Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

57,211 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#87128 Apr 23, 2013
No it isn't.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#87129 Apr 23, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Waste---The word intimate did not exist when the original myth was written.
HughBe--- I did NOT say that the word INTIMATE existed when Moses wrote the story.
Waste---You have simply illustrated another poor translation of the Bible.
HughBe--- I used the Complete Jewish Bible found at the Chabad site.
Waste---Your understanding is ever worse.
HughBe--- Noted
Waste---In the inhospitable land, inviting guests into the home was a way of showing love and compassion.
HughBe--- Note, the strangers were shown HOSPITALITY. Did you not read it? It is there so go back and read slowly.
Also, I am confident that YOU would have taken the overtures of the MEN of the city to be very WARM, friendly and HOSPITABLE, so what is your point?.
If women came and made those overtures to me then I would take it the overtures to be WARM, hospitable etc. BUT no doubt you would take the women's overtures as INHOSPITABLE.
Waste--- To mistreat those guests shows a sin against compassion just as your constant abuse of homosexuals sins against compassion.
LORD HAVE MERCY
HughBe--- Wake-up
Now take your time and read what follows.
"Bring out the MAN that came into your house, so that we may be INTIMATE with him."
" the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brothers, do NOT do so WICKEDLY now."
"Here is my VIRGIN daughter, and his concubine, I will bring them out now and (you should) afflict(SEX) them, and do with them as you please"
" But the men did not want to listen to him"
The passage posted had the word Intimate in it, otherwise I would never have taken exception with the word.

in·ti·mate1 (nt-mt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity.
Relating to or indicative of one's deepest nature: intimate prayers.
Essential; innermost: the intimate structure of matter.
Marked by informality and privacy: an intimate nightclub.
Very personal; private: an intimate letter.
Of or involved in a sexual relationship.
NOUN:
A close friend or confidant.

Intimate shows closeness. The men of Sodom were seeking to rape and abuse. The word intimate does not fit the passage.

NEXT

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87130 Apr 23, 2013
HughBe wrote:
...
I'll make this simple for you, you are free to believe as you want and pray like heck that God actually agrees with your morally offensive choices, but as far as convincing me that you're right, not so much.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87131 Apr 23, 2013
Orthapod 1 wrote:
For those wondering...
Ennis dear, you've gotten monotonous, regurgitating the same posts over and over again is just boorish. I have to award the title to Adolf by default, you're just not man enough to be my b*****.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#87132 Apr 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage posted had the word Intimate in it, otherwise I would never have taken exception with the word.
in·ti·mate1 (nt-mt) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity.
Relating to or indicative of one's deepest nature: intimate prayers.
Essential; innermost: the intimate structure of matter.
Marked by informality and privacy: an intimate nightclub.
Very personal; private: an intimate letter.
Of or involved in a sexual relationship.
NOUN:
A close friend or confidant.
Intimate shows closeness. The men of Sodom were seeking to rape and abuse. The word intimate does not fit the passage.
NEXT
Waste---The passage posted had the word Intimate in it, otherwise I would never have taken exception with the word.

HughBe--- From the start it was clear to me that the word INTIMATE was in the passage that I quoted. So, its existence was never being disputed by me. Having said that I maintain , I did NOT say that the word INTIMATE existed when Moses wrote the story.

The rabbis or translators used INTIMATE and I had no difficulty in understanding their choice of word and in my opinion although it was not the original word, its essence captured the original meaning.

Let me provide the ORIGINAL or KJV version as I believe that you should be more comfortable with it. Note, the word used by the KJV is KNOW and I know that you are more at ease with it than INTIMATE.

"Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them." Lot story.

" Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may KNOW him" Levite and concubine story.

Finally, tell me the meanings of KNOW.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#87133 Apr 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'll make this simple for you, you are free to believe as you want and pray like heck that God actually agrees with your morally offensive choices, but as far as convincing me that you're right, not so much.
You have a very strange concept of "morally offensive".

regards
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#87134 Apr 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If at first you don't succeed, ask a sillier question, having failed again, top it. Adolf, Adolf, Adolf, way to show Ennis who is going to be alpha among my betas.
"ADAM and EVE" were an experiment, lab rats of a sort, being humans, they still bit the hand of the one feeding them and got their naked butts released back into the wild with the rest of us. What did you learn from this couple who, if literally the only couple on the planet, would have killed us off at the 2nd generation by only having had three sons and no daughters?
Why you say that about Adam and Eve? The One who created them was Going to see that they did not become extinct.

Just an imperfect example, the House of Saud the Rulers of Saudi Arabia have grown to 6000-7000 people in just three generations.

And in fact every new specie, came with a single specimen.
Max

Montréal, Canada

#87135 Apr 23, 2013
Man and woman were made to work and live a normal life. Anyone not living the Catholic lifestyle should be shot, Muslims first.

“unintelligible ”

Since: Mar 13

Gobi Desert, Outer Mongolia

#87136 Apr 24, 2013
THE ANSWER IS IN TODAY'S PAPER.

Read up and learn!

http://tinyurl.com/IsItASin

“lovin whole wheat flakes”

Since: Apr 12

The Big Apple

#87137 Apr 24, 2013
Re: Rick in Kansas' photo:

Come to think about it, that must be a dead dog.

The picture is so fuzzy it must have been part of a larger one, one with a fat child.

If the dog were still alive, you could just borrow mummy's phone and take a decent picture.

So the dog is dead and there is no replacement.

I presume you weren't allowed a replacement since you killed that dog.

Was it an accident? Forgot to feed it? Tied it to a tree on a long rope and it tangled and choked itself? Or was it more active, like feeding it a big hunk of mummy's baking chocolate after being warn of the consequences. Or a blind beating?

Don't matter which, because whatever your answer/excuse is, I won't be reading it.

That's how Topix works. Sorry Jell-O Stix.

“lovin whole wheat flakes”

Since: Apr 12

The Big Apple

#87138 Apr 24, 2013
And For those wondering why Rick in Kansas is always using terms like Sweetie and Sugar and Cupcake ....
... of course you think it's because he's mentally retarded, and that's part of it.

But the main reason is he thinks these are insults and will humiliate total strangers who are posting normally. Why? you ask ....well ...

Turns out those are the terms his mummy uses on him. But he never figured out why, so he confusedly decided they must be insults and humiliations.
Actually she uses them for the opposite reason:

Whenever they go out to eat, she has to start yelling at Rickie, and since he is so spacy she ends up screaming at him, "Rickie Dickie! Get your hands off your junk right NOW. And put your pants back on!" Then realizing that everyone in entire room at Chick-fil-A is staring at her, she adds "..Sugar Pie". And now he is embarrassed and humiliated, with everyone pointing and making their thumb and forefinger into the symbol for teeny-tiny.
She was really trying to soften her shouting fit, but he misinterpreted it.

Rick confusedly thinks it is part of the humiliation.

And that's why he does it.
Plus of course the mental retardation thing.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#87140 Apr 24, 2013
ThisGayMixedGuy1 wrote:
Stop reading the old testament, get with the program, read the new testament.
----------NEW TESTAMENT CONDEMNING HOMO'S----------

Mathew 19:1-8

"4 “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate"

Romans 1:18-32

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error"

Amongst a whole heap more verses in THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT condemn homosexuality as not just a sin but an aberration.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87141 Apr 24, 2013
HughBe wrote:
You have a very strange concept of "morally offensive".
regards
Not nearly as strange as yours, you have had to torture the hell out of scripture to find your "morally offensive".

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87142 Apr 24, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Why you say that about Adam and Eve? The One who created them was Going to see that they did not become extinct.
Just an imperfect example, the House of Saud the Rulers of Saudi Arabia have grown to 6000-7000 people in just three generations.
And in fact every new specie, came with a single specimen.
Dear, the Genesis account makes it quite clear that God conducted an experiment with just one of the many human beings He created, Adam. With the rest of humanity off doing what they needed to do to survive, God took Adam and brought him to Eden, where He would provide him everything Adam ever needed to not just survive, but thrive, including Eve. The only condition placed on this was their unquestioning obedience. They blew it. Adam and Eve NEVER were God's only humans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87143 Apr 24, 2013
Ennis dear, I'm not here to humiliate you, you're doing that on your own and you are really quite good at it. I'm just here to annoy you and to encourage you to flip out like the blithering idiot I've come to know you to be. I got you to do it three times, including you creating your fourth or fifth account to "mock" me. Am I good or what? The only shame is that none of it was remotely original, you're only phoning in your crazy when I know you are capable of so much more.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#87144 Apr 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dear, the Genesis account makes it quite clear that God conducted an experiment with just one of the many human beings He created, Adam. With the rest of humanity off doing what they needed to do to survive, God took Adam and brought him to Eden, where He would provide him everything Adam ever needed to not just survive, but thrive, including Eve. The only condition placed on this was their unquestioning obedience. They blew it. Adam and Eve NEVER were God's only humans.
You're in denial;

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Effeminate means men with men.

Just say you don't agree with the bible, but stop trying to lie about how explicit it is that bum boys are sinners who will go to hell.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87145 Apr 24, 2013
mandingowillsay wrote:
----------NEW TESTAMENT CONDEMNING HOMO'S----------
More like a less than Christlike Christian torturing scripture into meaning something it doesn't.
mandingowillsay wrote:
Mathew 19:1-8
"4 “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate"
Dear, you say you are about to quote verses 1-8, but only give us 4-6, could it be because the verses you omitted from the front end make it clear that Jesus doesn't have homosexuality on his mind but was answering a question about a divorce between a man and his wife? You really should have read all you said you did, because if you had, you would have known better than to pull false witness around folk who have actually read the Bible.
mandingowillsay wrote:
Romans 1:18-32
"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error"
Amongst a whole heap more verses in THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT condemn homosexuality as not just a sin but an aberration.
If this is supposed to be Romans 1:18-32, where is 18-25 and 28-32? Have you left them out for any particular reason? Could it be because what Paul was telling the Romans that the reason God made them do that icky sex stuff was because he was punishing them for their idolatry and the missing verses at the end the laundry list of other acts God gave them over to as recompense for their most grievous sin??

The reality is this, you can torture scripture, conveniently leave out parts that don't necessarily fit your beliefs, change the context, ignore history, whatever you need to do to try and rationalize your ugly beliefs, but it is God who decides who gets His Christianity right, NOT his Christians.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87146 Apr 24, 2013
mandingowillsay wrote:
You're in denial;
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
Effeminate means men with men.
Just say you don't agree with the bible, but stop trying to lie about how explicit it is that bum boys are sinners who will go to hell.
I really don't mind breaking this to you sweetie, but my eternity isn't your call, no matter how good of a Christian you believe yourself to be. Just so you know, the oldest known copies of Paul's epistle doesn't really support a translation into "effeminate", the word he uses is used throughout the works written in Greek to describe a quality of fabric as being soft and early Christians taught this bit as a warning to those with soft morals, those who would not stand up for their convictions. As for the "abusers of themselves with mankind", Paul actually just mentioned a man (singular) and a bed, that was used as a warning against masturbation by early Christians.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#87147 Apr 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>More like a less than Christlike Christian torturing scripture into meaning something it doesn't
"Dear, you say you are about to quote verses 1-8, but only give us 4-6, could it be because the verses you omitted from the front end make it clear that Jesus doesn't have homosexuality on his mind but was answering a question about a divorce between a man and his wife? You really should have read all you said you did, because if you had, you would have known better than to pull false witness around folk who have actually read the Bible"

You give erroneous arguments that do not support your position. in short your argument is meaningless. If Jesus thought it was normal for homosexuality to exist don't you think he'd just say couples? But he explains about God creating man and woman explicitly. He clearly does not consider homosexuality as anything to do with normality or natural. He endorses marriage as between am man and woman, but homosexuals not Jesus have introduced marriage as something even they can do.
You start out pretending I was trying to hide something and you had a huge point, but you clearly had no point. I quoted the part out that was relevant. That he is talking about divorce is not the relevant part. That he expects marriage to be between a man and a woman is relevant.

"Have you left them out for any particular reason? Could it be because what Paul was telling the Romans that the reason God made them do that icky sex stuff was because he was punishing them for their idolatry and the missing verses at the end the laundry list of other acts God gave them over to as recompense for their most grievous sin"

Lmao! What an idiot, I do not need to quote anything else other than these passages which are explicit in their meaning. But even if we were to go with your ridiculous theory. Do you really think you do your homo cause any good by claiming that "God made them do that icky sex stuff was because he was punishing them for their idolatry" how can you say God made them be homosexual as a punishment then try and claim the bible condoned homosexuality? You are a complete idiot.

"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error"
He condemns homosexuality as well as idolatry and all other ungodliness.

"The reality is this, you can torture scripture, conveniently leave out parts that don't necessarily fit your beliefs, change the context, ignore history, whatever you need to do to try and rationalize your ugly beliefs, but it is God who decides who gets His Christianity right, NOT his Christians"
Nope that is not reality it is what you want reality to be so you can pretend God condones homosexuals, he does not and you are wrong and insulting people's intelligence by pretending he does.

Again; you sir are an idiot.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#87148 Apr 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I really don't mind breaking this to you sweetie, but my eternity isn't your call, no matter how good of a Christian you believe yourself to be. Just so you know, the oldest known copies of Paul's epistle doesn't really support a translation into "effeminate", the word he uses is used throughout the works written in Greek to describe a quality of fabric as being soft and early Christians taught this bit as a warning to those with soft morals, those who would not stand up for their convictions. As for the "abusers of themselves with mankind", Paul actually just mentioned a man (singular) and a bed, that was used as a warning against masturbation by early Christians.
Aw! You poor thing, I'm not a Christian so do not waste your time making assumptions you've no clue about.

Secondly; when we talk of sin it is in a biblical context, and this is what the question pertains. A crime is something different because that is more in a law (legal) context. A court will not say to you, you have sinned.

I'm answering this question relevant to religion but I'm not a Christian nor do I aspire to be one or endorse Christianity. Do not mistake me for you, you are trying to endorse homosexuality with religion which I would say is pretty sick of you and the reason everyone should understand what you advocate is sinful even from your own perspective. Because you are attempting to say distort what the bible says explicitly.

Masturbation is described as a sin too, do not waste your time on that because I have no problem with that idea. But like I explained earlier I do not see homosexuality as being on the same level as a man bumming another man. Aren't you tired of trying to con people?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 13 min Johnny 3,125
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min dirty white boy- 739,740
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min confrinting with ... 542,822
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 17 min Aura Mytha 259,599
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min Aura Mytha 227,649
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 22 min UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 173,716
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 40 min abcd 865
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 2 hr ms simmer 153

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••