|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:52 pm
Sexuality is not the love that occurs within marriage. Sexuality (in this context) is the/a behavior, not just the physical act.
This is were we have to get into semantics. Religions, like law, define what things (and words) are. Law defines things in reference (or the context) of legal and illegal. While religion defines thing in reference to god(s).
Religions with the same name, but run by different groups need to viewed as different religions, because their definitions are not the same.
For example, the bible was not originally written in Hebrew - but Greek (archeology has show this), and not the modern Greek, but a Greek that was common language at the time. The local languages were of the Aramaic (the language that the dead sea scrolls are written in), Syriac, and Coptic type. Hebrew (of today) was developed later. A study of Jewish historians of the Roman Empire will show a sharp division amongst the Jews and the evolution of modern Hebrew.
What this means is that the English bible is a loose translation (because there are often no English equivalents of the Greek) of the original.
This definition problem resulted in two distinct forms of Christianity; The Papacy and pre-Papacy.
The Papacy (post 1000 A.D.) re-introduced slavery and the concept of the deadly sins (sins that would not be forgiven) and removed direct contact with God. All interaction with God was done through Vicars, of which the Pope declared himself Vicar of Christ (or God on Earth).
The pre-Papacy (pre 1000 A.D.) slavery was abolished, all sins were forgivable, and there was direct, individual contact with God as a Father (not some authority that we need to be servile to). Forgiveness was a simple matter of just saying sorry. Correction the problem (sin which was viewed more like a mental illness) was more complex. Some sins (mental illnesses) stayed and were dependent on God's infinite mercy and love to forgive (even though forgiveness many not have been asked for - or the illness remained until death). Death in Christianity wipes away all sin (or illness). It's far from the macabre event of modern Christianity. The ancient services called it maka*ree*a (μακαρία Greek for a happiness/bliss) some churches related to the Greek Orthodox still have this today, as the meal after. Any orthodox church that has "arrangements" with the Pope has compromised and fundamentally contradicted the original religion. You cannot believe in a direct paternal relationship with God and the Pope as Vicar of Christ.
This is one of the problems, the rush to unity amoung religions is not a true unity, religions remain distinct - with their definitions unchanged. The focus is often on "membership" and the business of the institute rather than the spiritual orientation that a religion was supposed to be.
This does not mean that a religion, that truly defines god and our relationship with god, doesn't exist. It just means their is a lot of "compromised" choices in addition to the real one.
The current context, the "homosexual" issue is defined in, is the Papal context as The Christian Church. As such, homosexuality comprises one of the deadly sins. This is not the context of the original (pre-Papal) Christian Church where, sexuality (including homosexuality) may lead to spiritual death. What this means is that God does not hate homosexuals. In fact, people who call themselves Christians and associate the word hate with God are equivalent to the sin of homosexuality. The current "Church" view of homosexuals is common amongst most cultures. Homosexuality is only part of the "new" alternative morals (~1990). Although homosexuality has existed historically, it was never accepted - not even amongst the pagan civilized societies.
So here's the context;
Either history and all cultures are wrong
or
Homosexuals are wrong
So --- what would you risk your soul on?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:20 pm
Basilia Ann E
Sexuality is not the love that occurs within marriage. Sexuality (in this context) is the/a behavior, not just the physical act.
This is were we have to get into semantics. Religions, like law, define what things (and words) are. Law defines things in reference (or the context) of legal and illegal. While religion defines thing in reference to god(s).
Religions with the same name, but run by different groups need to viewed as different religions, because their definitions are not the same.
For example, the bible was not originally written in Hebrew - but Greek (archeology has show this), and not the modern Greek, but a Greek that was common language at the time. The local languages were of the Aramaic (the language that the dead sea scrolls are written in), Syriac, and Coptic type. Hebrew (of today) was developed later. A study of Jewish historians of the Roman Empire will show a sharp division amongst the Jews and the evolution of modern Hebrew.
What this means is that the English bible is a loose translation (because there are often no English equivalents of the Greek) of the original.
This definition problem resulted in two distinct forms of Christianity; The Papacy and pre-Papacy.
The Papacy (post 1000 A.D.) re-introduced slavery and the concept of the deadly sins (sins that would not be forgiven) and removed direct contact with God. All interaction with God was done through Vicars, of which the Pope declared himself Vicar of Christ (or God on Earth).
The pre-Papacy (pre 1000 A.D.) slavery was abolished, all sins were forgivable, and there was direct, individual contact with God as a Father (not some authority that we need to be servile to). Forgiveness was a simple matter of just saying sorry. Correction the problem (sin which was viewed more like a mental illness) was more complex. Some sins (mental illnesses) stayed and were dependent on God's infinite mercy and love to forgive (even though forgiveness many not have been asked for - or the illness remained until death). Death in Christianity wipes away all sin (or illness). It's far from the macabre event of modern Christianity. The ancient services called it maka*ree*a (μακαρία Greek for a happiness/bliss) some churches related to the Greek Orthodox still have this today, as the meal after. Any orthodox church that has "arrangements" with the Pope has compromised and fundamentally contradicted the original religion. You cannot believe in a direct paternal relationship with God and the Pope as Vicar of Christ.
This is one of the problems, the rush to unity amoung religions is not a true unity, religions remain distinct - with their definitions unchanged. The focus is often on "membership" and the business of the institute rather than the spiritual orientation that a religion was supposed to be.
This does not mean that a religion, that truly defines god and our relationship with god, doesn't exist. It just means their is a lot of "compromised" choices in addition to the real one.
The current context, the "homosexual" issue is defined in, is the Papal context as The Christian Church. As such, homosexuality comprises one of the deadly sins. This is not the context of the original (pre-Papal) Christian Church where, sexuality (including homosexuality) may lead to spiritual death. What this means is that God does not hate homosexuals. In fact, people who call themselves Christians and associate the word hate with God are equivalent to the sin of homosexuality. The current "Church" view of homosexuals is common amongst most cultures. Homosexuality is only part of the "new" alternative morals (~1990). Although homosexuality has existed historically, it was never accepted - not even amongst the pagan civilized societies.
So here's the context;
Either history and all cultures are wrong
or
Homosexuals are wrong
So --- what would you risk your soul on?
That's retarded.
History long ago also thought for a long time that the world was flat. Not to mention the original seven deadly sins was changed. Homosexuality was frowned upon because it was different. I mean, a**l sex and having sex yet not producing a child? The idea of difference has angered many people and caused them to do many stupid things, such as slavery in the USA.
Now, would I want to believe a group of angry unintelligent people in the past who didn't even know what energy is described as or look at my morals and consider Homosexuals as the same as I?
The second one, because as you tell me, because a majority thinks so, so should it be. Really, most of history is wrong and it would make sense.
Besides, risk your spirit?
I don't believe in a spirit what-so-ever.
*If sexuality is not the love considered in marriage, than why is it that two men who love each other is just consider sexuality? Are you trying to say it's just a sex based relationship? @.@*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:11 pm
That, and homosexuality WAS accepted and supported by many pagan groups- Greece comes to mind most immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:20 pm
Basilia Ann E In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth.
Homosexuality is a sin because, sexuality is a sin - even the Hindu Vedas point to this.
As humans, we are given the choice between the spiritual and the physical, the temporal and the eternal. Physical ecstasy contradicts and destroys the spiritual nature. Both Hindus and Buddhist put sexuality (including homosexuality) on the left handed path to darkness (spiritual destruction and death).
Essentially when you watch some be sexual you are watching their spiritual destruction. If this were someone (physically) dying in front of you, would you just stand back and say (oh well - it's their right) ? Would you encourage suicide?
Or as a way to spiritual enlightenment. Hence the Kama Sutra. The physical and spiritual are bridged by our bodies. While it is wrong to be gluttonous and desire consumption and worldly gain, the use of these things can be used as a focus and bond to reach higher levels of reality and experience. If the soul is what experiences, and we use our bodies to hold our souls, then our bodies can be used to give the soul a powerful experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:10 am
It's like divineseraph said: The body is a vessel for the soul.
A ship is a vessel, which can, in fact, be sunk through recklessness, or other causes. But whether it sinks or floats leaves out a great deal of what went on while it WAS afloat.
What kind of action is homosexuality? If it were a soul-crushing sin of enormous gravity, it would certainly not have escaped the attention of the disciples, who would have written more than just a few passing verses that could be vaguely applied to it! That's my opinion, and also good common sense.
Besides, the Bible very clearly tells us that we are not the judge of such matters as which sins are worse than others. Placing ourself in that position is like saying that the Universe is operated under OUR law, because we have a perfect understanding of God's justice. This is simply impossible.
If more people could understand the context of their judgmental attitudes, they would see that those acts of judgment are, themselves, more poisonous to the soul than any loving, compassionate, adult lifestyle supposed by them to be "dreadful"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:26 am
Buddhism teaches us that we must be accepting of all others and thare actions and not try and control them by any means we shloud alow them to live there lives. Even though buddhism is agenst the "act" to be completely considerte of others happyness they should be alowed to do as they please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:50 am
Deacon Nuno Besides, the Bible very clearly tells us that we are not the judge of such matters as which sins are worse than others. Placing ourself in that position is like saying that the Universe is operated under OUR law, because we have a perfect understanding of God's justice. This is simply impossible. If more people could understand the context of their judgmental attitudes, they would see that those acts of judgment are, themselves, more poisonous to the soul than any loving, compassionate, adult lifestyle supposed by them to be "dreadful"... Your humbleness is refreshing. Just had to say that. I have a problem with everyone in modern American society believing 'I deserve this' or 'I need that' or 'my opinion is the most important opinion'. Hell that's part of the reason we're in such a financial crisis, everyone believed they had the 'right' to own a home even if they couldn't afford it or they had the 'right' to finance so many material things that they need credit just to pay for their credit. It's always nice to see someone that steps back and says they're not the center of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:58 pm
I'd like to point out to many people who say that homosexuality is a sin, the early Church said that they wouldn't require the Greek Christians to follow the law of Moses to the letter because their ancestors failed at it, they failed at it, and the Greeks would undoubtedly fail too. In essence, the main idea of the new testament was that we all sin and therefore need to repent and believe in Jesus and his teaching so that we might be saved (it is notable that Jesus didn't mention a word about homosexuality in the Gospels at any time).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:04 pm
Basilia Ann E
Sexuality is not the love that occurs within marriage. Sexuality (in this context) is the/a behavior, not just the physical act.
This is were we have to get into semantics. Religions, like law, define what things (and words) are. Law defines things in reference (or the context) of legal and illegal. While religion defines thing in reference to god(s).
Religions with the same name, but run by different groups need to viewed as different religions, because their definitions are not the same.
For example, the bible was not originally written in Hebrew - but Greek (archeology has show this), and not the modern Greek, but a Greek that was common language at the time. The local languages were of the Aramaic (the language that the dead sea scrolls are written in), Syriac, and Coptic type. Hebrew (of today) was developed later. A study of Jewish historians of the Roman Empire will show a sharp division amongst the Jews and the evolution of modern Hebrew.
What this means is that the English bible is a loose translation (because there are often no English equivalents of the Greek) of the original.
This definition problem resulted in two distinct forms of Christianity; The Papacy and pre-Papacy.
The Papacy (post 1000 A.D.) re-introduced slavery and the concept of the deadly sins (sins that would not be forgiven) and removed direct contact with God. All interaction with God was done through Vicars, of which the Pope declared himself Vicar of Christ (or God on Earth).
The pre-Papacy (pre 1000 A.D.) slavery was abolished, all sins were forgivable, and there was direct, individual contact with God as a Father (not some authority that we need to be servile to). Forgiveness was a simple matter of just saying sorry. Correction the problem (sin which was viewed more like a mental illness) was more complex. Some sins (mental illnesses) stayed and were dependent on God's infinite mercy and love to forgive (even though forgiveness many not have been asked for - or the illness remained until death). Death in Christianity wipes away all sin (or illness). It's far from the macabre event of modern Christianity. The ancient services called it maka*ree*a (μακαρία Greek for a happiness/bliss) some churches related to the Greek Orthodox still have this today, as the meal after. Any orthodox church that has "arrangements" with the Pope has compromised and fundamentally contradicted the original religion. You cannot believe in a direct paternal relationship with God and the Pope as Vicar of Christ.
This is one of the problems, the rush to unity amoung religions is not a true unity, religions remain distinct - with their definitions unchanged. The focus is often on "membership" and the business of the institute rather than the spiritual orientation that a religion was supposed to be.
This does not mean that a religion, that truly defines god and our relationship with god, doesn't exist. It just means their is a lot of "compromised" choices in addition to the real one.
The current context, the "homosexual" issue is defined in, is the Papal context as The Christian Church. As such, homosexuality comprises one of the deadly sins. This is not the context of the original (pre-Papal) Christian Church where, sexuality (including homosexuality) may lead to spiritual death. What this means is that God does not hate homosexuals. In fact, people who call themselves Christians and associate the word hate with God are equivalent to the sin of homosexuality. The current "Church" view of homosexuals is common amongst most cultures. Homosexuality is only part of the "new" alternative morals (~1990). Although homosexuality has existed historically, it was never accepted - not even amongst the pagan civilized societies.
So here's the context;
Either history and all cultures are wrong
or
Homosexuals are wrong
So --- what would you risk your soul on?
You (and the many of the Christian world) overlook the main idea of the New Testament, that no one can possibly follow the Law of Moses (the rules) so we have to be saved through Jesus Christ. If one accepts the Bible as the only true source of religious knowledge (Protestantism) then the only conclusion is that homosexuality may or may not be a sin but it is irrelevant seeing as we all sin and must therefore seek God and Jesus to purify us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Uh like, sense forever ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:59 am
In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. well, i have nothing against homosexuals for no matter what they made in the image and likeness of God. I have a religion teacher, however, says its a serious sin because God made us to be with a partner of the opposite sex. again i have nothing against them. I am not sure if shes even right but anyway im not sure. God Bless ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:10 am
icy_innocense well, i have nothing against homosexuals for no matter what they made in the image and likeness of God. I have a religion teacher, however, says its a serious sin because God made us to be with a partner of the opposite sex. again i have nothing against them. I am not sure if shes even right but anyway im not sure. God Bless ^^ I never really understood this - aren't all sins equally bad in God's eyes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:21 pm
divineseraph That, and homosexuality WAS accepted and supported by many pagan groups- Greece comes to mind most immediately. Besides just the Greeks, homosexuality was accepted in Ancient China and Ancient Japan. Eventually they'd be expected to get married and have children with a woman, but overall it was considered okay. At least among men and especially those of the higher class anyways. I haven't really found much about female homosexuality in these ancient cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:36 am
Artto icy_innocense well, i have nothing against homosexuals for no matter what they made in the image and likeness of God. I have a religion teacher, however, says its a serious sin because God made us to be with a partner of the opposite sex. again i have nothing against them. I am not sure if shes even right but anyway im not sure. God Bless ^^ I never really understood this - aren't all sins equally bad in God's eyes? Common misunderstanding. They aren't taught to be equally bad, simply equally damning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:06 am
divineseraph That, and homosexuality WAS accepted and supported by many pagan groups- Greece comes to mind most immediately. Not really a good defense since this is an appeal to tradition fallacy. A better argument would be that we understand human psychology better now and know that homosexual attraction is part of normal human sexual development and we know that gender roles are not necessarily fixed to one's sex. Using this knowledge, we can either "tweek" our current marriage system to allow homosexual couples that wish to enter in this legal agreement and accept the roles this system conveys or can trash our current marriage system and create a new one to better reflect our new understanding of human psychology and societal roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
