The "sin" of homosexuality

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

Because of what happens if you don't acheive enlightenment - reincarnation. According to Buddhist philosophy, all life is suffering. If you do not achieve enlightenment, your spirit will be recycled by this universe and your suffering will continue. If you do acheive enlightenment, your spirit breaks free from the life/death/life cycle and you remain at peace - and to Buddhists, true peace is the absence of the self. What that means, exactly, has been interpreted many times over, with many Buddhists believing it to mean non-existence.

Also, there is a fundamental point to your post that many Buddhists would take issue with. It implies desire. In Buddhism, desire is the ultimate source of suffering. If you seek enlightenment, you must do it without desire - without motivation, so to speak. Perhaps a Christian seeks salvation for fear of being left out of Heaven (not all, but bear with me). A Buddhist should seek enlightenment simply because it's the right thing to do.

And there is no "do what you want, 'cause there's nothing when it's over" aspect to Buddhism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Buddhists, especially those who truely seek enlightenment, are very strict. The essence of those who "do what they want," particularly if what they want causes suffering, will return to this universe to suffer more. If they caused great suffering, they could very well be reincarnated in the Buddhist version of Hell (yes, many Buddhists believe in it - though, like everything else in Buddhism, it's not permanent/eternal). So, if you are lucky enough to be born a human (only humans can acheive enlightenment - not even the "gods" can do this) then it is in your best interest to at least try to reach Nirvana. Who knows what will happen to you if you don't.

Of course, if you desire enlightenment........

i'm confused. i thought i said that earlier but used different words. if you believe there is nothing after death; how can you be reincarnated after you die if there is nothing? something must remain to reincarnate. a hindu's version of heaven (loose interpretation) is to be free from birth. ie: not being reincarnated back to suffering earth (hell).

onelongsong

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Good description of Buddhism....that's the dichotomy of Buddhism....you have to try for enlightenment but not desire enlightenment...it's a subtle yet all important difference.

if i try to get a drink of water; i must first desire a drink of water.

boxwine_in_hell

onelongsong wrote:

if i try to get a drink of water; i must first desire a drink of water.

Now don't start that shit.....what do you like to torture Buddhists or something you sick bastard...lol

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

i'm confused. i thought i said that earlier but used different words. if you believe there is nothing after death; how can you be reincarnated after you die if there is nothing? something must remain to reincarnate. a hindu's version of heaven (loose interpretation) is to be free from birth. ie: not being reincarnated back to suffering earth (hell).

I never said there is nothing after death. I said that some Buddhists believe that if you achieve enlightenment, you achieve non-existence. If you do not achieve enlightenment, you will continue to return to this universe.

onelongsong

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Now don't start that shit.....what do you like to torture Buddhists or something you sick bastard...lol

i have great respect for buddism and it's connections with christianity. i studdied it for half a semester. i cannot achieve a drink of water if i do not desire it. one must seek enlightenment as buddah did through teaching and meditation. you cannot follow the teachings of buddah without the desire to follow his teachings. you cannot be taught the teachings of buddah if the teacher does not desire to teach.
your senerio says you stroll around and by some magic...boom...you're enlightened. it doesn't work that way. when buddah was hungry; he desired food. you can twist the words all you want but you can't change the facts. when a human (now or 2500 yrs ago) body requires food; it automatically desires food. want; need; desire are all the same words.
now tell me buddah taught that one should desire enlightenment over earthly (or human) desires and you're on the right track.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Some denominations, perhaps, but not all. Many Buddhists believe that Nirvana is the anhiliation of the self as the last bit of desire left - that Nirvana equals Non-Existence.

Ah, but this "annihilation of the self" is the same as the psychological concept of absorbing the small ego self into the overself--integrating with the higher Self. It means non-existence of the self that we believe is who we are--the ego--which is the tip of the iceberg of the true psychological self. It doesn't mean you disappear into thin air, it means you disappear into the collective unconscious and are one with your surroudings. Remember Mu> you need to lose yourself before you find the Self. You need to empty your mind before you can become mindful.

When one loses the concept of self, one lives for Life and other. Notice through time, those who did so supposedly had auras of enLightenment--as were depicted by halos and golden globes around their heads in illumination in the old biblical texts. EnLightenment is enLightenment.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Because of what happens if you don't acheive enlightenment - reincarnation. According to Buddhist philosophy, all life is suffering. If you do not achieve enlightenment, your spirit will be recycled by this universe and your suffering will continue. If you do acheive enlightenment, your spirit breaks free from the life/death/life cycle and you remain at peace - and to Buddhists, true peace is the absence of the self.

The reason you find peace is because you rise above right/wrong, good/bad, and other human concepts, including time. This is when you let go of your "human self". You realise there is no beginning and no end, and therefore even death is not to be feared--we go on as consciousness. This is about raising consciousness to get to the point where we can understand and live in pure peace where all is love. Then one no longer has to cycle back and forth between good and bad or other dichotomies. One recognises all as Love. And the lack of love as illusion. In Love, one is eternal, in the Now. One moves from selfish concerns to concern for all and for Life, itself.

Most of us do not achieve enlightenment and continue cycling through suffering. We learn to cope and adapt to suffering, rather than realise we can learn to let the lessons carry us to higher understanding.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. I think is how it goes. Given the greater context of the New Testament Jesus should concern and intervened in the church's state of affairs, but 100% stayed out of politics.

This does not explain this claim:

surferdude wrote:

It gets messy because Jesus was fully prepared to allow governments to make the civil rules we all have to live by. By those laws we judge others by their actions.

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

this addresses the don't judge question better than I can

Question: "What does the Bible mean that we are not to judge others?"

Answer: It seems that whenever one person confronts another person over an issue, the statement "Do not judge!" comes up. Christians are often accused of "judging" in contradiction to what the Bible says whenever they speak out against a sinful activity. However, that is not the meaning of the Scripture verses which state, "Do not judge." When Jesus told us not to judge (Matthew 7:1), He was telling us not to judge hypocritically. Matthew 7:2-5 declares, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

In Matthew 7:2-5, Jesus warns against judging someone else for their sin when you yourself are sinning even worse. That is the kind of judging Jesus commanded us not to do. If a believer sees another believer sinning, it is their Christian duty to lovingly and respectfully confront the person with their sin (Matthew 18:15-17). This is not judging, but rather pointing out the truth in hope of bringing repentance in the other person (James 5:20). We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We are to proclaim what God's Word says about sin. 2 Timothy 4:2 instructs us, "Preach the Word ; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction." We are to "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequences - the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

I'm actually not interested in man-made justifications or interpretations of biblical stuff that condones judging. I realise that it's out there and that many people believe it. I don't. It is very ugly and inappropriate in my opinion. It is about the human ego, which is about separation and making others wrong. God is Love which binds everything together.

It looks like your source has misconstrued biblical stuff, for example Ephesians 4:15 actually says: "but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ;" not only "we are to speak the truth in love"

John 14:16-17 which is alluded to actually says: "16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."

I listen directly to the spirit of truth that is in me at all times--and that spirit is not about condemning my fellow humans when I am the same.

Do you know you are able to judge another person's homosexuality? Do you have a tally of your sins to know you sin less than they do?

I preach the word day in and out. But I do not judge.

angelica

onelongsong wrote:

i agree with that. if God made us in his own image; then he is within all of us.
i attended a college prep and was required to take 4 years of theology which included the other religions. 10 years later i had a brain aneurysm break during surgery. i was legally brain dead for almost 20 minutes. my family was told i would never come out of the coma and if i did; i'd be a vegetable. during that time (20 minutes) i saw and learned alot. i was no longer roman catholic; but much more spiritual. there is no name for my religion. it is the combination of the pure roots of all religions.

And I too have had my otherworldly time, and I too learned a lot. And I too have been unable to go back to my prior beliefs. When one meets with truth, wow. Interestingly, I too celebrate a combination of the pure roots of all religions. It looks like we have a somehow experiential affinity with one another. I'm honoured knowing you and the greatness in you, friend.

boxwine_in_hell

onelongsong wrote:

i have great respect for buddism and it's connections with christianity.

It's interesting isn't it? The Buddha's mother supposedly immaculately conceived a child when she was visited in a dream by a white elephant that entered her womb. Sound familar? The Christian idea of "Immaculate Conception" was heavily influenced by the stories of the Buddha's birth. I'm sure you know since you've studied it that there are countless other examples just like this that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism. The average Bible thumper would be appaled to know this fact. Let's enlighten them shall we?

rightondude

Let the gays suffer like the rest of us...

beachdweller

NakedClown wrote:

Unfortunately - THIS is the problem... because they ARE influencing people and getting them riled up over what is really a non-issue.

EDIT: And it's influencing them to vote a certain way through scare tactics...

that's cause Republicans have nothing...Immigration debate will lead to no true action, election reform wil lead to no true action, flag burning...nothing, gay marriage....nothing, but that's all they have, if they ran on the things they have actually done they'd all get replaced. they confuse people with what they don't want them to know the truth about, then scare them to move there attention elsewhere...they won't openly and honestly debate issues so that anyone actually knows where they stand...they got nothing but great marketing scheme

id rocks

NakedClown wrote:

I have an honest question - for the hardline right on this board. The question was inspired by the following quote in another hotly-debated religious thred:

Originally Posted by know1
My church had a sermon last week on being accepting of homosexuals. The point was that sin is no worse than anyone of our sins and that the church has failed by alienating them.

So here's my question - to those of you who choose to make the "gay issue" a hot button issue during election cycles and a matter of turning a group of people into a sort of "lower" society.

Why is this "sin" so much worse than the others and worthy of your venom?

Why don't we restrict free speech on people who use the lord's name in vain?

Why don't we ostracize people who decide to labor on Sundays?

Why don't try to limit the rights of adulterers?

Why aren't people who covet other people's properties hearded off and forced to lives as kind of a second society?

Please - only real responses - no "stupid fucking liberals" comments or anything like that...


EDIT: OVER on Page 4, we've had lots of good discussion so far - but are still waiting for an answer to the original question from someone who steadfastly believes that homosexuals should NOT have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.

This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.

decides2dream

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Good description of Buddhism....that's the dichotomy of Buddhism....you have to try for enlightenment but not desire enlightenment...it's a subtle yet all important difference.

yes, i don't think i'd make a very good buddhist at all.....but i like a lot of the ideas.

id rocks wrote:

am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.

This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.

seems the most logical answer thus far. not condoning it or saying such views are right...b/c i don't....but at least that has some degree of sense to it, as to 'why' one may look at it in a harsher light.

69charger

I am probably considered 'far right' and I think it is a far worse thing to participate in organized religion than to be homosexual.

I've never understood being afraid of gay people.

NakedClown

id rocks wrote:

I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.

This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.

No - it wasn't a bait question.

I think the rising rates of adultery and divorce are as much of a threat to the institute of family and the long-term well being of children - but that's just my opinion...

And as I mentioned before - as I'm fairly close to the issue thanks to family and friends - The gay community isn't really banging down the doors for this "marriage" thing to happen. It seems like for every one homosexual who wants gay "marriage" there are three talking heads and politicians screaming about it's danger. It seems to me that its a manufactured "crisis of the family" that gets people to the polls.

I think the majority of the gay community would be happy with civil unions - where benefits can be shared and passed on to a partner similar to a married couple - and what would be wrong with that (since you're not going to stop them from living together anyway)...?

Plain and simple: I don't think its as much of a crisis to the family as the republican party and the religious right want you to think it is.

But I respect what you said - because for the most part you left religion out of it.

Which brings me back to my original question for those who do use religion to back up their assertions: Why is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Or why is it a worse sin than your sins? Why do you feel that particular sin gives you the right to separate them as a different part of society?

id rocks

NakedClown wrote:

No - it wasn't a bait question.

I think the rising rates of adultery and divorce are as much of a threat to the institute of family and the long-term well being of children - but that's just my opinion...

And as I mentioned before - as I'm fairly close to the issue thanks to family and friends - The gay community isn't really banging down the doors for this "marriage" thing to happen. It seems like for every one homosexual who wants gay "marriage" there are three talking heads and politicians screaming about it's danger. It seems to me that its a manufactured "crisis of the family" that gets people to the polls.

I think the majority of the gay community would be happy with civil unions - where benefits can be shared and passed on to a partner similar to a married couple - and what would be wrong with that (since you're not going to stop them from living together anyway)...?

Plain and simple: I don't think its as much of a crisis to the family as the republican party and the religious right want you to think it is.

But I respect what you said - because for the most part you left religion out of it.

Which brings me back to my original question for those who do use religion to back up their assertions: Why is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Or why is it a worse sin than your sins? Why do you feel that particular sin gives you the right to separate them as a different part of society?

I see, you are curious about the religious aspect of it. That makes sense. Sorry to suggest it may have been a bait question. No disrespect intended.

Anyway, I don't have much to offer as to why homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others. In my knowledge and understanding of God, I believe he does not accept the behavior, but a fundamental tenent of this nation is to allow people the freedom to privately practice whatever makes them happy (of course, if it doesn't harm others). Thus, even though in my religion, I feel homosexual behavior is wrong, I'm not going to suggest someone cannot practice it. My issue is with redefining what marriage is, however. Your suggestion of just keeping it at a level of civil unions with the necessary rights granted to the couple is refreshing. Honestly, I wish that's what we could compromise at. And leave "marriage" as what it has always been. The thing I have a hard time with is gay couples adopting kids. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that. Part of me is like "if it is biologically impossible to create children, why should you want to have them?" Anyway, I hope you respect my opinions and attempts to explain how I feel.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Also, there is a fundamental point to your post that many Buddhists would take issue with. It implies desire. In Buddhism, desire is the ultimate source of suffering. If you seek enlightenment, you must do it without desire - without motivation, so to speak. Perhaps a Christian seeks salvation for fear of being left out of Heaven (not all, but bear with me). A Buddhist should seek enlightenment simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Desiring the Desireless?

If we are to arrive at a state where desire is no more, how can desiring such a state bring us to it? ... Zen Buddhism quite naturally circumvents this apparent paradox by placing emphasis on practice itself rather than on aiming to achieve something. ...

However, this doesn't mean there is no place in Buddhism for aspiration. ...

Although aspiration has its place, it is the type and quality of one's practice that is more significant. The Buddha's words are helpful here. In the Bhumija Sutta from the Pali Canon (early Buddhist scriptures), he states that it is following the right path that will bring positive results, irrespective of whether one desires them or not."

http://buddhism.about.com/cs/bodhisattvas/a/Aspiration.htm

know1

surferdude wrote:

The way I see it the sin of having homosexual sex didn't even make the top ten list. It is a sin just like any other. As far as my understanding goes there is no sin in being homosexual. Much like we are all liars, but the sin is to lie.

Well said.