Ken Alexander: Homosexuality is the worst of sins

[Firiel]

Personally, I think it comes from a post-Enlightenment and post-Industrial Revolution commodifying and idolatry of the heterosexual nuclear family by evangelicals, which ties in with a distrust of singleness and/or celibacy. There's also a degree of anti-Catholic prejudice - a celibate priesthood and religious orders are seen as harbouring homosexuality.

As an Anglican and someone who deeply values the consecrated religious life (ie monks, nuns, and consecrated single people* living under vows), I think both that and homosexuality are threats to the evangelical view of marriage because it (the view of marriage) has become so nuclear and individualistic. It's all 'me and my family' rather than seeing oneself as part of a community. I realise Orthodox Judaism puts great stress on community, although the emphasis on marriage (while understandable) makes me wonder who does the contemplative, more monastic roles in Judaism.

In the Anglican church, perspectives on sin are variable, but my own perspective would say that sin is what damages someone's personhood in the sight of God - so working to preserve the gap between rich and poor, and supporting greed and capitalism, are probably some of the worse sins for me. But I come from a anarcho-socialist, liberation theology perspective.

*the consecrated single life in Anglicanism is equivalent to consecrated virgins in Roman Catholicism, but those called to it do not have to be virgins and they can be of any gender

This is great.

It's the reason why Evangelicals never bring up those pesky verses where Paul says it's better to be single than to be married. They fetishize the family.

[2xx1xy1JD]

i think the brand i was in would have gone along with pat robertson on that. not that it makes sense, just that if any of the people i used to go to church with heard that, i can hear them saying "amen!" in response.

it's funny, because there are some contradictions when it comes to sin. at certain times and in certain sermons, all sin is sin, whether it's lying about something small, stealing a candy bar, or pre-marital/extra-marital sex, or rape, or murder. all sin is considered equal and equally horrendous before god. but then other times, certain sins will be picked out as if they are worse, and homosexuality (or any sexuality that isn't hetero) is usually a go-to. why it is, i'm not really sure. i was taught to memorize and parrot as i was growing up, not to question and think, so there are still things that, while i know them, i'm not quite clear on the reasoning behind it.

eta: although, for some things, i'm not sure there really is a rational, logical, or even semi-logical progression of thought behind the argument. it just simply is.

Thanks for trying to explain at least. I'm more confused than ever.

To my "legalistic" mind, murder would be the worst sin. You are taking away a life that God gave. It's also the worst form of depriving someone of their rights, because you are depriving them of ALL their rights. Finally, it would be the worst because there is no real possibility of doing full atonement and receiving full forgiveness. You can pay for a stolen candy bar. You cannot return someone you killed to life, and they cannot grant forgiveness.

[polecat]

But when evolution is taught as if it were a fact, and not simply an unsupported theory,

Ken doesn't understand what a scientific theory is. :lol:

or when homsosexuality is taught as a choice and alternative lifestyle,

Um, Ken, I'm afraid that it's your brand of Christian who is teaching that homosexuality is a *choice. Most everyone else understands that it's just a normal variation.

[browncoatslytherin]

Thanks for trying to explain at least. I'm more confused than ever.

To my "legalistic" mind, murder would be the worst sin. You are taking away a life that God gave. It's also the worst form of depriving someone of their rights, because you are depriving them of ALL their rights. Finally, it would be the worst because there is no real possibility of doing full atonement and receiving full forgiveness. You can pay for a stolen candy bar. You cannot return someone you killed to life, and they cannot grant forgiveness.

foxymoxie had a nice response as well, but i'm not sure it fully applied to the flavour i was raised in. while we were iblp/ati for a little bit, we weren't quiverfull in any way (my mum turned 40 the year i was born anyway). when we were iblp/ati, we were skirts-only, but after we got out of that, that rule was relaxed. still no drinking, no dancing, no drugs, no pre-marital/extra-marital sex, extremely limited exposure to secular entertainment, things like that.

just saying all of that to give an idea of what my flavour was at time.

family was definitely a focus, but not quite the way foxy described (at least for us). i wouldn't call it "fetishized" exactly, but there was definitely an undercurrent of "returning to traditional values" (big buzzword), which of course entailed a few things like modesty, our speech (i.e. no swearing), and basically making everything family friendly...which of course means no sex discussion, hints at it, and non-heterosexuality is a big no-no in general so that kind of tied into it as, they way that we viewed it (which is incorrect, i know, just stating how it was) non-heterosexuals were sex-crazed and did not and could not fit into our little family friendly environment.

perhaps by typing this, i've answered my own ponderings about the issue and where it came out that homosexuality was "the worst sin ever"...it threatened our lifestyle (in reality, not really, but you know the whole persecution complex that fundies like to play up). and since we viewed non-heterosexuals in an incorrect way (as sex-crazed), i guess that they thought they would be prone to sexual sin so much that it negated pretty much anything else?

still working things out, so it's nice to discuss and type it all out to try and order out my thoughts.

[BrownieMomma]

Personally, I think it comes from a post-Enlightenment and post-Industrial Revolution commodifying and idolatry of the heterosexual nuclear family by evangelicals, which ties in with a distrust of singleness and/or celibacy. There's also a degree of anti-Catholic prejudice - a celibate priesthood and religious orders are seen as harbouring homosexuality.

As an Anglican and someone who deeply values the consecrated religious life (ie monks, nuns, and consecrated single people* living under vows), I think both that and homosexuality are threats to the evangelical view of marriage because it (the view of marriage) has become so nuclear and individualistic. It's all 'me and my family' rather than seeing oneself as part of a community. I realise Orthodox Judaism puts great stress on community, although the emphasis on marriage (while understandable) makes me wonder who does the contemplative, more monastic roles in Judaism.

In the Anglican church, perspectives on sin are variable, but my own perspective would say that sin is what damages someone's personhood in the sight of God - so working to preserve the gap between rich and poor, and supporting greed and capitalism, are probably some of the worse sins for me. But I come from a anarcho-socialist, liberation theology perspective.

*the consecrated single life in Anglicanism is equivalent to consecrated virgins in Roman Catholicism, but those called to it do not have to be virgins and they can be of any gender

Very insightful.

[docmom]

Oh and this...

This verse puts sexual sins on the same level with greed and drunkenness and slanderers and swindlers.

I disagree with Ken, mere woman that I am. I think adultery is far more destructive, esp to children, as they are often affected with their lives in turmoil from parental adultery. Homosexual sin does not even produce children, therefore the impact is lesser, really it only impacts the two people involved who are presumably adults capable of making of their own decisions and choices.

Thanks for the verses, but, of course, this is Paul speaking- not Jesus. Legalistic fundies love Paul. I think they like him a lot more than liberal, wishy, washy, friend of all Jesus.

[FoxyMoxie]

Browncoatslytherin (replying separately is easier to read) - by fetishised I mean more that there's an emphasis on marriage and having children that just isn't in the New Testament. The early church and Church Fathers valued celibacy much more. Was there a place for celibacy in the church you were raised in? By 'family' I mean that everyone is supposed to get married, have a heterosexual nuclear family life, and that celibacy doesn't have a place. Like, what if someone wanted to be like Anna in the temple and dedicate their life to prayer? What if someone wanted to be like Paul and be a celibate church leader? Rejecting celibacy as an option is distorting the New Testament and early church perspective on marriage and celibacy.

[Burris]

Two men or women having sex is the worst sin evah?!

The more of this insular nonsense I read from fundies whose only exposure to the world beyond their private fiefdoms is Kevin Swanson and Soldier of Fortune, the more tempted I am to inflict an NC-17 rated version of history on the board for their education - assuming they can be taught at all.

Go here at your own risk:

Hey Ken - did you know that while rigour mortis takes about 12 hours to reach fullness. But if someone dies violently, say, by torture followed by a killing blow, rigour can be immediate so that the man who dies is stiffened in the pose of his last act?

If you shoot someone in the back of the head instead of at the base of their skulls, depending on the callibre of the bullet, the eyes seem to collapse. Oh, and stay clear of the drunken problem aimer or you'll end up covered in what I'll politely call backsplatter.

And you realize I could tell you this for days? Because...I...can! And worse, and more. And if yoou're still insistant homosexuality is the worst of sins, then I'll stop sanitizing what I say.

So, back to that 'gays are the worst' belief of yours, if you still think that after reading what I just wrote, your life is a miracle given that you manage to function while yet being too stupid to breathe.

Like anyone should care even a little about what consenting adults do in private. At least they aren't hurting anyone.

[FoxyMoxie]

Oh and this...

This verse puts sexual sins on the same level with greed and drunkenness and slanderers and swindlers.

I disagree with Ken, mere woman that I am. I think adultery is far more destructive, esp to children, as they are often affected with their lives in turmoil from parental adultery. Homosexual sin does not even produce children, therefore the impact is lesser, really it only impacts the two people involved who are presumably adults capable of making of their own decisions and choices.

A same-gender couple where one is trans and the other is cis can produce children. Many same-gender couples also have children from past relationships (especially lesbian couples).

'Homosexual offenders' is referring to those who have abusive sex - in the time Paul was writing, same-gender sex was acceptable for high-ranking men, as long as they were penetrative partners with younger (sometimes very young) boys. THAT is what Paul is condemning. Sin is basically taking what God has given you and distorting and abusing it - so for people who are attracted to the same gender, having sex in an abusive and unkind way would be sinful. Paul isn't talking about loving, monogamous relationships between same-gender couples because that did not publically exist then (the kinds of relationships we think of as being 'gay' now would be seen as womanly and so unnatural for men in Roman-occupied places).

I know it's a paraphrase, but I think The Message captures things really nicely:

9-11 Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.

[browncoatslytherin]

Browncoatslytherin (replying separately is easier to read) - by fetishised I mean more that there's an emphasis on marriage and having children that just isn't in the New Testament. The early church and Church Fathers valued celibacy much more. Was there a place for celibacy in the church you were raised in? By 'family' I mean that everyone is supposed to get married, have a heterosexual nuclear family life, and that celibacy doesn't have a place. Like, what if someone wanted to be like Anna in the temple and dedicate their life to prayer? What if someone wanted to be like Paul and be a celibate church leader? Rejecting celibacy as an option is distorting the New Testament and early church perspective on marriage and celibacy.

ah, okay, i gotcha now.

getting married and having kids wasn't a particular emphasis in our congregations. mainly the family friendly stuff was just a general thing for everybody, but nobody was really pressured to marry and have kids (there was one 24 year old guy at one of our churches that got ribbed by his parents about marrying, as he was still single at the time, but that was only that family and it was pretty much an isolated incident, because in the general church congregation, there wasn't that emphasis). there wasn't anything "official" for somebody to be celibate...if they were unmarried, they were just unmarried. or if they married and didn't have kids, that was just that. there wasn't anything in particular saying that everyone needed to get married and have kids, there was just that undercurrent of creating a family friendly environment with traditional values, whether you were married or not and whether you had kids or not.

[Grimalkin]

I simply don't understand the "don't teach my child about X" mentality.

When I get a case, one of the first things that I want to do is find out what evidence and arguments will be used by the other side. Imagine a lawyer going into court, saying "I have faith in my client's case and don't need to pay attention to their case at all". They'd lose pretty fast.

I remember the angst I felt when I started university and was confronted with the Young Socialists advocating a position on an issue that I found deeply offensive. I was upset because I knew that the position was wrong - but I didn't have the knowledge right then to explain exactly WHY it was wrong. Instead (because I'm a nerd) I spent years researching the issue from scratch. It would have been nice to be able to respond right away, and not with "I'll get back to you in 5 years". Also, because I'm a nerd, I cared enough to actually spend all those hours researching. Most won't. They will either get persuaded, because someone else sounds knowledgeable and they know they are stumped, or they will keep their minds closed, sound like a fool and never be able to persuade anyone.

This is how I decide where I stand on most positions. I start by looking at the opposing views. Lots of crazy shit in my own local politics. I struggle making sense of all the facts, while trying to stay away from the feelings and opinions of others. I have found myself changing my views about the hinge a few times doing this.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Personally, I think it comes from a post-Enlightenment and post-Industrial Revolution commodifying and idolatry of the heterosexual nuclear family by evangelicals, which ties in with a distrust of singleness and/or celibacy. There's also a degree of anti-Catholic prejudice - a celibate priesthood and religious orders are seen as harbouring homosexuality.

As an Anglican and someone who deeply values the consecrated religious life (ie monks, nuns, and consecrated single people* living under vows), I think both that and homosexuality are threats to the evangelical view of marriage because it (the view of marriage) has become so nuclear and individualistic. It's all 'me and my family' rather than seeing oneself as part of a community. I realise Orthodox Judaism puts great stress on community, although the emphasis on marriage (while understandable) makes me wonder who does the contemplative, more monastic roles in Judaism.

In the Anglican church, perspectives on sin are variable, but my own perspective would say that sin is what damages someone's personhood in the sight of God - so working to preserve the gap between rich and poor, and supporting greed and capitalism, are probably some of the worse sins for me. But I come from a anarcho-socialist, liberation theology perspective.

*the consecrated single life in Anglicanism is equivalent to consecrated virgins in Roman Catholicism, but those called to it do not have to be virgins and they can be of any gender

Thanks!

To answer your question, there really isn't any concept of consecrated singles in traditional Judaism. There are some people who can't or shouldn't marry (someone who lacks mental capacity to do so, someone who has horrible character, someone who simply can't find a partner), but it's regarded as a sad situation and definitely not the ideal.

Strictly speaking, Judaism isn't really a monastic religion. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), priests marry. The closest thing to consecrated life would have been the Nazirite, but there was no requirement to remain celibate. Views on Nazirites vary in the religious texts, and it's not something that it practiced today in Judaism. The holy ideal isn't someone who is totally removed from the world, but someone who works to "bring heaven down to earth". Today, the closest thing would be Rebbes (leaders) in Hasidic communities, Gedolim (great scholars) in non-Hasidic ultra-Orthodox communities, and some mystical figures (like the late Baba Sali) in the Sephardic community. These people would be revered for their scholarship, leadership, compassion, holiness and/or mystical insights, but they are also very much part of their communities and constantly meet with followers. They also marry. I can think of some movements and some religious figures in Orthodox Judaism who set aside considerable amounts of time for prayer, meditation and contemplation (Breslov Hasidim do this the most), but not to the extent that any monk would do. You also have some communities of long-term religious scholars, some of which are quite insular, but they are very much into getting married and having children.

One point about the New Testament:

I agree that it introduces the concept of consecrated singles. [The idea may have started in Essene communities, but it's certainly embraced in the texts by Paul.] When I read 1 Corinthians 7:5, it sounds to me like a reference to this. Paul is saying that if you are already married, don't arbitrarily announce that you've decided to become celibate for God. Stay committed to your sexual relationship with your spouse, and don't do celibacy unless you both agree to it for a period of time. Without that teaching, Christianity would have been seen as a huge threat to family life. I doubt that a celibate guy like Paul really intended to teach that wives are permanent sex slaves, like Lorken teach.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This is how I decide where I stand on most positions. I start by looking at the opposing views. Lots of crazy shit in my own local politics. I struggle making sense of all the facts, while trying to stay away from the feelings and opinions of others. I have found myself changing my views about the hinge a few times doing this.

Good approach.

I've found that listening to the other POV can even have the effect of making me MORE in favor of the opposite position. I considered myself a borderline socialist until I met the Young Socialists.

[RosyDaisy]

Ken, hows about you stop blogging for a while and read the Bible instead of cherry picking from it. You have made a mockery out of Holy Scripture, and turned it into a weapon of hate.

[FoxyMoxie]

2xx1xy1JD - oh sure, Paul is saying to not just abandon your spouse (and is probably trying to refute Gnosticism here too). Celibacy as being better than marriage was more of a Church Fathers concept rather than a NT concept - but it is noticeable that those who shout the loudest about Paul's teachings tend to ignore the value he places on celibacy. Certainly in the more Reformed side of evangelicalism, consecrated celibacy is treated with suspicion and is seen as Catholic and therefore not suitable for good Christians.

It must be difficult for asexual people in traditional Judaism! I mean it is in Christian churches who really emphasise marriage.

[BrownieMomma]

A same-gender couple where one is trans and the other is cis can produce children. Many same-gender couples also have children from past relationships (especially lesbian couples).

'Homosexual offenders' is referring to those who have abusive sex - in the time Paul was writing, same-gender sex was acceptable for high-ranking men, as long as they were penetrative partners with younger (sometimes very young) boys. THAT is what Paul is condemning. Sin is basically taking what God has given you and distorting and abusing it - so for people who are attracted to the same gender, having sex in an abusive and unkind way would be sinful. Paul isn't talking about loving, monogamous relationships between same-gender couples because that did not publically exist then (the kinds of relationships we think of as being 'gay' now would be seen as womanly and so unnatural for men in Roman-occupied places).

I know it's a paraphrase, but I think The Message captures things really nicely:

If I know anything in this life, I do know this - I (we) cannot read a piece of literature or learn of a historical event and apply our own thinking, cultural references, and understanding to it. We have to understand the culture in which it was written, the author, the audience.. if it's literature. If it's an event, we have to understand the world in which in happened before we judge if they were right or wrong, or whatever conclusions we are hoping to come to.

So if you are telling there is other context to this, something else to be considered, then I am certainly willing to pause and consider my thoughts and reactions.

But.. hmm.. there's fornication in there too, sex outside marriage, and homosexual marriage is very new in human history. So I'm still thinking same-sex relationships are sin. I still see it that a lot of people today want it to not be considered a sin, and there's a lot of hoop-jumping to get there but so far, from all I've ever read or contemplated, it's a sin. And I don't really even give the OT a whole whole lot of consideration.

[Hane]

Re what FoxyMoxie said above:

I was raised in Roman Catholicism, which follows the doctrine of venial (minor) vs. mortal (soul-threatening) sins. I was truly amazed to learn that there are Protestant denominations in which all sins are created equal--as in, little white lie=mass murder.

(Then again, back in the day, things like skipping Mass on Sunday or eating meat on Friday were considered mortal sins.)

[formergothardite]

Two men or women having sex is the worst sin evah?!

The more of this insular nonsense I read from fundies whose only exposure to the world beyond their private fiefdoms is Kevin Swanson and Soldier of Fortune, the more tempted I am to inflict an NC-17 rated version of history on the board for their education - assuming they can be taught at all.

Go here at your own risk:

Hey Ken - did you know that while rigour mortis takes about 12 hours to reach fullness. But if someone dies violently, say, by torture followed by a killing blow, rigour can be immediate so that the man who dies is stiffened in the pose of his last act?

If you shoot someone in the back of the head instead of at the base of their skulls, depending on the callibre of the bullet, the eyes seem to collapse. Oh, and stay clear of the drunken problem aimer or you'll end up covered in what I'll politely call backsplatter.

And you realize I could tell you this for days? Because...I...can! And worse, and more. And if yoou're still insistant homosexuality is the worst of sins, then I'll stop sanitizing what I say.

So, back to that 'gays are the worst' belief of yours, if you still think that after reading what I just wrote, your life is a miracle given that you manage to function while yet being too stupid to breathe.

Like anyone should care even a little about what consenting adults do in private. At least they aren't hurting anyone.

Didn't Ken once claim starving to death wasn't a particularly bad way to die and the people should just smile while slowly dying of starvation? The man is empty inside. He has no soul left to care about anyone but himself. Of course he thinks homosexuality is the worst sin, it isn't a sin he struggles with. Cheating on a spouse? Well, that is not a big deal at all and anyone who says it is is just sinning themselves. :roll:

[FoxyMoxie]

Yes, there is other context to it. I thought that was obvious. Homosexuality as we understand it did not exist then.

Not everyone in a same-gender marriage is homosexual, so that's a misnomer for a start, and actually it's really not new in human history. It's new in MODERN history, but right up until late medieval times there were same-gender marriages. It's only when the church realised it could make money out of marriage - until then, you got married by moving in together, no ceremony needed - that they wanted to restrict it. Also, define fornication? Sex outside marriage is never condemned by the Bible. 'Becoming one flesh' may be interpreted to say that sex should happen within marriage, but there is no verse whatsoever saying 'thou shalt not have sex outside marriage'. Even if sex outside marriage is a sin, that just means that same-gender couples need to marry before having sex. Even if legally-recognised same-gender marriage is fairly recent, I don't see why that makes a difference? The Bible never says to wear a seatbelt either, because cars weren't invented - but that doesn't mean we don't have the logic and reason to say that wearing a seatbelt makes sense.

Also, not all relationships involve sex - what about celibate same-gender (gender is not the same as sex) relationships? They exist. There's a great blog called A Queer Calling where a couple who believe same-gender marriage is not permitted live together, but celibately. I think the couple are Eastern Orthodox. Being LGBT isn't purely about sex, and for many people sex is quite low on their priorities. I'm not having sex with anyone, but I'm still fully bisexual and fully engaged in LGBT culture. Is that sinful?

I mean I've said elsewhere that my denomination does not rely on the Bible alone (I mean the NT says it's sinful to eat blood, and I love blood sausage - and I don't see me eating it as a problem), and if yours does then that will make our perspectives different - but I know many LGBT evangelicals who have thoroughly researched their position. One thing to consider is where the stuff you've read or contemplated has come from. What denomination or tradition? Can you read the texts in their original language? Have you cross-referenced them with other versions? If you're from a fundie/conservative religious background, you may not have seen the full range of opinions and research on the matter. This isn't saying that you haven't, but there is so much scholarship out there on the Bible and LGBT people and most is saying that the Bible does not prohibit same-gender marriage.

Edited to say that the above is to BrownieMomma.

[Firiel]

Yes, there is other context to it. I thought that was obvious. Homosexuality as we understand it did not exist then.

Not everyone in a same-gender marriage is homosexual, so that's a misnomer for a start, and actually it's really not new in human history. It's new in MODERN history, but right up until late medieval times there were same-gender marriages. It's only when the church realised it could make money out of marriage - until then, you got married by moving in together, no ceremony needed - that they wanted to restrict it.

I'm interested in what you way about same-gender marriages in medieval times. How common were they? I had been under the (general) impression that, due to inheritance and procreation and such that people would generally marry the opposite sex, regardless of if they were attracted to their same gender. Of course, inheritance and procreation was far more important for nobility that for regular folks, so there's that. Were the same-gender marriages (before ceremonies were required) generally accepted by the Church?

In other words, where can I find more info on this?

[FoxyMoxie]

Re what FoxyMoxie said above:

I was raised in Roman Catholicism, which follows the doctrine of venial (minor) vs. mortal (soul-threatening) sins. I was truly amazed to learn that there are Protestant denominations in which all sins are created equal--as in, little white lie=mass murder.

(Then again, back in the day, things like skipping Mass on Sunday or eating meat on Friday were considered mortal sins.)

I think the idea behind it is that nobody gets to decide doctrine but the Bible - there's no such thing as a Protestant Magisterium! So there's no way of dividing sins up into venial v mortal, and the Bible doesn't really support such a thing. The 'unforgivable sin' is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible - I'm not all that sure what that means. As an Anglican I am uncomfortable with both extremes.

[AmazonSugarPie]

Just in for Ken Alexander:

Homosexuality is "the worst of sins", and he didn't want his older kids knowing about it :evil-eye:

Reading stuff like this makes me want to go have the gayest gay sex that ever gayed.

[FoxyMoxie]

I'm interested in what you way about same-gender marriages in medieval times. How common were they? I had been under the (general) impression that, due to inheritance and procreation and such that people would generally marry the opposite sex, regardless of if they were attracted to their same gender. Of course, inheritance and procreation was far more important for nobility that for regular folks, so there's that. Were the same-gender marriages (before ceremonies were required) generally accepted by the Church?

In other words, where can I find more info on this?

Unfortunately there's not much info out there that's public-domain! But I will have a look around and see what I can find. Basically - in antiquity, same-gender marriages (more like a civil union now) were considered pretty normal, and it was a way of sorting out inheritance if you weren't going to have biological children. In early medieval times some of the Church were getting a bit restless about it but it still happened (often amongst celibate religious ie monks and nuns, funnily enough - we know some nuns had wives!). Marriage and inheritance only mattered if you were rich enough to have things to inherit, for most people they really did just move in together and marriage was not regularised at all. Lots of shotgun marriages as you can imagine! Same-gender marriages were seen as being about inheritance, and it was kind of assumed that they were celibate - but they usually weren't. When clergy wrote about homosexuality they were usually writing about nobility and monarchs not protecting their wealth by getting married and having children - which was usually earmarked for the church.

[usmcmom]

Now I'm just one of the lowly women folk and I do have a sinful college education, but that education did come from a Christian university at which Bible class was mandatory every semester (except my last one when I did field work off campus.) I don't claim to be an expert in scripture AT ALL, but some things did stick in my feeble female brain.

So my opinion means nothing, I know; but I always assumed that "the worst sin ever" would be the one the Bible classified as the only unpardonable sin.

Mark 3:22-30 states,

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebub,’ and, ‘By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.’ …‘Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;’ because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’†(NKJV, emphasis added / Note: The Pharisees made the same charge in Mat 9:34.).

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come†(NKJV, emphasis added).

I don't think homosexuality would be considered a sin against the Holy Spirit because it is considered by people like Ken to be a sexual sin. The Bible specifically addresses sexual sin many times and it does not address it in regard to maligning the Holy Spirit.

[August]

Not just homosexuality, but fornication. I don't think the Bible ever says masturbation but that's kind of assumed, at least the way I've always heard it.

If you are a Christian, sins against your own body are worse than other sins. But, if you are a Southern Baptist, all sin is equal. I know Catholicism has mortal and venal sins. idk about other denominations or beliefs.

Reason 57 why the bible and Christianity suck.