Why do some care about rules about gay people but ignore rule about shrimp, rape, and stoning women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christians are bound by NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not OLD TESTAMENT.

Shellfish, stoning, and shrimp laws are OT laws.

Homosexuality is NT law.

Jesus also said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” to people who wanted to stone an adulteress.

We follow the Law of Christ. That’s why we don’t follow all laws in the Bible anymore. It’s not picking and choosing though, it’s based on which law we are bound to.

How do you feel about Luke 14:25-27?

So In Luke 14:25, large crowds were travelling with Jesus because they had seen him healing people, feeding people and teaching people at no cost. Why not follow Jesus? You can get something for nothing. However, in this passage we see Jesus telling them that following him is not without cost - you have to place him before other important people in your lives. You even have to place him before yourselves.

To get his point across he uses very emotive and challenging language - you must hate everyone else. In so doing he is not saying that you do it literally but you must be prepared to put everything else second.

Jesus’ statement is emphasizing what must be the top priority if you are to follow him.

He also advises the wealthy to give up their wealth and belongings to follow him and to ensure their entrance into heaven. That’s one of his commands that most followers don’t seem to follow.

Yeah he is saying that our salvation is worth more than any earthly wealth, so we should be willing to give it all up in an instant. Unlike modern day proesperity preachers.

"Salvation" from what?

Umm salvation as in going to heaven. You know, John 3:16? Being saved from hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christians are bound by NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not OLD TESTAMENT.

Shellfish, stoning, and shrimp laws are OT laws.

Homosexuality is NT law.

Jesus also said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” to people who wanted to stone an adulteress.

We follow the Law of Christ. That’s why we don’t follow all laws in the Bible anymore. It’s not picking and choosing though, it’s based on which law we are bound to.

How do you feel about Luke 14:25-27?

So In Luke 14:25, large crowds were travelling with Jesus because they had seen him healing people, feeding people and teaching people at no cost. Why not follow Jesus? You can get something for nothing. However, in this passage we see Jesus telling them that following him is not without cost - you have to place him before other important people in your lives. You even have to place him before yourselves.

To get his point across he uses very emotive and challenging language - you must hate everyone else. In so doing he is not saying that you do it literally but you must be prepared to put everything else second.

Jesus’ statement is emphasizing what must be the top priority if you are to follow him.

He also advises the wealthy to give up their wealth and belongings to follow him and to ensure their entrance into heaven. That’s one of his commands that most followers don’t seem to follow.

Yeah he is saying that our salvation is worth more than any earthly wealth, so we should be willing to give it all up in an instant. Unlike modern day proesperity preachers.

But isn't that interpreting what he says, rather than reading it literally?

if you get to do that, why can't others interpret passages of the Bible ?

[Anonymous]

I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is there one heaven for Christians and a different one for Jews, and Muslims and Hindus? Isn't it bigotry to say there is only one way to heaven and it's through our guy and the rest of you are out of luck? I think that's what the Pope was addressing.

I don’t think bigotry means what you think it means. Are Muslims bigoted because they don’t believe Christians go to Heaven?

Really? Definition of bigotry
1 : obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices :

^ I think this is what you are with your communion with Jesus dogma, but the Pope, to his credit, was trying to disavow that viewpoint.

It’s not my opinion, it’s Christian dogma, and the pope was only trying to put a gentler spin on it, but he didn’t really say salvation is for non-Christians. I don’t really have an opinion on you or where you end up.

I’m sorry that’s so upsetting to you. I would consider why you feel so strongly about the belief system of a religion you don’t believe in. I’ll ask again- are you also upset that you are not going to heaven under Islam? Are Muslims also bigoted?

I have no opinion on that, but the Muslims believe they can go to heaven and I think the Pope does as well.

No, Muslims do not believe that non-Muslims go to heaven. There is actually a lot of offensive rhetoric in Muslim countries about infidels. Muslims also call the Muslim community around the world the “ummah”-isn’t that bigotry under your definition? Isn’t it bigoted that the Muslim community specifically excludes non Muslims from their community? Isn’t it bigoted that in Muslim countries non Muslims often have to follow a different set of civil laws, and in some cases are excluded from public office and the presidency? Aren’t Muslims bigoted under your definition?

How about Jewish people referring to themselves as “chosen?” Yowza, that sounds super bigoted to me.

O.k., they're all bigoted to some degree then I guess, but none is more right than the others about getting into heaven.

Why would a Christian believe that or care about your assertion at all? You are trying to dilute the entire point of Christianity in order to serve your own entitlement issues.

And why are you so upset about Christianity but not having a panic attack on the others? Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, and its believers tend to be much more devout than Christians. I’ll tell you what, my mother in law had a good friend and neighbor who is Muslim, and when MIL died this lady was VERY upset that her friend was doomed to hellfire. It was simultaneously touching and offensive. But it wasn’t bigoted because words mean things. Or your definition of bigoted is so broad that it is virtually meaningless, I guess.

Your anecdote does, however, bring up the question of why people believe in any religion that tells most of humanity it is doomed to hellfire (or at least limbo) because they don't believe a certain thing. Even children born into the "wrong" faith who die before they can make their own decision of what they want to believe, yes those poor babies and children are condemned to a terrible eternity because they didn't know about and get to choose to accept the one true religion that could have given them a happy eternity. Or what about someone born with severe mental disability who has no way of knowing about or choosing faith? Those people too apparently don't get to go to heaven if they aren't true believers (which they can't be because they don't have the mental faculty to be so, but hey too bad, so sad).

It's a sick way to think about a deity. Or an immature one.

You are sort of fixating on Hell, as are the other posters. But Christianity is not about fixating on what happens after you die, it is about how to live, right now. If you reject Jesus today, you are in limbo, today. If you follow Jesus today, you can have Heaven on Earth, today.

Jesus was not walking around condemning people to Hell. Jesus was giving the way to eternal life, and that way was through him. He was not condemning people who did not believe in him. On the contrary, he forgave the people who killed him. What happens to nonbelievers after they die- why would a Christian know that? We only have Jesus, we don't have options A B C and D, and if you don't believe in Jesus, again, why on Earth would you even care?

[Anonymous]

DP. Why would someone care, if they don't believe in Jesus?

One big reason is that this particular organized religion is woven into the fabric of US history and culture, and is used as justification for making or not making certain laws and regulations, even today.

If someone believes something that doesn't make sense, and it doesn't materially affect my life, I can see your point. But there are very few (if any) people in the US not materially affected by Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

The idea that "we do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus" is also a bizarre idea. Jesus did not condemn slavery, or pornography, or any number of things that we now say are evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Why would someone care, if they don't believe in Jesus?

One big reason is that this particular organized religion is woven into the fabric of US history and culture, and is used as justification for making or not making certain laws and regulations, even today.

If someone believes something that doesn't make sense, and it doesn't materially affect my life, I can see your point. But there are very few (if any) people in the US not materially affected by Christianity.

I also see your point, but I guess my response is... you can't remake Christianity to fit your desires as a non-Christian person. If your desire is that religion become disentangled from the law, I concur with that and I want that too. My family is from a Muslim country, and Islam is woven into every single aspect of life. I may not like that, and I may not like how Muslims are practicing Islam or interpreting their holy book, but I can only hope that religion becomes disentangled from the law over time. I can't tell someone how to interpret their religion or demand that they let me into their heaven too. Nor can I really be bothered to care.

Over time society changes and values change, with or without religion. There will always be conservative types who resist change, and that's ok. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

How do you answer the controversies about the translation of "malakoi"?

The idea that "we do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus" is also a bizarre idea. Jesus did not condemn slavery, or pornography, or any number of things that we now say are evil.

Sure. But if you focus on something about which he had nothing to say, and you do not make a bigger and louder argument against the things about which he had a lot to say -- then you'll have to forgive me for thinking you are not basing your arguments primarily on the New Testament text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Why would someone care, if they don't believe in Jesus?

One big reason is that this particular organized religion is woven into the fabric of US history and culture, and is used as justification for making or not making certain laws and regulations, even today.

If someone believes something that doesn't make sense, and it doesn't materially affect my life, I can see your point. But there are very few (if any) people in the US not materially affected by Christianity.

I also see your point, but I guess my response is... you can't remake Christianity to fit your desires as a non-Christian person. If your desire is that religion become disentangled from the law, I concur with that and I want that too. My family is from a Muslim country, and Islam is woven into every single aspect of life. I may not like that, and I may not like how Muslims are practicing Islam or interpreting their holy book, but I can only hope that religion becomes disentangled from the law over time. I can't tell someone how to interpret their religion or demand that they let me into their heaven too. Nor can I really be bothered to care.

Over time society changes and values change, with or without religion. There will always be conservative types who resist change, and that's ok. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

Yep. But I was answering the question "why do you care"? And the reason is that in our shared public discourse, it is the reason some people advance in making laws and regulations that affect all of us.

You can't expect people not to argue back if that reason doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

The idea that "we do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus" is also a bizarre idea. Jesus did not condemn slavery, or pornography, or any number of things that we now say are evil.

He condemned wealth and attachment to earthly possessions. What are you personally doing about that in your life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

Wait -- you knew that the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

How do you answer the controversies about the translation of "malakoi"?

The idea that "we do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus" is also a bizarre idea. Jesus did not condemn slavery, or pornography, or any number of things that we now say are evil.

Sure. But if you focus on something about which he had nothing to say, and you do not make a bigger and louder argument against the things about which he had a lot to say -- then you'll have to forgive me for thinking you are not basing your arguments primarily on the New Testament text.

Who is making a “bigger and louder” argument? The thread is about homosexuality. It’s not something I talk about in my day to day. If you want to have a thread about how Christians ignore most of Jesus’ teachings, go do that. It’s not really relevant to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

Wait -- you knew that the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English, right?

If the original language is ambivalent, how so? Let’s have that explanation, I’m interested. I’d rather read an actual point than witless snark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went back through this thread to look for specific citations by the all-caps NT-emphasis poster. I also did some reading on the side.

From what I can tell, there are maybe three points in the NT that might be references to homosexuality. None of them are attributed to being said by Jesus, and none of them are in the four gospels. They are also using wording about which there is some debate about translation into English.

(See, e.g., the discussion here: https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/)

On the other hand, Jesus uses really strong and clear language about storing up material possessions and staying with your born family. I get that NT-poster wants to interpret it as only specific to the situation, but he says similar things multiple times, in different situations, and without qualifiers that would make it clear he was only talking about certain people, in certain times and places.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.” Matthew 6:19

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 18:18-23

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:15-17

I think there are more, but those were the ones that came to mind. So there is this consistent theme of leaving behind things of the world, leaving behind your family to follow Jesus, and not clinging to or building up treasures. wealth, and possessions on earth. Contrast that to the fact we have nothing from Jesus saying that homosexuality is wrong, and the mentions that are in the NT are incidental parts of other discussions, in letter not involving the words of Jesus.



------------

Can you make a case that the NT is against homosexuality? I suppose so. It takes some semantic acrobatics, and we definitely do not have any evidence it was important to Jesus, but -- I guess? Maybe?

But if you are going to make the case against homosexuality based on the NT, and you are not making a BIGGER and louder case against materialism, I think you are not really basing your beliefs on the text of the NT. So, for example, if you criticize a cousin or a friend for having a same-sex partner, but you are mute in criticizing your wealthy uncle or McMansion-living acquaintances -- then that's a problem.

I think you are bringing your own issues to the table, not the NT. I think you are a hypocrite. And I think you should be careful -- very careful -- before sitting in judgement on other people, whether using all-caps or not.

Ok I read through this and here are my thoughts. First off, yes, the three verses that deal with homosexuality aren’t spoken by Jesus. That doesn’t matter though, because the WHOLE Bible is inspired: 1 Timothy 3:16. It’s all God’s Word, whether spoken through Jesus or through the biblically-inspired writers.

Second, yes, materialism is bad. You say that if I’m going to address homosexuality, then I should also be addressing materialism as well. But that’s not the topic in this thread nor the question I was answering in the first place. It isn’t relevant to the main question. It wouldn’t make sense if someone asked me “Hey do you think homosexuality is wrong?” And I answer “Well let me talk to you about materialism because that’s worse”.

Thirdly, you assume that all I care about is the topic of homosexuality and that I don’t address other things, like my “wealthy uncle”. The reason I haven’t talked about other sins is because they aren’t related to the homosexuality topic.

Fourthly, you assume I am judging people and using my ideas instead of the NT. However I have used references in the Bible to address homosexuality. I’m simply reiterating what the verses say. Trust me, I’m not judging you or anyone else. I was literally just trying to clear up what the Bible says because there is confusion about the Bible’s stance on homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

Wait -- you knew that the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English, right?

If the original language is ambivalent, how so? Let’s have that explanation, I’m interested. I’d rather read an actual point than witless snark.

Sure, we can discuss it. How have you been interpreting the Greek word "malakoi," for the purposes of this thread?