Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
what? Some people are born sociopaths. Would God say to the sociopath that it's ok to murder people because that's just how you were born? Or to the addict because they were born with an addictive personality that it's ok to fulfill their addiction because they were born with it?
We are all born with sin. We are supposed to try to overcome our sinful nature through Jesus. We all fail, everyday, in that endeavor, but we are not supposed to just succumb to it because we are born sinful.
Equating murder with love that two people willingly share is just ridiculous. There is no equivalence. There is no one hurt when two men or two women share a life together as partners. What, exactly, is the sin of love? Murdering someone = bad. An addict hurting herself = bad. Two people falling in love = where is the evil in that?
Just why do people get so worked up over sex? Where are all the people calling out the rich? Lust for money is a sin according tho the bible but how many people are out there to enact laws to suppress the worship of luxury?
I don't think Jesus said a word about sex but he did say this:
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.…" (Matthew 19:21-23)
How many anti-gay posters are willing to sell all your posessions to give to the poor?
Anonymous wrote:
I feel sorry for your spouse. Or are you a priest/nun by any chance? Sexuality is a basic, integral part of human life.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.
Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.
What kind of cruel god would do that?
I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?
You're equating loving someone of your own sex with blindness or bodily deformity?
Well if I had equated it with pedophilia or bestiality or something, you would have been even more offended!
So yes.
Again, please explain why you think a god would create 10% of the population a certain way only to order them not to have fulfilling sexual/romantic relationships ever. What is the point?
And if god made people disabled, at least he's not telling them they can't be who they are. He's not saying that it's a sin for an amputee to use equipment to walk. Or for deaf people to sign with one another. That is the difference. You're saying your god is telling gay people, whom he created as they are, deny yourselves. It's just ridiculous.
Eh, I guess I just do not see sex as so unbelievably crucial to a person's life that if you denied yourself you are repressing your entire identity. I don't see it as a worse burden than suppressing any other urge.
Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
what? Some people are born sociopaths. Would God say to the sociopath that it's ok to murder people because that's just how you were born? Or to the addict because they were born with an addictive personality that it's ok to fulfill their addiction because they were born with it?
We are all born with sin. We are supposed to try to overcome our sinful nature through Jesus. We all fail, everyday, in that endeavor, but we are not supposed to just succumb to it because we are born sinful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for this admission - I sincerely appreciate this.
I think this is just why I can never reconcile religion (I'm not claiming that I think Christianity is illogical - I was raised Muslim, and think Islam is equally illogical).
But ethics like loving others as yourself, forgiving enemies, are hardly exclusively Christian values. They pre-date Christianity in other texts and teachings, and are not confined to any one belief system. I know that religion (and mostly the stuff about death) can bring a lot of comfort to a lot of people. But to be a decent, compassionate, kind human being... none of that need be bound to religion and/or belief in a deity.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.
Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.
What kind of cruel god would do that?
I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?
You're equating loving someone of your own sex with blindness or bodily deformity?
Well if I had equated it with pedophilia or bestiality or something, you would have been even more offended!
So yes.
Again, please explain why you think a god would create 10% of the population a certain way only to order them not to have fulfilling sexual/romantic relationships ever. What is the point?
And if god made people disabled, at least he's not telling them they can't be who they are. He's not saying that it's a sin for an amputee to use equipment to walk. Or for deaf people to sign with one another. That is the difference. You're saying your god is telling gay people, whom he created as they are, deny yourselves. It's just ridiculous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^Most people don't want the burden of being pure in mind and deed. That's why Jesus offers forgiveness. That said , it's dangerous to say and believe sin is fine. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide. Most people are probably going to hell.
What the majority want to believe is probably wrong. Thats why the road to hell is wide.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Satan totally says homosexual sex is not a sin .
If so, with that kind of power, then Satan (Shaytan in Islam) are gods, and none of the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic. And yes I know the whole "fallen angel" thing, but it's still a power that God gave to another sort of god, and God wants to see play out for his own amusement, which is not very compassionate at all. God can stop Satan/Shaytan - otherwise, they're not omnipotent. It's all sort of gross and disturbing.
Uhh... what are you talking about?
Anonymous wrote:^^^Most people don't want the burden of being pure in mind and deed. That's why Jesus offers forgiveness. That said , it's dangerous to say and believe sin is fine. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide. Most people are probably going to hell.
Anonymous wrote:^^^Most people don't want the burden of being pure in mind and deed. That's why Jesus offers forgiveness. That said , it's dangerous to say and believe sin is fine. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide. Most people are probably going to hell.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.
So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?
I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.
But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.
Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?
+1000
The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.
Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.
Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.
What kind of cruel god would do that?
I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?
You're equating loving someone of your own sex with blindness or bodily deformity?
Well if I had equated it with pedophilia or bestiality or something, you would have been even more offended!
So yes.