Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Arguing with you feels exactly like arguing with Muslima.

Cherry-picking scripture? Check

Claiming "it's all about context" while seeming determined to ignore the actual context? Check

Deliberately missing the big picture, the broad message, of Jesus' words, so long as it conflicts with your position on a narrow issue? Check

And some people only like to hear the feel-good God is love sermon and don't like to hear about sins and facing them. Yes, Jesus was mostly about love and compassion. That doesn't mean Christians should ignore our sinful ways.

Haha. "Mostly."

Thank God -- truly, I thank Him -- for mainline Protestant reformed faiths that have moved beyond literalism and fundamentalism. God bless those churches whose doors are open to ALL, as Jesus intends.

Well, for what it's worth, Mainline Protestantism is in sharp decline. Like, to the point that they're losing so many members so quickly that for many denominations (United Church of Christ, for example) their future is in peril.

FYI.

Anonymous wrote:If we don't have to worry about sin then why did Jesus have to be crucified? We are all sinners. Homosexual acts are sin as are premarital sex and extramarital sex... Selfishness ... Lying...stealing, gossiping, swearing with Gods name . We all probably sin at least 10 times a day. Having a homosexual wedding ceremony probably takes it to outright rebellion levels against God similar to having a satanic wedding ceremony , but I'm sure those people probably don't care .

See... as someone who wasn't raised Christian, I never understood why Jesus has to be crucified in the first place. How does Jesus dying translate to forgiveness of sins? Couldn't God just forgive your sins himself? Why the son/middleman? What about all the thousands of other human beings who were crucified on a cross? Why did they have to die? What was the value in their suffering? Was their suffering less than Jesus, even though they underwent the same horrendous torture?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a lot of verses in the Bible that indicate that sin is not just something you sit around and accept:

1 Corinthians 5 New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With a Case of Incest
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

This passage suggests to me, that accepting sexual immorality within the church is a very big deal. But notice Paul doesn't indicate to judge people outside, that's not really our problem. What people do outside the church is not an issue for us to sit around and judge, but we have to be very careful of what we accept within the church.

This is Paul. Do we have to go over that again? He never claimed to be divine. He never claimed he was a prophet. Why are you making him one now?

You clarify this for me: what is Paul's role in the New Testament? He wrote a lot of it. Advice columnist, like Dear Ann or something? Why WOULDN'T you take Paul very very seriously? Why would you bother with Christianity at all if you easily dismiss a man who largely spread and established it? I would say that in the Bible Paul is second to Jesus in terms of importance.

Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a lot of verses in the Bible that indicate that sin is not just something you sit around and accept:

1 Corinthians 5 New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With a Case of Incest
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

This passage suggests to me, that accepting sexual immorality within the church is a very big deal. But notice Paul doesn't indicate to judge people outside, that's not really our problem. What people do outside the church is not an issue for us to sit around and judge, but we have to be very careful of what we accept within the church.

This is Paul. Do we have to go over that again? He never claimed to be divine. He never claimed he was a prophet. Why are you making him one now?

If we don't have to worry about sin then why did Jesus have to be crucified? We are all sinners. Homosexual acts are sin as are premarital sex and extramarital sex... Selfishness ... Lying...stealing, gossiping, swearing with Gods name . We all probably sin at least 10 times a day. Having a homosexual wedding ceremony probably takes it to outright rebellion levels against God similar to having a satanic wedding ceremony , but I'm sure those people probably don't care .

Anonymous wrote:

Let me repost what you stated here with a different "sin":

" it's true that Jesus never mentioned beastiality.. But you think you know for sure--for sure!-- that God disapproves. Because you have a direct pipeline to God? Or because you just "know" this somehow."

Like I said, we can say that about any "sin" that Jesus never mentions directly.

The logic on this thread is from a parallel universe. I can't even....

Jesus never talked about automobiles or cellphones or public schools or private schools or colleges or pet dogs and cats. By your logic, it seems likely that he'd disapprove of all these things.

The key here, apparently, is that you add your own very special twist: you somehow "know" some things are "wrong" and some are OK. You torture Leviticus and you ignore Jesus' attitudes towards Leviticus and its rules because that's more convenient for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Arguing with you feels exactly like arguing with Muslima.

Cherry-picking scripture? Check

Claiming "it's all about context" while seeming determined to ignore the actual context? Check

Deliberately missing the big picture, the broad message, of Jesus' words, so long as it conflicts with your position on a narrow issue? Check

And some people only like to hear the feel-good God is love sermon and don't like to hear about sins and facing them. Yes, Jesus was mostly about love and compassion. That doesn't mean Christians should ignore our sinful ways.

Haha. "Mostly."

Thank God -- truly, I thank Him -- for mainline Protestant reformed faiths that have moved beyond literalism and fundamentalism. God bless those churches whose doors are open to ALL, as Jesus intends.

yes, PP, it is "mostly" why? Because at times, He got angry. You are confusing literalism with dogmatism.

I think there are a lot of verses in the Bible that indicate that sin is not just something you sit around and accept:

1 Corinthians 5 New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With a Case of Incest
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

This passage suggests to me, that accepting sexual immorality within the church is a very big deal. But notice Paul doesn't indicate to judge people outside, that's not really our problem. What people do outside the church is not an issue for us to sit around and judge, but we have to be very careful of what we accept within the church.

Anonymous wrote:

Who is ignoring the rest? Someone asked about a passage directly on homosexuality. They got it. Just b/c Jesus's death washes away the sins of the old testament doesn't mean he condones them. It doesn't give believers a free pass to sin as they want. It just means we are not condemned by them.

YOU are ignoring the rest of Leviticus. Do you eat shellfish? Do you wear wool-cotton blends? Then you're ignoring the rest of Leviticus and cherry-picking the anti-homosexual stuff. Why is this so hard? Have you read Leviticus?

I abandoned religion (in my case, Islam). For me, I was unable to reconcile the blatant misogyny, rather than the homophobia (which is less clear in Islam, although still generally condemned)

You can find another community to be a part of. I can't reconcile the ugly parts of religious texts & stories. You can try and read, re-read, interpret, re-interpret, any way you want - it doesn't matter if those ugly parts comprise a small minority of the faith - they still exist. They were written as "truth" long ago. I've come to understand religion as a reflection of the society that a specific religion was cultivated from. All religions were designed to reform an ill society, and try to make things better. But they're still flawed. They're still discriminatory. They're still antiquated.

I have an internal moral code to be a kind, giving, compassionate, and empathetic person for the sake of humanity. You don't need religion to be decent.

There are other ways to develop a sense of community and belonging.

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Arguing with you feels exactly like arguing with Muslima.

Cherry-picking scripture? Check

Claiming "it's all about context" while seeming determined to ignore the actual context? Check

Deliberately missing the big picture, the broad message, of Jesus' words, so long as it conflicts with your position on a narrow issue? Check

Actually, I feel like you are cherry picking the Scriptures by ignoring the other parts of it.

I don't think any true Christian ignores the most important aspect of Jesus' teachings, which is about love and forgiveness. But, Christians shouldn't also forget about all the other things the Bible says either. Many have stated that you can love the sinner but not the sin. This goes with any sin, yes, even murders and pedophiles. That doesn't mean we accept what they did as not sinful.

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Arguing with you feels exactly like arguing with Muslima.

Cherry-picking scripture? Check

Claiming "it's all about context" while seeming determined to ignore the actual context? Check

Deliberately missing the big picture, the broad message, of Jesus' words, so long as it conflicts with your position on a narrow issue? Check

Bizarre reasoning skills? Check. (Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality or bestiality or cellphones or swimming pools, but I'm sure God is against all these things)

Snide little put-downs? Check ("simple logic")

Making up stuff when it suits your needs? Check

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Arguing with you feels exactly like arguing with Muslima.

Cherry-picking scripture? Check

Claiming "it's all about context" while seeming determined to ignore the actual context? Check

Deliberately missing the big picture, the broad message, of Jesus' words, so long as it conflicts with your position on a narrow issue? Check

And some people only like to hear the feel-good God is love sermon and don't like to hear about sins and facing them. Yes, Jesus was mostly about love and compassion. That doesn't mean Christians should ignore our sinful ways.

Haha. "Mostly."

Thank God -- truly, I thank Him -- for mainline Protestant reformed faiths that have moved beyond literalism and fundamentalism. God bless those churches whose doors are open to ALL, as Jesus intends.