Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

Perhaps not universal, but a key tenet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

But at least that last example is a person who is allowed to marry someone he or she is attracted to sexually. You think God created people who can never do that without facing God’s wrath? Why would God taunt humans like that?

This makes me think of Matthew 19:10-12. Has that been discussed in this thread yet? Any thoughts on the translation to the word eunuch in 19:12? I have not seen scholarly work about that translation, but it feels like it could be relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

Perhaps not universal, but a key tenet.

Hate is not a tenet of any religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

Perhaps not universal, but a key tenet.

Hate is not a tenet of any religion.

Christianity disagrees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

Perhaps not universal, but a key tenet.

Hate is not a tenet of any religion.

Christianity disagrees

Otherwise we wouldn't be 17 pages into this conversation about why christians hate gays and think they shouldn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

This doesnt even answer the question. Where is the christian love? Love the sinner hate the sin? Why must you keep perpetuating such hate against LGBTQ?

I think "Love the sinner, hate your own sin" is probably the best Christian approximation to this. You seem to think that you can't love someone if you think their behavior is sometimes immoral. I love, closely, lots of people who have done immoral things. It doesn't mean I call those things moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

Perhaps not universal, but a key tenet.

Hate is not a tenet of any religion.

Christianity disagrees

Otherwise we wouldn't be 17 pages into this conversation about why christians hate gays and think they shouldn't exist.

But that simply isn't true, even if some people who say they are christian commit the sin of hate because they are misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This recent doc makes sense to me. I am a straight Christian but value being part of a welcoming inclusive church. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, many historians believe ast Owul’s condemnation was referring to ancient Roman practice of older men exploiting young boys (pedophilia) rather than homosexuality between consenting adults. The oft quoted Leviticus scriptures were in context of seemly conduct for the Temple - and if the reference to homosexuality being an abomination were a mistranslation, that makes sense to me.

We are all made in God’s image.

Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/01/christian-homophobia-bible-mistranslation-1946-documentary

A new documentary challenges an alleged 1946 mistranslation that helped lead to a justification for Christian anti-gayness
Vivian Ho
Fri 1 Dec 2023

What if all the anti-gay, homophobic rhetoric that has come from the Christian right over these past few decades was rooted in a mistranslation of the Bible?
In the documentary, 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture, researchers and scholars delve into the 1946 mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and explore how it fuelled the Christian anti-gay movement that still thrives today.

The homophobia appears to be (extremely) exasperated in the Catholic community, why???

I don't think this documentary would be about Catholics, because the version of the bible Catholic's use does not have the "mistranslation" and does not use the word homosexual in the translation: "...neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites...." with footnotes about translations: * [6:9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10." https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6?15=#54006015

Frustrating that the Guardian article isn't specific about which translations they are discussing when there are so many different versions. https://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/6-9-compare.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Homosexuality isn’t immoral. It’s not a sin.

What is your denomination, are you a Christian? why do you keep repeating that without any explanation?

Do sins vary by denomination?

Not if the church or denomination is Biblically based. Some denominations make their own rules. They disregard the Bible.

Which translation of the Bible?

As aside, those of you quoting the bible need to cite the version; bonus if your source has scholarly footnotes on translations, questions, uncertainty about intperpretations, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

You are comparing homosexuality to child rape and … beastiality?

Really?

Oh and BTW child rape does cause harm!

Not comparing them. Just following your “no boundaries” rule about sexual relationships as long as they are based on love.

Nobody talked about child rape here btw.
If a minor loves an adult and want to have sex with them, we should celebrate it because it’s love? Who are you to say that the child should not love?

You see how this has nothing to do with love? It’s about immoral acts. We know what they are and we set boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

This doesnt even answer the question. Where is the christian love? Love the sinner hate the sin? Why must you keep perpetuating such hate against LGBTQ?

I think "Love the sinner, hate your own sin" is probably the best Christian approximation to this. You seem to think that you can't love someone if you think their behavior is sometimes immoral. I love, closely, lots of people who have done immoral things. It doesn't mean I call those things moral.

You calling a person’s existence immoral.

It’s like calling a disabled person a mistake.

Stop with the hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

You are comparing homosexuality to child rape and … beastiality?

Really?

Oh and BTW child rape does cause harm!

Not comparing them. Just following your “no boundaries” rule about sexual relationships as long as they are based on love.

Nobody talked about child rape here btw.
If a minor loves an adult and want to have sex with them, we should celebrate it because it’s love? Who are you to say that the child should not love?

You see how this has nothing to do with love? It’s about immoral acts. We know what they are and we set boundaries.

The fact that you can’t understand that children can’t consent is a serious problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

You are comparing homosexuality to child rape and … beastiality?

Really?

Oh and BTW child rape does cause harm!

Not comparing them. Just following your “no boundaries” rule about sexual relationships as long as they are based on love.

Nobody talked about child rape here btw.
If a minor loves an adult and want to have sex with them, we should celebrate it because it’s love? Who are you to say that the child should not love?

You see how this has nothing to do with love? It’s about immoral acts. We know what they are and we set boundaries.

It’s not immoral for 2 consenting adults to have sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

You are comparing homosexuality to child rape and … beastiality?

Really?

Oh and BTW child rape does cause harm!

Not comparing them. Just following your “no boundaries” rule about sexual relationships as long as they are based on love.

Nobody talked about child rape here btw.
If a minor loves an adult and want to have sex with them, we should celebrate it because it’s love? Who are you to say that the child should not love?

You see how this has nothing to do with love? It’s about immoral acts. We know what they are and we set boundaries.

I don’t have “no boundaries” rule.

Two consenting adults in a loving, committed relationship having sex with each other is not comparable to stealing or lying. It’s no different than you having sex with your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

You are comparing homosexuality to child rape and … beastiality?

Really?

Oh and BTW child rape does cause harm!

Not comparing them. Just following your “no boundaries” rule about sexual relationships as long as they are based on love.

Nobody talked about child rape here btw.
If a minor loves an adult and want to have sex with them, we should celebrate it because it’s love? Who are you to say that the child should not love?

You see how this has nothing to do with love? It’s about immoral acts. We know what they are and we set boundaries.

The fact that you can’t understand that children can’t consent is a serious problem.

Is this how people were ok with so many kids being raped by priests? They saw it as an act of “love”?