The bible says homosexuality is a sin, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

For many the writings of the gospels were inspired by God. God did not write them with his own hand but he wrote them through Jesus’ disciples. They are God's words not the disciples words.

It becomes a very slippery slope if you do not subscribe to this believe. For if the disciple writings are merely words of a common man, then everything they write needs to be taken as such. That is to say, then nothing they wrote is the word of God.

And if only part of the disciple writings are the word of God. Who has the authority to choose which are and which are not? King James? You? Me?

so convoluted. It's incredible the lengths people will go to to give credence to the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

But therein lies the problem; you are choosing to interpret Paul's words and relate it to the times. A not unreasonable position, I would add but once one opens the door to relating some of Paul's comments in the context of the times he lived, why limit it to the role of women in those times?

One could say the same thing about gays and gay relationships; perhaps in those times it was viewed as sinful but today, at least in much of the West, it is viewed as a choice that two people of the same sex choose to make. Often, it is a relationship that is based on love and understanding - characteristics which Christ would certainly have advocated and approved. Besides, the fact that Christ never even mentioned homosexuality is striking given the OT's strong admonitions against it.

The only thing about what you stated in bold is that in both OT and NT, it states that the act is abhorrent or detestable to God (in some way). There are many specific sins that Jesus did not talk about. But His general message was about salvation, not about specific sin. So, it makes sense that He wouldn't focus on *all* sinful acts.

I am sorry to say that you are wrong.

His essential message was - and he said it as opposed to Paul or anyone else interpreting it:

When he was asked by his disciples:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'" All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


Can there be a clearer message from Christ about what he deemed to be of paramount importance?

He did not talk about salvation when he said the above. He did not even talk about sin. His essential message was to LOVE God and to LOVE one's neighbor. And he said that everything flows from these two commandments.

Sadly, those who focus on salvation and sin miss this essential message - which BTW is something that we focus on every Sunday at our service. It is an integral part of the liturgy.

I used to attend a well-known evangelical church and not once did I hear this key passage cited by the pastor - NOT ONCE. But I heard endless admonitions about sin and warnings about hell and damnation.

Read all of what Christ said and you will find that love, faith and forgiveness are the words he uses the most. Yes, he refers to salvation and sin ....... but the frequency of those words pale in comparison to love, faith and forgiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

For many the writings of the gospels were inspired by God. God did not write them with his own hand but he wrote them through Jesus’ disciples. They are God's words not the disciples words.

It becomes a very slippery slope if you do not subscribe to this believe. For if the disciple writings are merely words of a common man, then everything they write needs to be taken as such. That is to say, then nothing they wrote is the word of God.

And if only part of the disciple writings are the word of God. Who has the authority to choose which are and which are not? King James? You? Me?

so convoluted. It's incredible the lengths people will go to to give credence to the Bible.

Please explain what you feel is convoluted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

But therein lies the problem; you are choosing to interpret Paul's words and relate it to the times. A not unreasonable position, I would add but once one opens the door to relating some of Paul's comments in the context of the times he lived, why limit it to the role of women in those times?

One could say the same thing about gays and gay relationships; perhaps in those times it was viewed as sinful but today, at least in much of the West, it is viewed as a choice that two people of the same sex choose to make. Often, it is a relationship that is based on love and understanding - characteristics which Christ would certainly have advocated and approved. Besides, the fact that Christ never even mentioned homosexuality is striking given the OT's strong admonitions against it.

The only thing about what you stated in bold is that in both OT and NT, it states that the act is abhorrent or detestable to God (in some way). There are many specific sins that Jesus did not talk about. But His general message was about salvation, not about specific sin. So, it makes sense that He wouldn't focus on *all* sinful acts.

I am sorry to say that you are wrong.

His essential message was - and he said it as opposed to Paul or anyone else interpreting it:

When he was asked by his disciples:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'" All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


Can there be a clearer message from Christ about what he deemed to be of paramount importance?

He did not talk about salvation when he said the above. He did not even talk about sin. His essential message was to LOVE God and to LOVE one's neighbor. And he said that everything flows from these two commandments.

Sadly, those who focus on salvation and sin miss this essential message - which BTW is something that we focus on every Sunday at our service. It is an integral part of the liturgy.

I used to attend a well-known evangelical church and not once did I hear this key passage cited by the pastor - NOT ONCE. But I heard endless admonitions about sin and warnings about hell and damnation.

Read all of what Christ said and you will find that love, faith and forgiveness are the words he uses the most. Yes, he refers to salvation and sin ....... but the frequency of those words pale in comparison to love, faith and forgiveness.

I agree that of all the commandments, Love is paramount.

However, Jesus' goal in coming to earth was salvation, and a lot of his sermons in the Bible was about salvation and eternal life. I can quote many Scripture passages where Jesus states this is the reason he came.

Too sadly, you are right in that too many people focus on the hell and damnation part and not enough on the love of Jesus and God's grace. But that doesn't mean you can forget about the other teachings about sin and salvation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

For many the writings of the gospels were inspired by God. God did not write them with his own hand but he wrote them through Jesus’ disciples. They are God's words not the disciples words.

It becomes a very slippery slope if you do not subscribe to this believe. For if the disciple writings are merely words of a common man, then everything they write needs to be taken as such. That is to say, then nothing they wrote is the word of God.

And if only part of the disciple writings are the word of God. Who has the authority to choose which are and which are not? King James? You? Me?

so convoluted. It's incredible the lengths people will go to to give credence to the Bible.

Please explain what you feel is convoluted.

The pronouncements on how the Bible is to be interpreted. These are human rationalizations - understandable, as the Bible is a human document

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

For many the writings of the gospels were inspired by God. God did not write them with his own hand but he wrote them through Jesus’ disciples. They are God's words not the disciples words.

It becomes a very slippery slope if you do not subscribe to this believe. For if the disciple writings are merely words of a common man, then everything they write needs to be taken as such. That is to say, then nothing they wrote is the word of God.

And if only part of the disciple writings are the word of God. Who has the authority to choose which are and which are not? King James? You? Me?

so convoluted. It's incredible the lengths people will go to to give credence to the Bible.

Please explain what you feel is convoluted.

The pronouncements on how the Bible is to be interpreted. These are human rationalizations - understandable, as the Bible is a human document

How the Bible should be interpreted is very dependent on ones faith and religion. It only becomes convoluted when you try to mix faith teachings with your personal morals. The Bible itself says it is the word of God in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God".

So to me either you take the entire Bible as the word of God or you take all of it as just another good book. There is no convolution.

[Anonymous]

Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

Yes ..... and scholars are pretty sure that it was not written by Paul

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

Yes ..... and scholars are pretty sure that it was not written by Paul

Scholars also think (based on archeological evidence) that the Exodus is a myth and that Mary was just a young girl (not a virgin), pregnant for the first time, (based on accurate translations) but that doesn't stop people from believing the ancient myth and the mistranslation are factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus are divinely inspired.

I believe the letters Paul - or whoever wrote them in his name - are in the way of pastoral letters. I don't view them as divinely inspired any more than I view any other notable preacher's words to be so. In both instances there are aspects that are thought provoking and worthy of consideration. As another PP said, some of Paul's teachings reflected the times he lived (such as his views on the role of women).

OTOH, the teachings of Jesus are for the ages. There is little he said 2000 years ago that needs to be modified to reflect current thinking. Above all, he taught us to love, to forgive, have faith and not to judge others. I try and lead my life based on these fundamental lessons he taught us. To the extent that we are able to do so, I believe that salvation will follow.

At the church I attend there is a reading from the OT, one from the NT (that is not from the Gospels) and one from the Gospels. I give total credence to the lesson from the Gospels because it usually pertains to the teaching of Jesus. The OT and other facets of the NT are worthy of reflection but I absolutely don't take them literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus are divinely inspired.

I believe the letters Paul - or whoever wrote them in his name - are in the way of pastoral letters. I don't view them as divinely inspired any more than I view any other notable preacher's words to be so. In both instances there are aspects that are thought provoking and worthy of consideration. As another PP said, some of Paul's teachings reflected the times he lived (such as his views on the role of women).

OTOH, the teachings of Jesus are for the ages. There is little he said 2000 years ago that needs to be modified to reflect current thinking. Above all, he taught us to love, to forgive, have faith and not to judge others. I try and lead my life based on these fundamental lessons he taught us. To the extent that we are able to do so, I believe that salvation will follow.

At the church I attend there is a reading from the OT, one from the NT (that is not from the Gospels) and one from the Gospels. I give total credence to the lesson from the Gospels because it usually pertains to the teaching of Jesus. The OT and other facets of the NT are worthy of reflection but I absolutely don't take them literally.

Different poster here. You and I share very similar views. I'm the PP who wrote that Paul was engaged in forming Christian communities, and so he was anchored to the mores of his time period. I agree with you that his letters are pastoral in nature.

When I read Jesus' teachings, I'm amazed at how relevant they still seem today. In fact, I think the admonitions to love your neighbors and enemies, and not to judge, sometimes seem even more essential today when we're so connected to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus are divinely inspired.

I believe the letters Paul - or whoever wrote them in his name - are in the way of pastoral letters. I don't view them as divinely inspired any more than I view any other notable preacher's words to be so. In both instances there are aspects that are thought provoking and worthy of consideration. As another PP said, some of Paul's teachings reflected the times he lived (such as his views on the role of women).

OTOH, the teachings of Jesus are for the ages. There is little he said 2000 years ago that needs to be modified to reflect current thinking. Above all, he taught us to love, to forgive, have faith and not to judge others. I try and lead my life based on these fundamental lessons he taught us. To the extent that we are able to do so, I believe that salvation will follow.

At the church I attend there is a reading from the OT, one from the NT (that is not from the Gospels) and one from the Gospels. I give total credence to the lesson from the Gospels because it usually pertains to the teaching of Jesus. The OT and other facets of the NT are worthy of reflection but I absolutely don't take them literally.

Different poster here. You and I share very similar views. I'm the PP who wrote that Paul was engaged in forming Christian communities, and so he was anchored to the mores of his time period. I agree with you that his letters are pastoral in nature.

When I read Jesus' teachings, I'm amazed at how relevant they still seem today. In fact, I think the admonitions to love your neighbors and enemies, and not to judge, sometimes seem even more essential today when we're so connected to the rest of the world.

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

Yes ..... and scholars are pretty sure that it was not written by Paul

Scholars also think (based on archeological evidence) that the Exodus is a myth and that Mary was just a young girl (not a virgin), pregnant for the first time, (based on accurate translations) but that doesn't stop people from believing the ancient myth and the mistranslation are factual.

People seem to spend time interpreting the Bible to make it make sense to them, but when confronted with facts like Exodus being a myth and the virgin Mary being a mistranslation, they just ignore it and move on like it never happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People seem to spend time interpreting the Bible to make it make sense to them, but when confronted with facts like Exodus being a myth and the virgin Mary being a mistranslation, they just ignore it and move on like it never happened.

Can you give a citation for this?