Okay I have more than one question, but please, before you answer, watch this, as it may give you something to think about:
YouTube - Does 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemn gay relationships?
K so question 1: does anyone on here manage to balance being gay and christian? if so, how do you do it?
2: are other religions against being gay?
3: why's it a sin? why's it so horrible? I just don't get it..

I don't think it's a sin, but, I've heard his argument before elsewhere, and I do agree. The bible has been translated time and time again by many different people, and a word that may have had a different meaning thousands of years ago, is being translated as this or that.

That said, I'm not a christian, I'm an Atheist, so I can't really comment on much else. I do have to say I like his argument though. :3

My ex and my current girlfriend are both Christians. They have different views on who "God" is. My ex sees him as being forgiving and she does believe that being gay is a sin but she believes that as long as she devotes herself to him that he will "forgive" her for being gay. My current girlfriend believes that "God" does not care if one of "his children" are gay.

It's been a while since I've read the Bible. If I remember correctly a few translations of different parts of the Bible and other religious literature only condemned the act of homosexual sex and not being gay itself. Which, like said in the video, could only refer to men having sex with boys while being married to a woman. Personally, I don't think people should take the Bible as being so literal. There are many ways to translate things to make them sound how the translator wants them to. The Bible also says that women must do as their husband says and that they can't speak out of term. Since the Bible was written so long ago, it really should not be used as a literal reference because things that were common back then are outdated in modern society, such as things like not letting women have freedom like they do today.

According to LaVey, in Satanism anything as far as sexual pleasure goes. I believe in the Judaism it says somewhere along the lines of "A man shall not lay with another man like he does a woman". Don't quote me on those being the exact words though. It's something similar. Islam condems homosexuals as well and they're not accepting of it at all. Taoism I don't think has a view either way on it, if I recall correctly. Buddhists just have that whole "no sex" thing going on but I am not too sure if homosexual relationships is brought up. I think it's a gray area. That's about all I know about it as far as other religions go. It's been a while since I actually bothered to research though.

Personally, I do not understand what is so horrible about being with someone you love. People just need to learn to mind their own business and let homosexuals do what we do. I get harassed by church goers if they see me with my girl and it gets old really quick. Living right across from a church is probably not the best thing for me.

I apologize for not viewing the video. I cannot watch Youtube videos, unless you'd like me to wait an hour for it to load, and another hour to play :lol:

Anyway

Originally Posted by Revered Mel White

Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

So no, it does not condemn homosexuality. Bad translators do. Reverend Mel White is a much more intelligent and intellectual person than I, so I'll let him do the convincing.

ll P W E E P ll - That was extremely helpful, and you don't need to watch the video - it actually said something a little bit like what you were saying, but I think when put together they helped me a lot more - so thank you.

Personally I don't see how love could ever be a sin.. but then again maybe I'm a bit biased ^^
Thanks everyone

PWEEP - I love Mel White! I've cited his work several times in debunking the claim that homosexuality is expressly forbidden in scripture.

To answer the OP - Homosexuality is also condemned by many flavors of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. There's probably some other ones too, but those are the ones I'm aware of off the top of my head. I can't say whether or not this condemnation is scripture-based, however, as I have not looked into the matter.

I'm glad it's been helpful, and insightful to you :3

I've never heard of him before until recently, Keyori, when doing some research of my own!

It is a sad day when people of spiritual power would abuse their powers for the sake of hate. I just wish their was something we could do about all of this anti-homosexual hatred coming from the religious community.

I guess at the end of the day all we can do is speak out and *try* to change people's minds... which is nearly impossible :/

Dest1218, thank you for sharing this neat video. I am straight, but believe people should not be punished or put down for being gay. Heck, I watched a show on how science is starting to prove that our sexuality can possibly be started in our genes. I've given up on religion until I find a group without "hate" or craziness involved

No problem Japanese
And I kind of did give up on Christianity, but (partially because of my environment: having 2 grandparents who are pastors) I keep coming back to it. I kind of want to stick with it, I guess

Originally Posted by Mystic

It's been a while since I've read the Bible. If I remember correctly a few translations of different parts of the Bible and other religious literature only condemned the act of homosexual sex and not being gay itself. Which, like said in the video, could only refer to men having sex with boys while being married to a woman. Personally, I don't think people should take the Bible as being so literal. There are many ways to translate things to make them sound how the translator wants them to. The Bible also says that women must do as their husband says and that they can't speak out of term. Since the Bible was written so long ago, it really should not be used as a literal reference because things that were common back then are outdated in modern society, such as things like not letting women have freedom like they do today.

I actually only wanted to touch on this specifically because this is actually likely the case. Originally, around the time the bible was written (and before), the original form of "Marriage" was an older man (30s?) marrying a younger girl (13ish) and quite often had a younger man (15-20ish) who he would fool around with on the side. I forget the exact term for the younger man, as he wasn't there for the purpose of being a sexual partner (he was like a squire or something), but it happened quite often.

It was probably speaking of this act specifically.

(I don't know where my source went for this. I got this information when I was researching the history of marriage when Prop. 8 was a big Hub Bub and my dad and I disagree on the matter of it. It was largely the Greeks who did this, if I'm not mistaken.)

EDIT:
I actually wanted to touch on this as well.

Originally Posted by Keyori

To answer the OP - Homosexuality is also condemned by many flavors of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. There's probably some other ones too, but those are the ones I'm aware of off the top of my head. I can't say whether or not this condemnation is scripture-based, however, as I have not looked into the matter.

As Buddhist, I just wanted to mention that it's not just homosexuality, as a rule, all sex is condemned technically and traditionally all monks were celibate, and only a layperson had sex and the layperson was seen as not striving to achieve Nirvana.

Hm recently I've been doing a lot more research and I'm starting to think that it's not a sin :)

I myself am a Christian as I believe in God and Jesus, the bible for me is very iffy...it was written by man and man is fallible. I do not look at it for more than history and guidelines every now and then. I trust the lord more than I trust a book written by humans.

Hm I'm still .. working on the whole christian thing. Lol
Been doing much better recently :)

My first rule when it comes to spirituality (and most other issues) is to never trust human beings, there's always a chance they'll steer you wrong. You are the only one who truly knows what's right for you so listen to your instincts and go with what feels right. I hope things turn out well for you.

Thank you :) You too

I'm -kinda- Christian; more like I want to believe than wholeheartedly do, I guess. The idea of Jesus, to me, is way cool. I'm enough of a scholar to know the whole 'special-boy-who-rises-from-the-dead' concept is WAY earlier than Christianity but in general Jesus always struck me as cool, and when I've been on the road and hungry it's usually Christians who help me get back on my feet. So...yeh. Kinda Christian.

Take it or leave it.

That said, I'm never sure about any label, 100%.I've had relations with folk of both sexes, and at any given time I might prefer one over the other. I suppose this makes me bisexual. I've always sort of more considered myself catch-as-catch-can-sexual, because if and when a friendship becomes something more I'll worry about what's between their legs and how I feel about commiting to this person when I need to burn that bridge.

I don't want to have anything to do with a God who would be so prejudiced as to hate gay people. If such a God exists, and he's 'my' God, and Jesus cannot intervene to him to spare me from whatever I might have done wrong, than so be it. I wouldn't want to be someplace I'm not wanted anyway.

I've always hated the idea of 'sin' anyhow.

I've dabbled with wicca in the past, and I kinda like the idea of God being female instead of male, actually, but for the most part I've found most wiccans to be kinda pompous and boring, so I stopped doing it. But one thing I preferred in that religion was rather than the idea of sin, there was the whole karma thing, that 3x3, so mote it be rule.

We all know when we do something that isn't cool anyway, don't we? Anyone with a conscience knows when they've hurt another it's wrong; the idea of God or the universe or the fates retributing is just so we realise we can't get away with wrong behavior forever.

That said, in the ~loosest~ of senses, I guess homosexual sez can be a sin.

Don't freak tho. Cos in that same sense I believe het sex is a sin also.

Pretty much any sex for the sake of your own pleasure with no concern for the feelings of the other or the reprecussions of your actions- ie, dis-eases, impregnating someone, hurting their feelings etc. isn't cool at all! I like to hope most people have enough of a conscience it would haunt them anyway, but even if it doesn't get to you today or tomorrow, in the end empty sex makes one feel like less of a person. In that way? It damns us a little bit each time.

Remember, in gnostic teachings, Hell isn't fire or torment or little guys in red tights and Snidley Whiplash moustaches- that nonsense was made up later and isn't IN the Bible at all! (The Lake of Fire in the Book of Revelation isn't FOR sinners, it's for Satan and the rebel angels). Hell's most horrible feature is the lack of God. To know you've blown it, forever. To have all love removed from you.

So if you make yourself a haunted, self-loathing, loathsome creature in life by negative actions, aren't you already damned? Why would you want to continue to live in such a state?

See, this is why I WANT to believe. Anyone promising to get rid of the part of me that feels bad all the time is a saviour in my book.

The claim is often made that this particular verse of the Bible does not condemn homosexuality due to bad translation, however I would like to point a few things out.

1. I find it funny how the general population who believe it's a bad translation also don't know Greek, nor do they know how to translate it yet they believe themselves the authority on the issue. Translators are picked because they know both languages well and can translate between them obviously pretty well. Granted there are issues in every translation, but for the most part the translated texts are correct. It's a bit ignorant to go into a text and tear a single part of it apart simply because you don't agree with it.

2. The Greek word is Arsenokoitai which is basically a made up word containing two base words. Arsen, meaning man and koitai meaning 'beds' sort of like a compound word. Now the rest you have to get from context and also the times. Compound words do not always make sense, for example a handbag. A handbag is a small bag we carry by hand but if someone a thousand or so years from now is looking at a text and it says handbag, what do you think they'll think? A bag made out of a hand? A bag made to look like a hand? When looking at the word 'Arsenokoitai', it's hard to tell exactly what it means because it's a similarly compound word. Now looking at the context of 1 Corinthians, it was a letter written to the church in Corinth. We know from other verses in the Bible that churches of the time were set up to be patriarchal, and that women had certain restrictions when in the churches. From this we can assume that the letter was intended for the male leaders of the church. Now if I'm talking to a man, and I say 'do not bed men' then it would almost definitely indicate that men are not supposed to bed other men, and 'bedding' someone is language for having sexual relations. Some cry that this is unfair and inconsistent because according to the biblical text females may be homosexual but males cannot be. There are several reasons why the issue was only addressed in the case of males, first being that it was a patriarchal society. Men typically did as they pleased, while it was a woman's job to have children and it may have been impossible for a woman to hold a job or have an income without the help of a man. This is a good indication that homosexuality between females was quite frankly very uncommon or unheard of. Another reason it may not have been addressed is that women were supposed to follow the leadership of men. So if a man did not bed another man, a woman would not bed another woman. However just because it's not explicit to us trying to figure all this out so many years later, doesn't mean it's not there.

3. Even if people decide to believe that this verse does not condemn homosexuality, there are other stories or verses that do condemn it, or at least show it to be something wrong.

I don't see why anyone should give Paul's writings any moral authority. If he wasn't homophobic (and I'm willing to bet that he was), he was still a massive misogynist.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

I don't see why anyone should give Paul's writings any moral authority. If he wasn't homophobic (and I'm willing to bet that he was), he was still a massive misogynist.

Haha, I love how if someone doesn't agree with homosexuality they're labeled 'homophobic' as if they're 'afraid' of it. Since when is it acceptable to insult the people who don't agree with you? What happened to you know, tolerance of other people's beliefs?

Misogynist is also inaccurate. :3 Paul believed in men and woman having different roles in society. He didn't believe one was better than the other, just that they were different. Something a lot of people fail to see. It's like an ant and a horse. They can try to be the same thing, but it doesn't work because they're different. One isn't better than the other, but they have different roles in life to play and it doesn't make sense that different skill sets should do the same thing. Again, a different belief is insulted, and the idea of tolerance becomes hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Haha, I love how if someone doesn't agree with homosexuality they're labeled 'homophobic' as if they're 'afraid' of it. Since when is it acceptable to insult the people who don't agree with you? What happened to you know, tolerance of other people's beliefs?

First off:

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Second:

Calling someone homophobic isn't any more or less of an insult than calling someone racist - and if it's justified, it's an apt label. I tolerate racists and homophobes to the degree that I believe they have all the same rights as everyone else, including the right to free speech - but that definitely does NOT mean I think they should be held as moral authorities.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Misogynist is also inaccurate. :3 Paul believed in men and woman having different roles in society. He didn't believe one was better than the other, just that they were different. Something a lot of people fail to see. It's like an ant and a horse. They can try to be the same thing, but it doesn't work because they're different. One isn't better than the other, but they have different roles in life to play and it doesn't make sense that different skill sets should do the same thing. Again, a different belief is insulted, and the idea of tolerance becomes hypocritical.

Oooooh.

Right.

Separate but equal.

First off:

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Definition of Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Paul was not unfairly treating Homosexuals. He was telling Christians to not be homosexual. So he's still not a 'homophobe'.

Calling someone homophobic isn't any more or less of an insult than calling someone racist - and if it's justified, it's an apt label. I tolerate racists and homophobes to the degree that I believe they have all the same rights as everyone else, including the right to free speech - but that definitely does NOT mean I think they should be held as moral authorities.

I never said anything about your beliefs on who should be held as moral authorities. I found it strange that you insult people you don't agree with on the grounds that they don't agree with certain practices. Paul never said to treat homosexual people badly, he never said to hurt them or yell at them or call them names, and he never said they were lesser human beings or did not have the same rights, so your argument doesn't work. Take the Amish for example. Most don't believe in using electricity, some groups are stricter than others though. So if you want to be in their group you can also not use electricity. It's a rule of the group, and all groups have rules. Christians are not taught to hate homosexual people they are taught to not practice homosexuality themselves.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Definition of Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
Paul was not unfairly treating Homosexuals. He was telling Christians to not be homosexual. So he's still not a 'homophobe'.

He was saying that homosexuals could not "inherit the kingdom of God," while heterosexuals could. That seems pretty discriminatory to me.

In any case, you skipped over the part of the definition including "aversion to" homosexuality or homosexuals. If you list gays amongst thieves and adulterers, you're probably pretty damn averse to them.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I never said anything about your beliefs on who should be held as moral authorities. I found it strange that you insult people you don't agree with on the grounds that they don't agree with certain practices. Paul never said to treat homosexual people badly, he never said to hurt them or yell at them or call them names, and he never said they were lesser human beings or did not have the same rights, so your argument doesn't work. Take the Amish for example. Most don't believe in using electricity, some groups are stricter than others though. So if you want to be in their group you can also not use electricity. It's a rule of the group, and all groups have rules. Christians are not taught to hate homosexual people they are taught to not practice homosexuality themselves.

Paul called homosexuals "unrighteous" and didn't seem to have any issue with the lot of them burning in Hell. I not only disagree with that, I don't owe it one iota of respect. Paul was entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to criticize it.

He was saying that homosexuals could not "inherit the kingdom of God," while heterosexuals could. That seems pretty discriminatory to me.

In any case, you skipped over the part of the definition including "aversion to" homosexuality or homosexuals. If you list gays amongst thieves and adulterers, you're probably pretty damn averse to them.

For the first part, if you're not going to read the verse in context, then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

In the second case it said 'irrational fear or aversion' meaning that if the fear or aversion is irrational or without reason. Christians have a reason. Even if it doesn't make sense to you or anyone else there is still a reason.