Religion hurts homosexuality but homosexuality kills religion?

[vorlon13]

[snicker]

[RozKek]

Clarification. I am NOT going to debate this topic, but I thought you should understand the distinction...

In mainstream Christianity, being homosexual (physical attraction to same sex) is NOT the sin. It is acting on those impulses that would be the sin. Same as premarital sex, adultery, and every other sexual act outside of marriage.

Oh, thank you. Clarifies much. Although I still do not agree with acting upon the actions is a bad thing. But thanks a lot anyway.

Edit: Thought about it and wanted to add that it seems like this is another situtation where christians just reinterpret their scripture in order to make sense with what science shows or what is shown to be true and contradicts the scripture.

[robvalue]

Right...

They just have to live a life of lonely misery, because god made them wrong. How charitable.

[SteveII]

Clarification. I am NOT going to debate this topic, but I thought you should understand the distinction...

In mainstream Christianity, being homosexual (physical attraction to same sex) is NOT the sin. It is acting on those impulses that would be the sin. Same as premarital sex, adultery, and every other sexual act outside of marriage.

Oh, thank you. Clarifies much. Although I still do not agree with acting upon the actions is a bad thing. But thanks a lot anyway.

Edit: Thought about it and wanted to add that it seems like this is another situtation where christians just reinterpret their scripture in order to make sense with what science shows or what is shown to be true and contradicts the scripture.

Curious what you think has been reinterpreted and in light of what scientific discovery. It has been known for millennium that some people have had desires for the opposite sex . The Bible is pretty consistent on the topic for the 2000 years it spans--always discussing the act.

[Foxaèr]

The only cultures that frown upon it seems to mainly be the three Judeo-Christian religions.

History consistently shows that most everyone else is quite fine with it.

[RozKek]

Oh, thank you. Clarifies much. Although I still do not agree with acting upon the actions is a bad thing. But thanks a lot anyway.

Edit: Thought about it and wanted to add that it seems like this is another situtation where christians just reinterpret their scripture in order to make sense with what science shows or what is shown to be true and contradicts the scripture.

Curious what you think has been reinterpreted and in light of what scientific discovery. It has been known for millennium that some people have had desires for the opposite sex . The Bible is pretty consistent on the topic for the 2000 years it spans--always discussing the act.

What I meant was: christians say that homosexuality is a sin, and then when it's shown that it's not a choice. Then it's illogical for it to be a sin, so they reinterpret their scripture and say: no, the sin was acting upon the desires. I can be wrong, but I've seen such happen in many instances. Anyway, some people above have said good things against the statement that only acting upon the desires is a sin.

[Foxaèr]

What I meant was: christians say that homosexuality is a sin, and then when it's shown that it's not a choice. Then it's illogical for it to be a sin, so they reinterpret their scripture and say: no, the sin was acting upon the desires. I can be wrong, but I've seen such happen in many instances. Anyway, some people above have said good things against the statement that only acting upon the desires is a sin.

It is commonly known as theists resorting to an apologetic. It allows them to reinterpret for their own benefit in relation to anything they believe goes against their belief system.

[Angrboda]

Curious what you think has been reinterpreted and in light of what scientific discovery. It has been known for millennium that some people have had desires for the opposite sex . The Bible is pretty consistent on the topic for the 2000 years it spans--always discussing the act.

What I meant was: christians say that homosexuality is a sin, and then when it's shown that it's not a choice. Then it's illogical for it to be a sin, so they reinterpret their scripture and say: no, the sin was acting upon the desires. I can be wrong, but I've seen such happen in many instances. Anyway, some people above have said good things against the statement that only acting upon the desires is a sin.

From what I understand, the people of the bible didn't have a conception of sexual orientation like we do today, so what they objected to was the act. It's probably an overlay of more recent culture that the orientation itself is wrong or sinful, if it derives from Christianity at all.

[drfuzzy]

What I meant was: christians say that homosexuality is a sin, and then when it's shown that it's not a choice. Then it's illogical for it to be a sin, so they reinterpret their scripture and say: no, the sin was acting upon the desires. I can be wrong, but I've seen such happen in many instances. Anyway, some people above have said good things against the statement that only acting upon the desires is a sin.

From what I understand, the people of the bible didn't have a conception of sexual orientation like we do today, so what they objected to was the act.  It's probably an overlay of more recent culture that the orientation itself is wrong or sinful, if it derives from Christianity at all.

And don't forget that this is was a tribal culture.  More children = survival.  More warriors, even better, thus the greater value of male children.  Refusing to breed was a crime against the tribe more than it was an actual abomination.

[Foxaèr]

And don't forget that this is was a tribal culture.  More children = survival.  More warriors, even better, thus the greater value of male children.  Refusing to breed was a crime against the tribe more than it was an actual abomination.

Considering that the age of reason did not occur till much later, this is interesting to me.