good at it. ;)

Evoman

My religious friends also think I'm wrong (at least the ones who actually know I'm an atheist do), but they don't make a point of telling me so.

I certainly don't think explaining why we do or don't believe in gods is illiberal, and I'm with you, I don't believe in the supernatural and I think believers are mistaken, but some people might regard it as a breach of etiquette.


I was just worried that two people I like and respect were talking past instead of to each other, that's all.
:)

a great deal.

It's not that I don't believe there is only one God; I do. But I DO believe that a great many people sense that God and see that God in many, many different ways. So if that journey is something that brings them joy, helps them to behave better toward other people, and in short is about love, not hate, then I can't help but see it as a good thing.

IOW, my path is good for me, yours is good for you. So long as we're both treating one another well, I don't see why there needs to be a fuss.

And by extension the same goes for atheists. If your way of seeing the world makes sense to you, and if your way of life means you're behaving well toward others, then why would I have a problem with it?

Belief is something innate for me. It's also something that is a positive in my life. It may be that those without a belief in a divinity seem to be missing out on something to me -- like a person who doesn't love chocolate. I may not understand that, but it's no skin off my nose, as they say. So long as they're not dictating "No chocolate allowed!" where's the problem?

I do understand that there's a lot of frustration with the real world here -- don't all of us feel that in the political sense? But truly, the Christians, and others of faith, that you're likely to find at DU are not the enemy. We can have fun doing the compare/contrast thing, and bouncing ideas off each other, and that's great. But we don't have to line up against each other.

I like how you explain your faith.

Like I told Evoman, I was just worried that you guys were talking past each other.

I'll go back to minding my own business now. :D

As he said, Evoman was kind enough to send me a message explaining it wasn't personal. I apprciated that.

To some extent, we may always be talking past each other -- as you pointed out, we both believe different things, and that's a pretty down-deep conviction on both our parts.

No reason it needs to be contentious, though. Different is ok.

When I'm absent from DU for any length of time, I can be overly sensitive to the adversarial tone in this forum.

But it doesn't take long to remember that's why so many of us like the "Arena" as IMModerate dubbed it.

You don't have to accept it as your common ground, but if I'm speaking about ethical issues with someone like JerseygirlCT or TallahasseeGrannie or any of the openly religious people around here, religion will inevitably become part of the conversation. Scripture simply appears in my head and there it is -- something I actually have to suppress during secular conversation. It's just something that is. Blame my crazy mom if you wish, or Western so-called "civilization," but even the atheists in my family know their way around the Bible.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - William Shakespeare

When I'm arguing with certain fundamentalists, they will sometimes respond to my interpretations of Scripture with that Shakespeare quote, or the ever popular "pearls before swine" or "shake the dust off your feet" as their way of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALA...I can't hear you!" But other than that I often have productive ethical discussions with religious people that unabashedly include Scripture.

What makes me the devil quoting Scripture to some people is that I don't believe religion is a prerequisite to becoming a moral, ethical, and spiritually uplifting human being.

"What makes me the devil quoting Scripture to some people is that I don't believe religion is a prerequisite to becoming a moral, ethical, and spiritually uplifting human being."

It enriches *my* life; others I know and love don't feel that way. They are highly moral, ethical and caring human beings capable of great love.

I do not understand how a Christian can understand the lack of evidence for, say, Noah's Ark and decide that part is mythical allegory yet ignore the lack of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and not likewise conclude that, too, is mythical allegory.

Most Christians are literalist in some regard, without evidence to support that literal stance (believing in the above, or virgin births, or water into wine, etc). It's an internal inconsistency.

allegorical. I think the entire idea is symbolic anyway, on God's part. And even as a symbol, it's a pretty powerful thing. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly I think happened. But it doesn't lessen the lesson for me.

What I don't understand is why all that bothers you so. If I like chocolate ice cream and you really don't, would it bother you so terribly?

If I like chocolate ice cream and you really don't, would it bother you so terribly?

Clearly the potential impact of your decision to like or not like chocolate has little impact on those around you.

The way you choose to form your worldview however does.

Do you not think that two people with differing worldviews -- perhaps the atheists and the theists here, for instance, would treat other people so differently? I don't.

Of course my beliefs shape how I see the world, and that shapes how I behave. But it's entirely possible that others will behave kindly and ethically although coming from a different view.

Honestly -- please explain what you mean, b/c I'm confused.

Do you not think that two people with differing worldviews -- perhaps the atheists and the theists here, for instance, would treat other people so differently?

I don't need to think it - I just have to look at the world and see that's exactly how it is.

Belief in things unseen is helping to promote conflicts all across the world.

You're seeing only what you want to see.

And those conflicts? Would be happening regardless. Religion is often an excuse, but not the cause. People would create another reason without religious differences.

And the only thing that bothers me is unsupported assertions being passed off as true.

frankly no one but me gets to decide that for me.

And "true" is a complex idea, not easily reduced to binary terms.

Do you throw the whole book out? What about the rest of the Pentateuch - do you believe or follow anything in there? The 10 Commandments - do you accept or reject those?

On to Paul - I'm wondering how the following passage from Romans 1:26-27 isn't "clear":



I am a full supporter of homosexual rights, and I don't believe homosexuality is a sin - which is why I am repulsed by the bible's commentary on homosexuality. I don't brush it off by saying only a bigot could interpret it one way - I am concerned because it's very easy to read it and come away with that interpretation. In fact, it's the obvious one.

Apparently this is quite a passage for biblical scholars. Many believe it to be a reference to temple practices, wherein people would have sex with prostitutes -- usually same-sex prostitutes. More of a "don't" about engaging in pagan religious rites than about homosexuality.

Add to it that committed equal homosexual relationships weren't really known in society at that point. In Greek and Roman society, young boys were certainly attached to older men, but that was not an equal relationship by any means. (Nor were marriages!)

We have changed and evolved as a society. A faith that cannot move with that will break. And I think there is a bit too much "Paul worship" along with "bible worship" among some strains of fundamentalist Protestantism these days. When what we're told Paul said contradicts the message of love from the gospels, I'll stick with the love part and write off Paul.

Do you throw out the entire book of Leviticus? The 10 Commandments, too? The whole first five books of the Bible? What is your standard for what you will or will not accept in the Old Testament? I'm genuinely curious.

Secondly, you bash others (call them bigots) if they interpret the Romans passage as written, but your defense of the passage consists of phrases like "Many believe..." - in other words, you seem to be acknowledging that as written, the passage clearly condemns homosexuality, but if we assume Paul was referring to another situation entirely, then it's not. Well isn't that conveeenient.

Let's look at the larger context from Romans 1, starting with verse 18:



First we see a reinforcement of the theistic arrogance that even the unbelievers "know" the truth about god, but we turn away from him in order to satisfy our need to sin. Then we stumble upon something very interesting:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

It is interesting to note that the homosexual sex apparently didn't start until AFTER god got pissed off at not being worshipped to his liking, and "gave (people) over" to sin. Say what? There's nothing about the temple, or prostitutes, or anything like that. Just people having sex with same-sex partners. AFTER god did something to them. Dang, that's just disturbing. God doesn't make any appearances to the common man for a few thousand years, they begin to worship other things, so he gets mad and instead of appearing to his children and setting them straight, decides to fuck with their heads and then condemn them for what they do next.

I'm sorry, but Paul was a misogynistic self-loathing gay man. Probably had a lot more in common with today's Republicans than anyone else of the time. You do Christianity no favors by trying to deny it and pretend he was only referring to some unique situation. Because if you accept his version of events, it only happened because god made it happen.

You said:
Do you throw out the entire book of Leviticus? The 10 Commandments, too? The whole first five books of the Bible? What is your standard for what you will or will not accept in the Old Testament? I'm genuinely curious.

Secondly, you bash others (call them bigots) if they interpret the Romans passage as written, but your defense of the passage consists of phrases like "Many believe..." - in other words, you seem to be acknowledging that as written, the passage clearly condemns homosexuality, but if we assume Paul was referring to another situation entirely, then it's not. Well isn't that conveeenient.

Answers:
Leviticus? Yes, mostly. It's a set of laws for a certain people at a certain time. I don't see a great deal of relevance to life today there.

10 Commandments? Why throw out the things that work? I think across cultures and history, things like Do not kill are fairly well accepted as rules. The commandments pretty much codify what human beings have learned as civilizing rules for living.

As to Paul, I think the passage highlights exactly what I was saying: these are his reflections (if indeed they are truly Paul's -- there's some questions about that) on what had happened to his "flock" -- they were off participating in temple rituals and worship and falling away from the worship he espoused and they had shared. Homosexual activity was a part of that Roman/Greek temple ritual, and as such was evil to him.

I'm not a big Paul fan, but he does become more understandable when placed in the context of his culture and time. And when viewed through the lens he looked through -- that the world was truly about to end -- any second now. Time was a awasting, in his view, and there were things far more important to focus on.

I think there has been, probably since at least the Reformation, an unfortunate tendency to overemphasize the words of Paul and underemphasize the lessons of radical love that Jesus taught. That's a shame, and that's where you'll find most liberal Christians differentiating themselves from Fundamentalist Protestants.

Is that the criteria by which you reject entire books of the bible? Prohibition against eating pork works. It ensures you will never suffer from trichinosis, for one. Do the 10 Commandments work? Sure, "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" are pretty good rules for a society, but then they were in use by other cultures centuries before they were written down by the Hebrews. On the flip side, "thou shalt have no other gods before me" stands directly in opposition to religious freedom and secularism. It certainly does not "work" in a pluralistic society. "Thou shalt not covet (thy neighbor's stuff)" is in direct conflict with the driving force in capitalism. And what about "honor thy father and mother"? There's no exceptions in the bible, but clearly there are many situations in which parents are owed nothing by their children, like in cases of abuse or neglect.

Doesn't sound like a very useful critera, this "does it work" thing. Doesn't even look like you follow it yourself. Care to elaborate?

And I wish you had addressed my actual points re: Paul and that specific Romans passage.

don't accept them. I think that's where you're getting confused.

The 10 C's aren't secular laws, intended (despite what some would say) to govern our secular nation. They are guidelines for the Jewish people, that Christians have also accepted as important to their ethic. People who choose to use the 10 C's as their guideline have already decided -- religious freedom isn't an issue. When or if they seek a different path, then the commandments will become moot for them. So I'm confused at your point.

Leviticus doesn't fall into that category. We're talking literally hundreds of rules -- it's a body of law for the Hebrew people at that time. It's not intended to guide us today.

And your point about Paul was what, exactly? You continue to read the passage one way. I've told you that there is more than one way to read that, and that I subscribe to a different reading. Again, the majority of Christians do not follow a literal reading of the Bible, or walk in lock-step on their interpretations of the book or it's meaning. I think you may be laboring under a false impression of what is expected of Christians wrt to the Bible. Or one formed by the likes of Falwell, perhaps?

In short, Paul's words are not definitive at all. And Paul's opinions are even less so. They are the words of a man, a human, fallible, biased man, who had a great deal of zeal for this new faith of his, and worked very hard to share it and guide others in it. That in no way, under no circumstances makes his word law. Any more than your opinions, or mine, ought to be on the topic. Unfortunately, there are a number of Christians who wish to believe differently. If it's in that book, between those covers, and I think it says what I think it says, then I'm free to discriminate against people. I find that sad, and I don't agree with their outlook.

Regarding the 10 Cs, you said:

The commandments pretty much codify what human beings have learned as civilizing rules for living.

I pointed out just three examples of how these rules would cause significant friction, at least in our pluralistic society. You seem to be backing off now, saying they're good rules if you already accept them. OK, that's about as astonishing a point as saying that green is the best color if it's already your favorite. So you don't really have a point here? You arbitrarily declare that portions of the bible don't apply to today, but you offer up no reasoning behind it. That's all I wanted, was your reasoning or justification, but you appear unable to provide any.

My point regarding Paul is that first off, what the text itself says is pretty clear. There are no references whatsoever to temple behavior. There is also clearly the detail that the "evil" homosexual sex didn't happen until AFTER your god got upset that he wasn't being worshipped adequately. You try to portray me as being stuck in some kind of Falwellian mindset regarding bible interpretation, and certainly that seems to be a favorite tactic on here to try and negate atheist arguments. But the fact of the matter is, I'm just pointing out one particular interpretation. It happens to be the easiest one, the one based on how the text is actually written. That doesn't negate the interpretation, though. Nor does it mean that I necessarily think it's a correct one, so let's drop the Falwell comparisons, ok? I'm merely trying to engage Christians on just how they justify their liberal Christian belief - and so far, your justification comes down to what you feel. Well, the fundie "feels" very strongly that his interpretation is correct, and so you see how we end up powerless to stop them.

Now you choose to deal with these decidedly non-liberal ideas in the bible by saying "Well, we just don't know that Paul really wrote that, and even if he did, he meant something else." It's certainly your right to believe that. But you haven't provided any justification for it whatsoever. Like with the 10 Commandments, that's all I wanted, but again, your documentation is totally lacking.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Pagan practices, temple worship... leading to the interpretation I think is most likely.

As to the 10C, you made the same point yourself: there's nothing much in there that wasn't shared with other cultures and civilizations. These are basics, and with some modifications, would have been found across a number of cultures at the time. What's so hard to understand there? And because there are moral guidelines that make a lot of sense, and that seems to be underlined when one finds the same guidelines across cultures, that does not mean they become secular law, or that every human being is now required to use them. You're making a big jump there.

"There is also clearly the detail that the "evil" homosexual sex didn't happen until AFTER your god got upset that he wasn't being worshipped adequately." Homosexual activity by early Christians was likely tied to pagan temple worship. Obviously a no-no for people professing to be Christians -- or Jews, for that matter. And again, using Paul's words as if they are literally the story of God is not something most Christians would do. Fundies, yes. Thus the Falwell reference. You can cite all the Paul you want, but it won't prove anything unequivocal about God. It may prove a great deal about *Paul's* experience of God. Assuming Paul's words are the literal word of God, given to Paul to transcribe is a biblical literalist mistake.

So, you can call me wishy-washy all you like, and talk about feely theology. The fact is that you've been attempting to use rigid, literalist fundamentalist Christian beliefs to set up a straw man. I don't play that.

"I think" ... "most likely"...

Bottom line is, your interpretation has just as much foundation as Falwell's. You are reading into the text things you want to believe so you can justify your own theology. Your explanations to this point perfectly demonstrate the problems with ANY biblical interpretation, but especially the liberal ones.

The bible isn't perfect, and what's sad is that even liberal Christians like yourself seek first to make excuses for that rather than confront the problems head-on. And in that regard, you're much more like Falwell than I'll ever be.

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, by Fr./Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak. It spends twenty-nine pages on this same passage in Romans, notes its counterparts and echoes in Leviticus and discusses rabbinical opinions on the subject of same-gender sexual activity. It comes to the shocking (to some) conclusion that Paul does not condemn homosexuality as sinful, drawing a distinction between behavior that is para physin(unusual, unexpected)and behavior that is sinful, that is, adikiaadikia as "contrary to right order," which I think more accurately represents the sense of the Greek.)

Not for those who don't want their ideological apple-cart upset or for knee-jerk literalists at either extreme who are beyond logical persuasion. It drags the reader right through the Greek and compares Paul's word usage in this passage to his usage of the same terms elsewhere. It makes its case quite persuasively--and conivincing me that Paul wasn't a homophobic bigot isn't easy.

if you laid 10,000 theologians down end-to-end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion.

:wtf:

if you believe in that sort of superstitious crap, it is a sin.

The Bible clearly says that homosexuals, along with those who talk back to their parents, and those who gather firewood on the Sabbath, as well as hundreds of other things, MUST be put to death. There is no argument. Making a case for religious tolerance or plurality is also a crime which requires that everyone in the town stone you with stones until you die.

Thank god we do not have to live by stone age superstitions anymore!

Freedom From Religion Foundation
http://ffrf.org

The Bible makes it very explicit indeed that homosexuality is a sin. The instructions are explicit enough that it's fairly clear that if anything in the Bible is meant to be read literally, they are.

The sine qua non for "being a Christian" is, roughly belief that Jesus was the son of God, died, was resurrected, and thus in some sense atoned for our sins. One *can* believe that without believing that there's anything special about the Bible, and while believing that Paul was simply wrong, in which case one might be able to justify not regarding homosexuality as a sin, but if you attach any significance to it whatsoever then you have few options beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin or being logically inconsistent.

A good many liberal Christians *don't* believe that homosexuality is a sin, but pretty much any even moderately orthodox one will, more or less be definition.

I don't think that homosexuality is immoral. However, if an angel were to appear to me in a flash of blue light and say "Christianity is true", and I were to believe it, I'd change my mind (as well as changing my views on abortion, the separation of Church and State and women's rights considerably).

The Bible makes it very explicit indeed that homosexuality is a sin. The instructions are explicit enough that it's fairly clear that if anything in the Bible is meant to be read literally, they are.

This is something that I've wondered for quite some time, and perhaps you can help me understand. I've often wondered what it is that makes people feel confident that certain sections of the bible are to be read literally whereas others are not. For example, many Christians believe that sections dealing with homosexuality are to be read literally whereas others are not. For example, most scientific believers don't believe that the Earth was really created in seven days, but that a day to god could be a million years - thus reconciling scientific evidence and theological scripture. Another example is that most Christians don't believe that you really *should* put people to death for working on on sabbath, but instead it is read as allegorical.

In short, my question is this: is there a readers guide that comes along with the bible that instructs you which portions to take literally and which to not?

There's an excellent article on it at http://www.rilstone.talktalk.net/gaybishops.htm

As I understand it, a large part of the NT consists of Jesus explaining that some parts of the OT no longer apply (*not* "are not meant to be taken literally") while other parts do: the purity code (things like "don't eat oysters") doesn't, whereas the moral commandments do. He doesn't go into detail as to which is which, so far as I know, which leaves some ambiguity, but he does explain that that's the distinction.

*I* don't think that there's any evidence that any part of the Bible (well, apart from the parables) wasn't meant to be taken literally when it was written - I suspect that the people who wrote Genesis etc genuinely believed that it was true.

However, it's not a completely absurd position to claim that some parts are and some parts aren't. However, the only parts that *could* be "not taken literally" are the bits which are in essence stories, as opposed to the bits which are in essence instructions.

It's not absurd to interpret a beast with seven heads and eleven crowns as meaning something other than a literal beast; it can be an allegory for the truth like Animal Farm. A commandment doesn't have any such middle ground; if someone says "Don't do X, for it is hateful to God", then either you obey them, or you disobey them, there's no interpretation other than the literal possible.

So to summarise, my understanding (although I should stress that I'm neither a Christian nor terribly well informed about Christian theology):

:-In says in the NT that the purity code in the OT doesn't apply any more.
:-It says in the NT that he moral commandments in the OT still do apply.
:-Stories can be interpreted meaningfully in ways other than the literal.
:-There is no reason to suppose that the ones in the Bible were meant to be.
:-Some Christians interpret their stories literally, others don't.
:-A moral commandment is either literal or nonsense, there's no middle ground.

When you break it down, believers are using nothing other than their own feelings about an interpretation to decide what parts should be taken literally and which allegorically. This is due to the utter lack of evidence for any of the myths in the bible. (Christians, please don't feel singled out; the same goes for all religions that purport supernatural events and beings that have never, ever been supported by a shred of evidence.)

You mention the seven-headed beast in Revelation - but there is no more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than there is for the beast. Taking into account the sine qua non you mentioned above, how is it that Christians decide to believe the virgin birth -> miracles/ministry -> resurrection cycle literally happened?

They "feel" it. And, of course - since no one here is insane enough to suggest their god talks to them the way you and I can talk to each other - they have nothing but their feelings to go on.

In other words, they believe what they WANT to believe, and my suspicion is that these beliefs line up with how that person would feel independent of religion. In other words, a liberal Christian who doesn't think homosexuality is wrong would likely think that if they were lacking in belief in gods, like myself.

No evidence for Zeus, no evidence for Yahweh, yet the former is thought myth and the latter inexplicably believed to be real. I truly don't understand how it feels to have the cognitive dissonance caused by rejecting the first due to lack of evidence (outside subjective, non-testable feelings that could mean anything) and not the second.

To be completely frank, I doubt believers want to examine that inconsistency too closely, or they might realize that they have no more reason to believe in Jesus than they do to worship Apollo.

Evidence be damned!

and say I just don't know. My closest gay friend, a man, insists that it is.

But I don't know.

"sin" is found in harming others.

So irresponsible sex could easily be categorized that way. But I can't see that applying to committed, caring relationships of any persuasion.

I find it too hard to believe that there's anything inherently sinful in gay sex that isn't found in, say, the same acts when performed during straight sex. Makes no sense to me.

Is he Christian? With that view, I sure hope not; self-hate is horrible.

Actually, he is an organist/choirmaster.

Sometimes I wonder if the "sin" aspect spices things up for him.