Well, as an agnostic, I don’t believe anyone has sin. Guilt is a big enough burden in itself. Fundies DO distinguish between regular old inborn-and-daily-shortcomings sin and the dreaded HOMO-sin. They certainly don’t walk around admonishing people for skipping out on library fines. What the bible says and what fundies do frequently don’t match up.
This is an excellent point, and is exactly what I was trying to say in a much more convoluted manner. Fundies seem to forget that they’re not any better than everyone else on the planet in the eyes of the Lord. That, to me, is the essential difference between true Christians and fundies: true Christians are humble, and attempt to live their lives based on the example set by Jesus. (We’re doomed to failure, of course, but we can try.) Fundies seek to impose their will and beliefs on others.
I’m automatically suspect of any religion that asks its followers to “spread the word”. It is recruitment at its most obnoxious. The way I see it, if it’s worth worshipping, it’ll become apparent to me with no prodding from the peanut gallery. 
It’s been my experience that the people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God are typically people who haven’t read the entire thing. These are the same people who quote mine, or say, “But you see, it says right here that God was showing Job a behemoth! Everyone knows that a behemoth is a dinosaur, so that means that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time! Evolution is bunk!”
Sorry Tris. Though I appreciate the time and thought you put into the above post, it’s not a valid parallel. Shopping is a behavior; homosexuality is a selfhood. The only valid parallel, really, is racism. In the racist model, the antigay activist fundies accused in this thread are analogous to activist segregationists in the mid-century South. Non-activist but homophobic fundies are analogous to the "go slow"ers of that time and place.
Since it’s the status quo that’s evil, merely putting oneself above the fray is, IMO, a sin of omission. Standing quietly by and saying nothing while politicians are trying to enshrine the injustices toward homosexuals into laws is, IMO, analogous to standing idly by and watching a house burn without helping to rescue the inhabitants. Passive inactivity is not always sinless.
The fact that they use the Bible to excuse such a sin makes them, IMO, hypocritical and non-Christian. The way I see it, putting it into their own idiom, Satan has tempted them to ignore the teachings of Jesus and to withdraw their love from homosexuals, and to take it upon themselves to judge others; and they have succumbed to Satan’s temptations and turned away from the teachings of “the” Christ.
Another thing Tris
Comparing homosexuality to shopping implies that it’s a sinful choice that people have made. People choose to go shopping. They do not choose to be homosexual. It’s who they are.
To further lissener’s analogy of racism: It’s like saying “I don’t hate this black person, I just hate that he is black.” Most Christians say,“Hate the sin not the sinner.” If homosexuality is a sin and homosexuality is inseparable from the person… it’s a very slippery slope to go down that line. This is why we are saying that to say homosexuality is a sin makes you a bigot.
Hang on a second. I’m not comfortable with that sentence.
Homosexuality, for all I know, may be a sin in the eyes of my God. However, it may not be. That’s not for me to say.
But the statement you made oversimplifies things a bit, in my opinion. Even if homosexuality is a sin, how does that make one a bigot?
As I said before, sin is sin according to my God. So, even if homosexuality is a sin, it’s no worse than the multitude of sins I’ve committed in my life, and will commit again before I die. Man is sinful by nature, according to my beliefs, and it’s not possible to separate him/her from all of their sins.
I’d be a pretty stupid bigot if I went around proclaiming the sins of my neighbors while knowing all the while I was committing sins myself. (Insert your own Bush joke here.)
—Are you willing to admit the possibility that heterosexuality is a sin?
Sauron You just said that it is not up to you to decide what is a sin. You are not judging people and you are not a bigot.
the difference is that these are sins of behavior and choice. Homosexuality is neither.
Sauron said,
How are you supposed to conduct yourself within your faith if you don’t know what’s considered a sin and what isn’t? I would hope that if I took an oath to myself to follow the tenets of a particular religion, I would be filled in on what is and what is not acceptable in the eyes of my god.
**
Precisely.
And see, here you go, presuming that being gay is a sin. Your very words here brand homosexuality a sin. Plus, shopping is a choice. Being gay is not. Only bigots insist that homosexuality is a chosen condition.
gobear, by his ‘you ignorant’ rant all but defined a ‘fundie’ as just about any person who is Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
That makes me see the light.
Actually, I hadn’t considered that possibility until you raised the question. It could certainly be argued that heterosexuality is a sin. To my knowledge, there’s no record of Jesus enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, with either a woman or a man.
I have heard several preachers and teachers, both in my faith and in others, refer to sex as a “gift from God;” usually they couch that in terms that make it clear they believe that gift should be enjoyed within the bonds of marriage. So, to take that to its logical conclusion, if same-sex marriages were okay by God, homosexual sex would be okay by God. Similarly for heterosexual sex. The only sin (again, according to these teachers/preachers) would be engaging in sex outside of marriage.
The broadest definition of “sin” I’ve heard (and, truthfully, one that seems right to me) is “intentionally allowing anything to come between you and God.”
According to the tenets of my faith, there’s not a “Checklist of Sins[sup]TM[/sup]” that I need to read over every day. In the Old Testament, God laid down a chunk of laws, and then the Israelites expanded on those laws. Following those laws was the way to heaven. When Jesus came, He basically tore up that contract. He gave us two “laws” to follow: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Getting in to heaven no longer required one to keep up with a multitude of laws; one only had to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, and follow His two requirements to the best of one’s ability.
God does not give me the ability to judge on matters of sin/not sin, just as I don’t know the aspect of anyone’s soul. He retains that right. And, frankly, even if He views homosexuality as a sin, my understanding of Him would preclude Him rejecting anyone based only on sins they commit. God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
I honestly don’t know if homosexuality is an inherent characteristic, or if it’s learned behavior. In my view, it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Regularly engaging in sin is a facet of the human condition, regardless of what the sin is.
If you seek hatred, you will find it.
I gave a hypothetical example. Now I am a full fledged fundie homophobe.
Must I be a homosexual in order not to be a homophobe?
Homosexuality is behavior. Perhaps you believe that all behavior is controlled by genetics. In that case, perhaps I am genetically doomed to hate homosexuals. How sad. I didn’t even know I hated them.
There is no chance that homosexuals, as a group are in fact a group. Sort of like fundamentalists, really.
What I hate is having people decide on their own what I think, or believe, and then vilify me out of a twisted need for enemies. What, you don’t think there are enough folks out there calling people names on the basis of their sexual behavior? Perhaps I resist to strongly. Would it be better if I just gave in and started hating everyone who differed from me?
I think I will pass that oportunity up. And the rest of this discussion, too, since it seems that I cannot be accepted as an individual living his live by his own standards, but must grab a banner, and line up to hate one or another bunch of people.
Tris
But you *are * saying it. Please, sincerely, pause for a minute and realize this.
No; it’s inherently simple situation. Your posts amount to counting angels on pins; YOU are adding complications where there is none. My sexuality is as simple as yours.
You’ve got it switched around. Since homosexuality is NOT a sin, any more than freckles or male-pattern baldness are sins, then to persist in labeling it sinful is to be a bigot. Instead of shopping, imagine that you cavalierly believe that baldness is due to sloth, and is therefore a product of sin.
Your reaction is, probably, “that’s ridiculous; baldness is not due to any volitional behavior, therefore it can’t be a sin.” If so, then you see my perspective.
If that didn’t work, choose something about yourself that you consider inborn and immutable: curly hair, lefthandedness, whatever, and plug it into the above thought experiment. Imagine that my religion dictates that I consider lefthandedness to be sinful (not, as you probably know, much of a stretch). If you were lefthanded–rather than a shopaholic–how would you feel? Howbout if I worked dextrously to legislate against the sinister lefthanders? Consitutional amendment: “Lefthanders are hearby not protected by the Bill of Rights: any State can pass laws limiting the rights of the lefthanders, and this amendment hereby makes such laws entirely constitutional.”
Are you getting my POV a little more clearly?
Your misunderstanding that homosexuality is a behavior rather than a state of being is your choice and should therefore be entirely your problem. Attempts to use the powers of the government to codify your personal choices and prejudices is utterly and totally unAmerican, and smells a little unChristian to me as well.
[QUOTE]
QUOTE]
Homosexual sex is behavior; homosexuality is NOT behavior.
Just to clarify, this wasn’t aimed at Sauron was it? Because he’s said many times that he doesn’t support “using the powers of the government to codify his personal choiceds and prejudices.” I’m assuming you’re aiming this at the anti-gay fundies, right?
Not trying to be a jerk here, just making sure.
I would be willing to entertain that tought if there was Biblical proof.
thought
You are right. When Jesus came to the earth, He did not come to judge; He came to save:
John 3:17
For did not send —God— the Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that might be saved the world through Him. – Interlinear
The Jesus died so we could be saved, through His blood.
Judgement comes after, judgement made by Jesus. Everyone will be judged.