Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

[Adami]

What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?

Is it a sin to joke about blending up babies and eating them as salsa with corn chips?

No. Nor is it a sin to actually do it.

[sneakyblueberry]

[Quadrochosis]

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9


Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.

The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.

The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.

The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.

The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.

The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.

So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.

[sneakyblueberry]

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9


Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.

The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.

The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.

The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.

The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.

The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.

So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.

That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no?  The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.

[Adami]

Out of the three quotes Jimmy gave, two are from the new testament. Both from paul. None from jesus. I use this as support for my claim that Pauls words are more influential than jesus words.

And by the way, I think it was you Jimmy that said that Jesus is more influential than paul because without Jesus, paul wouldn't have had anything.....well, that's why I said as a mere presence, Jesus. But it seems christians tend to base their religion a little more around what paul had to say about things.

[Quadrochosis]

That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no?  The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.

I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.

Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.

[Adami]

That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no?  The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.

I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.

Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.

No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.

[sneakyblueberry]

That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no?  The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.

I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.

Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.

No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.

I thought the same thing, so I did a search and found something that mentions it.  Not to a T, though.

https://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12636.htm

[Quadrochosis]

That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no?  The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.

I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.

Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.

No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.

The original article I read was in a book, but a quick Google search found this one.

https://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/pederasty.html

Seems to be written BY a Christian, so you guys can't go "lol its someone trying to show an incorrect side of Christianity"

[ScioPath]

Is it ever explained why homosexuality is wrong?

it isn't.

[UnutterableSquid]

I think for the most part that is a fairly reasonable position, but it's the item I've bolded above that is the very point of contention between Christian belief sets.  I understand the appeal of simply celebrating similarities instead of dwelling on differences, and normally I wouldn't dispute it.  But like your political analogy, I don't think it applies in this case simply because truth is not a matter of opinion that can be compromised on.  Disagreement indicates error, and the consequences of error may be dire, so I think conflict for the sake of seeking truth is (in theory) necessary.  The problem is that I highly doubt that IS the reason behind most disagreements within Christianity.  My money's on pride, stubbornness, inability to let go of one's upbringing, personal biases, etc.

And of course you don't want to ignore key tenets of the faith, but that doesn't preclude theological discussion.  Don't you think that's an important part of "working out" your Christian faith when there are so many conflicting beliefs, particularly in light of a perpetual search for truth?

-J

I'm not entirely sure of what you bolded, but I'll just go based on what you've said in your post.

I do agree that the conflict mainly lies outside of the search for the truth. I think it is really a mixture of clan/tribal ways in which anyone who isn't of the same group is deemed inferior and a strong desire to get tithe money. That and as you said, some sense of stubbornness perhaps based on one's upbringing.

I'm all for the differing groups to enter into discussion/debate over their beliefs, because, to quote Socrates, "the unexamined life is not worth living". I feel as if you need to think about and "study" your own religious beliefs because then they grow with you in the process. So having some sort of forum for discussion of differing views would be a nice way to help all those involved on their search for the truth. Of course, making such a thing civil seems nearly impossible because of the fact that many people think that everyone is the devil.

As for your last question, I do think that it is important to take many things into consideration in an effort to "work out" your faith. It is part of the reason why my faith today is quite different from what it once was. As with much of my faith, however, I feel as if it is something personal to me, and not anything which I should try to cram down the throats of others, especially those who happen to share a lot of core beliefs/concepts with me.

[UnutterableSquid]

In regards to the whole homosexual issue that seems to have popped up, I think that whether you think it is a sin or not is beside the issue.

Jesus said that the most important commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as you would yourself.

Therefore, whatever your stance on homosexuality, I would think you still have to love them regardless.

[Jamesman42]

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9


Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.

The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.

The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.

The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.

The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.

The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.

So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.

There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.

All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one. How can you explain away

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?

Out of the three quotes Jimmy gave, two are from the new testament. Both from paul. None from jesus. I use this as support for my claim that Pauls words are more influential than jesus words.

And by the way, I think it was you Jimmy that said that Jesus is more influential than paul because without Jesus, paul wouldn't have had anything.....well, that's why I said as a mere presence, Jesus. But it seems christians tend to base their religion a little more around what paul had to say about things.

Adami, I think your point is really invalid. The OT had prophets that spoke God's case to His people...why can't Paul do the same? In different sections of the NT, Paul states where something is from the Lord and where something is his own opinion.

Also, on the subject of influence: if it were not for Jesus, Paul wouldn't be writing any of those things. He was in the midst of a very dynamic time of church history, and God used him and his presence to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ far and wide. He drew his influence from Jesus Christ.

I do think that it is important to take many things into consideration in an effort to "work out" your faith. It is part of the reason why my faith today is quite different from what it once was. As with much of my faith, however, I feel as if it is something personal to me, and not anything which I should try to cram down the throats of others, especially those who happen to share a lot of core beliefs/concepts with me.

I agree with this to a point. It is personal with me as well. That's why I don't always post in P/R. I've been posting quite a bit in here because I felt moved to defend some Christian truths. I humbly apologize if I come across as a bigot (which, again, I am not) or trying to shove religion down your throat. Just discussing the issue at hand and answering questions. This is helping me re-examine my faith as well, to check its foundations.

[Adami]

How is me saying Paul is influential invalid because you think he's a prophet? Doesn't that help my case?

[Jamesman42]

I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.

[icysk8r]

Yeah he cuts my lawn

In all serious, yes.  I'm sure there was someone named Jesus Christ at some point in the history of the earth.  Do I believe in THE Jesus Christ?  No.

[Quadrochosis]

There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.

All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one.

What? Who decided which laws were which? And where does it say that this seemingly random classification system for laws only applies to certain people for certain laws and everyone for others?

How can you explain away

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?

Refer to my other post describing how the homosexuality of the Bible =/= homosexuality of today.

[Adami]

I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.

I still don't see what that has to do with him being very influential. If Paul isn't more influential than jesus for the reason that he was speaking gods word....then how is jesus influential at all? Shouldn't you just say god is the most influential?

I know it's odd to think that modern christianity has a HUGE emphasis on the teachings of paul, but you're not really doing much to disprove that.

[Jamesman42]

There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.

All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one.

What? Who decided which laws were which? And where does it say that this seemingly random classification system for laws only applies to certain people for certain laws and everyone for others?

Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?

How can you explain away

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?

Refer to my other post describing how the homosexuality of the Bible =/= homosexuality of today.

That link wasn't very helpful. I'm not saying it isn't true; it just spouts out some interpretations and definitions not backed up by any other sources. Heck, I could write a summary of some theological issue in a professional way I think is true in a few paragraphs, post it on that page, and it could look legit.

[j]

The original article I read was in a book, but a quick Google search found this one.

https://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/pederasty.html

Seems to be written BY a Christian, so you guys can't go "lol its someone trying to show an incorrect side of Christianity"

Lol?  As we've been discussing, the "umbrella" of Christianity includes a lot of conflicting viewpoints on a lot of issues.  So it's basically meaningless that the article's author happens to claim to be a Christian.

At any rate, the suggestion that all or nearly all homosexuality 2000 years ago was actually pederasty is baseless and completely ridiculous.  Yes, pederasty was common in Greece in the last several centuries BC, but how one gets from there to the conclusion that the bible REALLY only condemns that specifically, I cannot fathom.  I admire your attempt at reconciling tolerance for homosexuals with a Christian belief system, but given what the bible says explicitly (some of which Jamesman has pointed out), I don't think it is really possible.

And Jamesman, I don't think you come across as bigoted at all, given your beliefs.  You haven't said anything offensive in this thread, even if some of us may disagree with it.

-J

[Quadrochosis]

Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?

My question still stands, who made these decisions, and who decided who they apply to?

[Jamesman42]

I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.

I still don't see what that has to do with him being very influential. If Paul isn't more influential than jesus for the reason that he was speaking gods word....then how is jesus influential at all? Shouldn't you just say god is the most influential?

I know it's odd to think that modern christianity has a HUGE emphasis on the teachings of paul, but you're not really doing much to disprove that.

Well, of course I believe God is the most influential.  But it was Jesus who moved Paul to do the things that he did (after persecuting and killing Christians):

“As I was on the road, approaching Damascus about noon, a very bright light from heaven suddenly shone down around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’

‘Who are you, lord?’ I asked.

“And the voice replied, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, the one you are persecuting.’ The people with me saw the light but didn’t understand the voice speaking to me. ... " - Acts 22:6-9 (the rest of the chapter shows how Paul started following Jesus' commands)

I do believe Paul's teachings are huge in the Church today. God has kept the Bible intact to this day (we Christians believe), so I believe it to be God's Word. I don't have a problem with that, by that logic. I'm not trying to disprove Paul's position; I'm just trying to show that he draws all of his influence from Jesus Christ. I hope that makes some more sense.

[Adami]

Who cares? If paul is out because Jesus influenced him, then Jesus is out too. In fact EVERYONE is out from being influential in the slightest bit cause it always roots back somehow.

[Jamesman42]

Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?

My question still stands, who made these decisions, and who decided who they apply to?

Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.

"But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses." - Galatians 5:8 (in b4 nugget)

"[ Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All ] The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship." - Hebrews 10:1

“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." - Jeremiah 31:31-33

Thing is, why would I have ceremonial and judicial laws written on my heart? I wouldn't. It doesn't make sense. God gave the Israelites those two kinds of laws to help them be a separate (read: distinct) and holy nation. The ceremonial to instruct on how to worship and celebrate certain days, and the judicial to help run their nation. He also gave them the moral ones, but the moral ones are intuitive to everyone ever. You just know that murdering is wrong. You know it's wrong to steal, no matter how much you justify it.

Who decides which are which? Again, the context will tell you, and it should be evident that your balls being crushed is not a moral sin.

[Jamesman42]

Who cares? If paul is out because Jesus influenced him, then Jesus is out too. In fact EVERYONE is out from being influential in the slightest bit cause it always roots back somehow.

I don't know what your first sentence is saying, and it's making the whole statement make no sense to me.

[Adami]

You have no point. You have no soul. There is a small chance you have no liver as well. I need not listen to a man with no liver.

[Jamesman42]

I'm off to bed. Good night.

[UnutterableSquid]

You have no point. You have no soul. There is a small chance you have no liver as well. I need not listen to a man with no liver.

Well-played.

I got a chuckle out of that.

[Quadrochosis]

Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.

If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.

[Adami]

Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.

If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.

As I said, two thirds of the quotes were new law, or whatever.

[Jamesman42]

Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.

If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.

That doesn't mean that we can indulge in moral sins if homosexuality is a moral sin. Moral sins are universal and essentially eternal.

"Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”" - John 8:10-12

"Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?" - Romans 6:1-2

What kind of sin could Paul and Jesus be talking about then? There must be some kind of sin, and God has told us what these moral sins are.

[GuineaPig]

I don't know how anyone can hold the opinion that homosexuality isn't natural, providing they know the least bit about the world we live in.

And Jamesman, you do sound like a bigot.  The "Oh, I'm OK with homosexuals, as long as they don't act on their desires" is utterly unconvincing.

[Jamesman42]

It sounds like you just don't want to hear that something may be a sin, because you don't agree with it and don't believe in God.

[GuineaPig]

It sounds like you just don't want to hear that something may be a sin, because you don't agree with it and don't believe in God.

Well those would be two very good reasons. 

I fail to see how a loving God would punish someone who was born with a different or ambiguous sexual orientation, though.  Sort of like punishing redheads; the chance is about the same. 

[Jamesman42]

I admit it's weird. I don't know, I'm just going by what I believe to be the Word of God.

However, we are all born into sin. No one has not sinned. Like a homosexual is born with those desires, we're all born with something that is going to hinder us. Some people get prideful; some people get angry; some people get easily depressed. All of those things, when constantly in your life, lead to sin.