Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But for two millennia, homosexuality was not accepted. Not a single scholar or saint or theologian or anyone up until very recently accepted it. Were they just completely unenlightened? Why didn't God inspire anyone to think about this issue the new, "right" way for 2000 years?

For almost two millenia, few saints, scholars or theologians questioned the stuff about slavery in the Old Testament and yes, in Paul (OK, Paul treated slaves as equals in the church and in Christ, but he wasn't exactly fighting the institution). Were all those scholars, saints and theologians right about this, too? (As an aside, I don't think anybody knows the Saints' positions on homosexuality).

FYI, I'm not a theologian or priest. I'm also heterosexual. And the moderator called me names for challenging Muslima a year ago. But I ask a lot of questions and I read a lot of theologians. Back to your question about why I don't cite scripture. I have made references to the gospels and Paul, and I've done some paraphrasing earlier in this thread. But I don't think cut-and-pastes are necessarily more convincing if everybody understands what passages I'm referring to. In fact, for all that you quote Matthew above, you seem unsure about whether Jesus was actually doing away with dietary rules and ritual washing--but the text on its face says that's exactly what he's doing here, and I've never heard of a theologian who disagreed. (Ergo, you can't assume Jesus kept the prohibition on homosexuality when he was jettisoning most everything else). I do, however, think that knowing Paul's history and context is important, in addition to what he wrote, for understanding him. Just as knowing Jewish customs of the time is critical for understanding those passages from Matthew that you cited.

1. Lots of saints wrote about homosexuality. Google it. We did not discover homosexuality in 1972 or something.

2. You are discussing this with multiple people. Unbelievable, I know, keep it in mind.

3. You don't cite... anything. No scripture, no theologians, nothing that I have seen on this thread. It would help, especially since you have "read a lot of theolgians."

Anonymous wrote:
But for two millennia, homosexuality was not accepted. Not a single scholar or saint or theologian or anyone up until very recently accepted it. Were they just completely unenlightened? Why didn't God inspire anyone to think about this issue the new, "right" way for 2000 years?

For almost two millenia, few saints, scholars or theologians questioned the stuff about slavery in the Old Testament and yes, in Paul (OK, Paul treated slaves as equals in the church and in Christ, but he wasn't exactly fighting the institution). Were all those scholars, saints and theologians right about this, too? (As an aside, I don't think anybody knows the Saints' positions on homosexuality).

FYI, I'm not a theologian or priest. I'm also heterosexual. And the moderator called me names for challenging Muslima a year ago. But I ask a lot of questions and I read a lot of theologians. Back to your question about why I don't cite scripture. I have made references to the gospels and Paul, and I've done some paraphrasing earlier in this thread. But I don't think cut-and-pastes are necessarily more convincing if everybody understands what passages I'm referring to. In fact, for all that you quote Matthew above, you seem unsure about whether Jesus was actually doing away with dietary rules and ritual washing--but the text on its face says that's exactly what he's doing here, and I've never heard of a theologian who disagreed. (Ergo, you can't assume Jesus kept the prohibition on homosexuality when he was jettisoning most everything else). I do, however, think that knowing Paul's history and context is important, in addition to what he wrote, for understanding him. Just as knowing Jewish customs of the time is critical for understanding those passages from Matthew that you cited.

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin but love the sinner. That's how to reconcile the two.

We know to love everybody. But is homosexuality actually a sin? If it is not, then churches that refuse to marry gays are making a very grave error. If it is, then churches that are marrying gays are making an error. I would want to go to a church that is on the right side of this issue, since it is important to so many people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2. As I and others keep stating, the absence of Christ directly stating that something is a sin or is not a sin doesn't mean that something is or is not a sin. Jesus didn't focus on homosexuality, of course not, because as you stated, this wasn't the main focus of his teachings. He wasn't trying to be legalistic and dogmatic, but rather brought a message of love and reconciliation with God. So, again, of course, he didn't focus on such things. But, if asked directly "is homosexuality a sin"... I think the Bible is clear when Jesus refers to "sexual immorality" because to the Jews such a thing included homosexuality, as evidenced by the quote from Leviticus. People who quote Leviticus are not doing so to show that all the laws in that book are considered sin, but rather that the Jews at the time knew such a law existed, and that when Jesus speaks of sexual immorality, he is speaking of those things that the Jews considered sexually immoral.

Matthew 15:11
"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
-- I guess you could include shrimp and pork in this from the Levitical laws. Referencing what I stated earlier, the Jews were to separate themselves from the pagans so as not to defile themselves.

Matthew 15:19-20
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

Jesus did away with so many long-established Jewish customs and rules: washing rituals, animal sacrifice, the prohibition against consorting with "unclean" people like prostitutes and tax collectors, the role of the Temple and its keepers, and he even invited women to hear him speak, which was just not done at the time. It's impossible to argue that Jesus was staying within the boundaries of Jewish custom and law. This is precisely why he was such a threat to the Temple and the Pharisees/Sadducees. What makes you so certain that he would have kept this one Jewish prohibition on homosexuality?

I don't think there's ever been any serious questioning, over two millenia, that the passages you cite do away with the Levitical dietary and ritual washing rules.

Again, He didn't do away with those laws. Read the bible quote where he states "I did not come to abolish the law". He came to fulfill those laws that the Israelites had to follow to be "right" with God; Christ's coming made such laws not needed because He is the embodiment of such laws, ie, to be right with God.

Sexual immorality laws were not included in the laws that He came to fulfill. How do I know this? Because again, in Matthew 15:19 He states those things that defile a person, which includes adultery and sexual immorality.

You also have no idea if He didn't mean homosexuality was sexually immoral either. Again, the absence of Him stating something doesn't make it not true. I am simply going by what He was recorded as saying in Matthew.

You have never addressed what did He mean by "sexual immorality" in that passage. If your answer is "I don't know", then again, you are saying that because He didn't specifically state something, you assume it must not be true. I use the analogy of my 8 yr old hitting the back of my seat in the car. When he kicked the chair, I told him to stop kicking. Then he punched the chair, and I told him I had already asked him to stop. His response: well, you didn't say I couldn't punch the chair. But, c'mon, he knew what I meant. You are doing something similar: because Christ didn't explicitly state that homosexuality was a sin, it must not be. But, He did state that sexual immorality is a sin. You know what He meant. If you don't, then you should read the Bible, commentaries, talk to theologians to find out what he really meant. Based on my reading of the Bible, I know what He meant.

However, again, I don't care whether someone is a homosexual. I'm not caught up on sexual sins. I have committed adultery. I had sex with my DH before we got married. I have had gay people over for dinner; my DC's BFF's parents are gay. It's not something that I give much thought to IRL. If my child turned out to be gay, I would tell my child that no matter, I love him. I may not agree with his lifestyle, but his choices are between him and God. My only job is to be his parent and to love him.

I have a niece that I think is gay. I want to tell her to come out of the closet. That her parents will come to accept it because I know her parents love her. I haven't said anything to her yet because it's not my place. My niece goes to church. I don't see her coming out as counter to her faith because as we stated, Jesus is about love and compassion, not about judgement and hate.

Hate the sin but love the sinner. That's how to reconcile the two.

Anonymous wrote:
Well then, we're even. I find your arguments very superficial, your logic at times bizarre, and on the whole you demonstrate a misunderstanding (naive or deliberate) of Paul's own sense of his mission. In particular, I find the following to be superficial and even intellectually dishonest:

1. You've created a false dichotomy by saying that Paul is worth nothing unless every single word he wrote is taken literally. I find this outrageous. You are choosing to ignore Paul's very real contributions to Christianity, in the form of eye-witness testimony and helping to build the early church, in favor of a literalist interpretation that conveniently supports your own views on homosexuality.
2. You're deliberately blurring the meaning of the word "disciple." Paul never spent as much time with Jesus as did the twelve, and you know this.
3. You're making Paul into something he never claimed to be. He never, ever claimed to be a prophet, i.e., someone who speaks directly for God, in which case literalism might be more justified. If you're capable of understanding the difference between a disciple and a prophet, you're sure doing a good job of hiding it.
4. You state your opinions as facts, you don't even try to prove your opinions, and then you assert that your opinions drive the conclusion that Paul must be taken literally. Surely you understand that this is superficial thinking.
5. You distort the non-literalist position. If I sound like I'm trying to quell anger, it's because I am getting angry about the multiple instances of dishonesty (maybe just call it "superficiality") like this. As just one example, you write above that "The Bible should be the one book that Christians can cite." Well, lots of us who admire Paul but don't think he should (or would have wanted to) be taken literally DO cite the gospels. I've referred to them above. Just because I don't do cut-and-pastes like you doesn't mean I take the gospels any less seriously, or literally.

You missed the point about War and Peace. Of course it's a work of fiction. The point was, your argument that length means anything is a logic fail of the first order.

Calling me inarticulate reflects really badly on you. It also suggests that ad hominems (in addition to your extremely poorly supported assertions and logic fails) are all you can bring to this conversation. I don't need to cite chapter and verse from the many theologians I've read: these arguments already extremely widely known, although maybe not in your circle. Furthermore, these arguments are easily understood by anybody with even a passing familiarity with the New Testament--unless, of course, you have an interest is not understanding them.

I suggest you talk to a theologian.

I think your anger is clouding your ability to discuss this issue. I will stick to one issue that you bring up. "Paul was a disciple, not a prophet," is absolutely the least convincing argument I have ever heard about Paul. I mean, sorry, that just means nothing to me. You think this is a very articulate, logical, convincing argument, but I do not. I think it is an attempt to use some superficial semantics to discount Paul's words and the plain meaning of his word. I ask you to bring up a writing, a theologian, something that makes a similar argument because I just have never heard of this explanation of Paul's writings before and maybe wherever you got it from explains your view better than you do. If this is something you came up with, no, it is not as convincing as you think it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, this is my issue. I don't understand why a "disciple" would not be taken literally. Aren't the disciples the ones who bore witness to Jesus and told us everything Jesus said to begin with? Christianity was built upon Paul's work. This casual "he wasn't a prophet" is just not an argument, as far as I can tell. He wrote half the New Testament. The entire New Testament should be taken at its word.

A disciple is the student, not the teacher.

Paul's witness is invaluable, but he's not clearly bearing witness to what you claim he is. Paul met the resurrected Jesus briefly. By his own words, he's bearing witness to Jesus' resurrection. He's also conveying things he learned from the other disciples, but generally not first-hand from Jesus because he didn't have the opportunity the others had to follow Jesus for three years.

Don't get me wrong, Paul's first-hand testimony about meeting the resurrected Jesus is an invaluable contribution to the Christian faith. Many of his letters are surpassingly beautiful. There's so much to appreciate about Paul: he met the resurrected Christ and bears witness about it, he writes beautifully, and he addressed many practical issues that came up in the new Christian congregations.

But since Jesus isn't recorded as talking about things like circumcision, whether non-Jews can become Christians, homosexuality, and so on, and because Paul only met Jesus briefly, it's impossible to know whether he's repeating something he was told Jesus said, or whether he's entering new territory here. In many instances, Paul acknowledges he's entering new territory. As he gave advice to the new Christian communities he's writing to, he had to address a host of practical issues that Jesus never had to weigh in on (e.g., whether Gentiles could join the new churches, and whether they or babies needed to be circumcised). Many scholars also think Paul reduced the role of women relative to Jesus' position (remember Jesus telling Martha to get outbid the kitchen and come learn from him?) Without a statement from Jesus on any of things like homosexuality, it's impossible to be as certain as you want to be about whether Paul's advice on things like homosexuality comes from Jesus or is Paul's own interpretation.

There's no logic in saying "he wrote half the New Testament, therefore we should take his writings literally." War and Peace takes weeks to read, but does that mean we should take it literally?

The disciples were the ones who wrote down Jesus' words. Paul was the one who established the church. If you were citing scripture or some theologian or something perhaps it would be more convincing or articulated in a more convincing way. As it is, I find this just viewpoint overly superficial and dismissive. The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, should be the one book all Christians cite as an authoritative source. Why include books in the New Testament that were not authoritative? Why would the early Church do that? War and Peace is a work of fiction.

Well then, we're even. I find your arguments very superficial, your logic at times bizarre, and on the whole you demonstrate a misunderstanding (naive or deliberate) of Paul's own sense of his mission. In particular, I find the following to be superficial and even intellectually dishonest:

1. You've created a false dichotomy by saying that Paul is worth nothing unless every single word he wrote is taken literally. I find this outrageous. You are choosing to ignore Paul's very real contributions to Christianity, in the form of eye-witness testimony and helping to build the early church, in favor of a literalist interpretation that conveniently supports your own views on homosexuality.
2. You're deliberately blurring the meaning of the word "disciple." Paul never spent as much time with Jesus as did the twelve, and you know this.
3. You're making Paul into something he never claimed to be. He never, ever claimed to be a prophet, i.e., someone who speaks directly for God, in which case literalism might be more justified. If you're capable of understanding the difference between a disciple and a prophet, you're sure doing a good job of hiding it.
4. You state your opinions as facts, you don't even try to prove your opinions, and then you assert that your opinions drive the conclusion that Paul must be taken literally. Surely you understand that this is superficial thinking.
5. You distort the non-literalist position. If I sound like I'm trying to quell anger, it's because I am getting angry about the multiple instances of dishonesty (maybe just call it "superficiality") like this. As just one example, you write above that "The Bible should be the one book that Christians can cite." Well, lots of us who admire Paul but don't think he should (or would have wanted to) be taken literally DO cite the gospels. I've referred to them above. Just because I don't do cut-and-pastes like you doesn't mean I take the gospels any less seriously, or literally.

You missed the point about War and Peace. Of course it's a work of fiction. The point was, your argument that length means anything is a logic fail of the first order.

Calling me inarticulate reflects really badly on you. It also suggests that ad hominems (in addition to your extremely poorly supported assertions and logic fails) are all you can bring to this conversation. I don't need to cite chapter and verse from the many theologians I've read: these arguments already extremely widely known, although maybe not in your circle. Furthermore, these arguments are easily understood by anybody with even a passing familiarity with the New Testament--unless, of course, you have an interest is not understanding them.

I suggest you talk to a theologian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2. As I and others keep stating, the absence of Christ directly stating that something is a sin or is not a sin doesn't mean that something is or is not a sin. Jesus didn't focus on homosexuality, of course not, because as you stated, this wasn't the main focus of his teachings. He wasn't trying to be legalistic and dogmatic, but rather brought a message of love and reconciliation with God. So, again, of course, he didn't focus on such things. But, if asked directly "is homosexuality a sin"... I think the Bible is clear when Jesus refers to "sexual immorality" because to the Jews such a thing included homosexuality, as evidenced by the quote from Leviticus. People who quote Leviticus are not doing so to show that all the laws in that book are considered sin, but rather that the Jews at the time knew such a law existed, and that when Jesus speaks of sexual immorality, he is speaking of those things that the Jews considered sexually immoral.

Matthew 15:11
"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
-- I guess you could include shrimp and pork in this from the Levitical laws. Referencing what I stated earlier, the Jews were to separate themselves from the pagans so as not to defile themselves.

Matthew 15:19-20
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

Jesus did away with so many long-established Jewish customs and rules: washing rituals, animal sacrifice, the prohibition against consorting with "unclean" people like prostitutes and tax collectors, the role of the Temple and its keepers, and he even invited women to hear him speak, which was just not done at the time. It's impossible to argue that Jesus was staying within the boundaries of Jewish custom and law. This is precisely why he was such a threat to the Temple and the Pharisees/Sadducees. What makes you so certain that he would have kept this one Jewish prohibition on homosexuality?

I don't think there's ever been any serious questioning, over two millenia, that the passages you cite do away with the Levitical dietary and ritual washing rules.

But for two millennia, homosexuality was not accepted. Not a single scholar or saint or theologian or anyone up until very recently accepted it. Were they just completely unenlightened? Why didn't God inspire anyone to think about this issue the new, "right" way for 2000 years?

Anonymous wrote:

2. As I and others keep stating, the absence of Christ directly stating that something is a sin or is not a sin doesn't mean that something is or is not a sin. Jesus didn't focus on homosexuality, of course not, because as you stated, this wasn't the main focus of his teachings. He wasn't trying to be legalistic and dogmatic, but rather brought a message of love and reconciliation with God. So, again, of course, he didn't focus on such things. But, if asked directly "is homosexuality a sin"... I think the Bible is clear when Jesus refers to "sexual immorality" because to the Jews such a thing included homosexuality, as evidenced by the quote from Leviticus. People who quote Leviticus are not doing so to show that all the laws in that book are considered sin, but rather that the Jews at the time knew such a law existed, and that when Jesus speaks of sexual immorality, he is speaking of those things that the Jews considered sexually immoral.

Matthew 15:11
"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
-- I guess you could include shrimp and pork in this from the Levitical laws. Referencing what I stated earlier, the Jews were to separate themselves from the pagans so as not to defile themselves.

Matthew 15:19-20
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

Jesus did away with so many long-established Jewish customs and rules: washing rituals, animal sacrifice, the prohibition against consorting with "unclean" people like prostitutes and tax collectors, the role of the Temple and its keepers, and he even invited women to hear him speak, which was just not done at the time. It's impossible to argue that Jesus was staying within the boundaries of Jewish custom and law. This is precisely why he was such a threat to the Temple and the Pharisees/Sadducees. What makes you so certain that he would have kept this one Jewish prohibition on homosexuality?

I don't think there's ever been any serious questioning, over two millenia, that the passages you cite do away with the Levitical dietary and ritual washing rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, this is my issue. I don't understand why a "disciple" would not be taken literally. Aren't the disciples the ones who bore witness to Jesus and told us everything Jesus said to begin with? Christianity was built upon Paul's work. This casual "he wasn't a prophet" is just not an argument, as far as I can tell. He wrote half the New Testament. The entire New Testament should be taken at its word.

A disciple is the student, not the teacher.

Paul's witness is invaluable, but he's not clearly bearing witness to what you claim he is. Paul met the resurrected Jesus briefly. By his own words, he's bearing witness to Jesus' resurrection. He's also conveying things he learned from the other disciples, but generally not first-hand from Jesus because he didn't have the opportunity the others had to follow Jesus for three years.

Don't get me wrong, Paul's first-hand testimony about meeting the resurrected Jesus is an invaluable contribution to the Christian faith. Many of his letters are surpassingly beautiful. There's so much to appreciate about Paul: he met the resurrected Christ and bears witness about it, he writes beautifully, and he addressed many practical issues that came up in the new Christian congregations.

But since Jesus isn't recorded as talking about things like circumcision, whether non-Jews can become Christians, homosexuality, and so on, and because Paul only met Jesus briefly, it's impossible to know whether he's repeating something he was told Jesus said, or whether he's entering new territory here. In many instances, Paul acknowledges he's entering new territory. As he gave advice to the new Christian communities he's writing to, he had to address a host of practical issues that Jesus never had to weigh in on (e.g., whether Gentiles could join the new churches, and whether they or babies needed to be circumcised). Many scholars also think Paul reduced the role of women relative to Jesus' position (remember Jesus telling Martha to get outbid the kitchen and come learn from him?) Without a statement from Jesus on any of things like homosexuality, it's impossible to be as certain as you want to be about whether Paul's advice on things like homosexuality comes from Jesus or is Paul's own interpretation.

There's no logic in saying "he wrote half the New Testament, therefore we should take his writings literally." War and Peace takes weeks to read, but does that mean we should take it literally?

The disciples were the ones who wrote down Jesus' words. Paul was the one who established the church. If you were citing scripture or some theologian or something perhaps it would be more convincing or articulated in a more convincing way. As it is, I find this just viewpoint overly superficial and dismissive. The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, should be the one book all Christians cite as an authoritative source. Why include books in the New Testament that were not authoritative? Why would the early Church do that? War and Peace is a work of fiction.

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, this is my issue. I don't understand why a "disciple" would not be taken literally. Aren't the disciples the ones who bore witness to Jesus and told us everything Jesus said to begin with? Christianity was built upon Paul's work. This casual "he wasn't a prophet" is just not an argument, as far as I can tell. He wrote half the New Testament. The entire New Testament should be taken at its word.

A disciple is the student, not the teacher.

Paul's witness is invaluable, but he's not clearly bearing witness to what you claim he is. Paul met the resurrected Jesus briefly. By his own words, he's bearing witness to Jesus' resurrection. He's also conveying things he learned from the other disciples, but generally not first-hand from Jesus because he didn't have the opportunity the others had to follow Jesus for three years.

Don't get me wrong, Paul's first-hand testimony about meeting the resurrected Jesus is an invaluable contribution to the Christian faith. Many of his letters are surpassingly beautiful. There's so much to appreciate about Paul: he met the resurrected Christ and bears witness about it, he writes beautifully, and he addressed many practical issues that came up in the new Christian congregations.

But since Jesus isn't recorded as talking about things like circumcision, whether non-Jews can become Christians, homosexuality, and so on, and because Paul only met Jesus briefly, it's impossible to know whether he's repeating something he was told Jesus said, or whether he's entering new territory here. In many instances, Paul acknowledges he's entering new territory. As he gave advice to the new Christian communities he's writing to, he had to address a host of practical issues that Jesus never had to weigh in on (e.g., whether Gentiles could join the new churches, and whether they or babies needed to be circumcised). Many scholars also think Paul reduced the role of women relative to Jesus' position (remember Jesus telling Martha to get outbid the kitchen and come learn from him?) Without a statement from Jesus on any of things like homosexuality, it's impossible to be as certain as you want to be about whether Paul's advice on things like homosexuality comes from Jesus or is Paul's own interpretation.

There's no logic in saying "he wrote half the New Testament, therefore we should take his writings literally." War and Peace takes weeks to read, but does that mean we should take it literally?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Christian, but I genuinely do not feel that homosexuality is wrong. I just never have. I do see that homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible. I go to a very conservative church that will never perform gay marriages, for example. But in my heart, in my conscience, I just really do not feel homosexuality is wrong. I do not see anything immoral about it. If you have felt similar and found a way to reconcile this, I would love to know! I have been thinking about it for awhile.

The core tenets of Christianity, in my mind, are about forgiveness and love. Recognizing the rights of homosexuals to be with the ones that they love is probably the most Christian thing a person can do. The fact that you genuinely do not feel it is wrong makes you a BETTER Christian, in my estimation.

Hate the sin, love the sinner!

Anonymous wrote:I am a Christian, but I genuinely do not feel that homosexuality is wrong. I just never have. I do see that homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible. I go to a very conservative church that will never perform gay marriages, for example. But in my heart, in my conscience, I just really do not feel homosexuality is wrong. I do not see anything immoral about it. If you have felt similar and found a way to reconcile this, I would love to know! I have been thinking about it for awhile.

The core tenets of Christianity, in my mind, are about forgiveness and love. Recognizing the rights of homosexuals to be with the ones that they love is probably the most Christian thing a person can do. The fact that you genuinely do not feel it is wrong makes you a BETTER Christian, in my estimation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You just ignore what the Bible says like every other progressive Christian.

Show me where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.... You can't.

NP but Sodom and Gomorrah.

I was the pp who believes two parent families are a blessing and that Jesus would love gays too.

How do we know that the Sodom and Gomorrah sin was homosexuality? Is that ever explicitely written?

I don't know if we do. Sodomy comes from sodom, but straight folks can commit it, too!

Jude 1:7
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Again, you have to dig deeper to understand what the author means by "sexual immorality and perversion".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what? Some people are born sociopaths. Would God say to the sociopath that it's ok to murder people because that's just how you were born? Or to the addict because they were born with an addictive personality that it's ok to fulfill their addiction because they were born with it?

We are all born with sin. We are supposed to try to overcome our sinful nature through Jesus. We all fail, everyday, in that endeavor, but we are not supposed to just succumb to it because we are born sinful.

Equating murder with love that two people willingly share is just ridiculous. There is no equivalence. There is no one hurt when two men or two women share a life together as partners. What, exactly, is the sin of love? Murdering someone = bad. An addict hurting herself = bad. Two people falling in love = where is the evil in that?

Just why do people get so worked up over sex? Where are all the people calling out the rich? Lust for money is a sin according tho the bible but how many people are out there to enact laws to suppress the worship of luxury?

I don't think Jesus said a word about sex but he did say this:

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.…" (Matthew 19:21-23)

How many anti-gay posters are willing to sell all your posessions to give to the poor?

1. this thread is about homosexuality and the bible, not about greed, lust, jealousy, etc.. If it were, yes, we'd talk about all those greedy, crooked Wall Street people and politicians

2. I am stating that everyone is born with sin, and just because God allowed one to be created with a specific sinful nature, it doesn't mean he condones succumbing to that sinful nature. I wasn't equating the act of murder with the act of homosexuality. It was simply an example of how God allows people to be born with certain sinful natures.

Why does God allow babies/children to suffer? Why did God create Satan? If God is omniscient He should've known Satan was going to fall, right? Why did God create imperfect human beings if he knew they were going to disobey him? I don't have the answers. But, I know that Satan is evil, and Adam and Eve committed the original sin. And then Jesus came to redeem us from that original sin. This still doesn't mean that it's ok to commit a sin, no matter the sin.

Not the PP you're talking to, but

1. I think she's saying that you're missing and/or ignoring the obvious things in the gospels and focusing on things that aren't there, sadly. Jesus talked a lot about giving away your wealth, but he said nothing about sex. So why do conservatives get so worked up about sex?

2. Again, that's your definition of "sin." But many of us on this thread, and outside it, think you're bringing to the definition something that isn't demonstrably there. We don't find the scriptural evidence, looking at both the Old and New Testaments comprehensively and in context, to be persuasive. We think you're bringing your own biases to your definition of "sin".

PP here...
1. I am not, and don't get worked up about sex. I am engaging in dialogue on an anonymous forum. I posted up thread that IRL, I don't care about this stuff, and I never talk about it or really think about it. OP asked a question about it, so I am throwing in my 2c. Why do you people keep saying that those of us who see it as sin are obssessed with it. We are not. But we call a spade a spade when the question is asked. That's all.

2. As I and others keep stating, the absence of Christ directly stating that something is a sin or is not a sin doesn't mean that something is or is not a sin. Jesus didn't focus on homosexuality, of course not, because as you stated, this wasn't the main focus of his teachings. He wasn't trying to be legalistic and dogmatic, but rather brought a message of love and reconciliation with God. So, again, of course, he didn't focus on such things. But, if asked directly "is homosexuality a sin"... I think the Bible is clear when Jesus refers to "sexual immorality" because to the Jews such a thing included homosexuality, as evidenced by the quote from Leviticus. People who quote Leviticus are not doing so to show that all the laws in that book are considered sin, but rather that the Jews at the time knew such a law existed, and that when Jesus speaks of sexual immorality, he is speaking of those things that the Jews considered sexually immoral.

Matthew 15:11
"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
-- I guess you could include shrimp and pork in this from the Levitical laws. Referencing what I stated earlier, the Jews were to separate themselves from the pagans so as not to defile themselves.

Matthew 15:19-20
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

Matthew 19: 4-5
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If you go by the logic that only what Christ explicitly stated is the truth, then here, he explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a women.

I'll ask the question here again: what does "sexual immorality" here mean? He has already distinguished between adultery and sexual immorality, so what do these words mean here if not those sexual acts the Jews knew to be sinful, including homosexuality?

I take it to mean any sex act outside of marriage. And again, in the passage above, Jesus explicitly states what a marriage is: man and woman. So, any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman would be sexually immoral, that would include homosexuality because as stated again, marriage is not between people of the same gender, but that of a man and woman.

You accuse me and some others of redefining what "sin" means. We are simply referring to what the Bible states. I could accuse you of the same, that you are the one choosing to define what is sin just because Jesus doesn't explicitly state that something is a sin.

At the end of the day, you correct in that I don't think that Jesus really cares about such things. He wasn't legalistic. And all throughout the Bible, when the Pharisees try to trip Him up with such legalistic questions, Jesus never responds directly to the question with a yes or no. He tells them parables and such to try to explain that faith is not about legalism, but rather about the Hope of salvation. But, that doesn't mean we can just sin without any regard to what is right. He makes that clear as well. But, we shouldn't be focused on the legalism or dogmatism, but rather the central message of Christ.

So, to that degree, I agree that Christ doesn't care. Remember when he met the prostitute. He cleansed her, and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't focus on what she did, but rather focused on forgiveness. I agree... that is what we need to focus on.