Anonymous wrote:God, and Jesus, both spoke directly to Paul. I do not think even the disciples ever spoke directly to God. Acts 18:9, Acts 22, Acts 23:11.

Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit too. Acts 13:9, 19:6, 19:21,

So, clearly Paul's words have MAJOR cred.

Paul said homosexuality is a sin - I Corinthians 6:9.

however, Jesus said judge not lest you be judged.

Paul said those who receive the body and blood of christ should examine their own worthiness to partake, I Corinthians 11:28, and even Jesus allowed Judas to partake at the Last Supper.

so, my take is that homosexuals should not be banned from any christian faith or partaking in communion. I do not, however, believe they can be married in a true Christian sense.

Not disputing whether Paul spoke with Apostolic authority, but of course the 12 Disciples spoke to God. Jesus Christ is God.

God, and Jesus, both spoke directly to Paul. I do not think even the disciples ever spoke directly to God. Acts 18:9, Acts 22, Acts 23:11.

Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit too. Acts 13:9, 19:6, 19:21,

So, clearly Paul's words have MAJOR cred.

Paul said homosexuality is a sin - I Corinthians 6:9.

however, Jesus said judge not lest you be judged.

Paul said those who receive the body and blood of christ should examine their own worthiness to partake, I Corinthians 11:28, and even Jesus allowed Judas to partake at the Last Supper.

so, my take is that homosexuals should not be banned from any christian faith or partaking in communion. I do not, however, believe they can be married in a true Christian sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So from reading many of these responses, if homosexuality is out because shellfish and mixed fabrics are out, are there ANY sins that are still sins?

Yes. Not loving God and neighbor.

Why would these be sins, under this reasoning? Jesus said all the law and the prophets could be boiled down to love God and your neighbor. He didn't say it was an either/or. God's laws are fundamentally about loving Him and others. But perhaps loving others means not using them as a source of sexual gratification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So from reading many of these responses, if homosexuality is out because shellfish and mixed fabrics are out, are there ANY sins that are still sins?

Yes. Not loving God and neighbor.

And you should try to love your enemy and turn the other cheek.
Don't assume your group/faith/nation is better than others (the Good Samaritan).
Give your coat to someone if they ask.

This one is especially relevant to this thread: Don't cast stones at people you think are sinners unless you yourself are without sin (and nobody is).

Forgive others.

Don't make a big show of your faith (don't pray conspicuously on street corners).

There's plenty that Jesus did say. It just seems dangerous to make assumptions about what he didn't say, to claim we know what he was thinking about things like homosexuality.

Jesus really did not say that much - and what he did say was over 2,000 years ago, now translated from an ancient language, so it's hard to know what he meant. People do the best they can

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So from reading many of these responses, if homosexuality is out because shellfish and mixed fabrics are out, are there ANY sins that are still sins?

Yes. Not loving God and neighbor.

And you should try to love your enemy and turn the other cheek.
Don't assume your group/faith/nation is better than others (the Good Samaritan).
Give your coat to someone if they ask.

This one is especially relevant to this thread: Don't cast stones at people you think are sinners unless you yourself are without sin (and nobody is).

Forgive others.

Don't make a big show of your faith (don't pray conspicuously on street corners).

There's plenty that Jesus did say. It just seems dangerous to make assumptions about what he didn't say, to claim we know what he was thinking about things like homosexuality.

Anonymous wrote:So from reading many of these responses, if homosexuality is out because shellfish and mixed fabrics are out, are there ANY sins that are still sins?

Yes. Not loving God and neighbor.

So from reading many of these responses, if homosexuality is out because shellfish and mixed fabrics are out, are there ANY sins that are still sins?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is no answer, just insults. Please take a break and come back when you can discuss things rationally and civilly.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. I do not really see where I insulted you. I still don't find the crux of your argument convincing. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, that doesn't work. Jesus said not to judge other people. Who are we to do it, especially if it's based on superficial but convenient readings of Leviticis and Paul.

But what does "hate the sin" mean? There is more than just loving the sinner- you have to hate the sin as well. What does that mean?

We need to start with your base assumption. You're defining "sin" to include homosexuality. As you admit yourself, Jesus didn't do so. Many here find your reliance on sources apart from Jesus to be reaching.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is no answer, just insults. Please take a break and come back when you can discuss things rationally and civilly.

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, that doesn't work. Jesus said not to judge other people. Who are we to do it, especially if it's based on superficial but convenient readings of Leviticis and Paul.

But what does "hate the sin" mean? There is more than just loving the sinner- you have to hate the sin as well. What does that mean?

Anonymous wrote:
So much of what the people on this thread who are focused heavily on "sin" is so misguided, and not what Jesus meant at all.

Jesus talks about love, and grace, and above all, loving others as Jesus loved us. THAT is his commandment. He had plenty of opportunity to speak out about homosexuality -- and he did not. When he does address sexuality, it is often in a way to protect women and children from being abused. Masters often abused slaves in the time period; and homosexuality was certainly not unheard of.

It's sad that people miss Jesus' great message in their desire to point fingers at "sinners."

+1000. Jesus' message was against judging others, and he was particularly opposed to torturing scripture in order to justify finger-pointing.

It's also sad that the people missing Jesus' message about acceptance and tolerance are flinging ad hominems around. What exactly is going on there?

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

No, that doesn't work. Jesus said not to judge other people. Who are we to do it, especially if it's based on superficial but convenient readings of Leviticis and Paul.

Anonymous wrote:
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. meant.

Of course Jesus did away with those laws. Does your pastor/minister/priest tell you not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fibers? I really think you need to ask him about this directly, so that he (assuming it's not a she) can clear this up for you. You are simply wrong. This is one point on which there's zero difference among the denominations.

Were you the one who pointed out that Jesus never answered a question from the Pharisees directly (a Bible literalist was the one who said that in this thread). Well, that was correct. As we all know, the Temple priests and lawyers thought he WAS doing away with their laws, so they tested him. In Matthew 22:35-40, Jesus answers that, basically, all the law and prophets can be boiled down to two commandments, love God and love your neighbor. It was a clever answer, because they couldn't get him (yet), but he's clearly saying that his message of love beats out all the rules.

"Fulfill" doesn't mean here what you'd like it to mean.

Anonymous wrote:
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. meant.

Please, please, please. Stop already with the line of argument that goes, "I know Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, but I think I know he disapproved." You know no such thing. You've been chided by multiple posters for making this assumption. In fact, don't you think it's a little insulting to Jesus to say that you know what he forgot to mention?

Anonymous wrote: 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.

OK, I've noticed this before. You write that I can't say "Jesus didn't say anything but I assume he doesn't object." But you've posted multiple times that "Jesus didn't say anything but I know what he meant." Please explain how that works, because it really looks like double-dealing on your part, doesn't it?

Anyway, I have addressed the "sexual immorality" issue, and I've addressed it several times here. I said that it could include a range of things, like pre-marital sex, pedophelia, bestiality, or even kissing someone you're not married to. Others have also said this. Someone also pointed out the relevant fact that bestiality and pedophiia involve non-consenting victims, whereas homosexuality does not. I and others have refuted your (startling) claim that Jesus always followed Jewish tradition, so there's no reason to assume he included homosexuality in this.

Please also stop with the analogy of your right-year-old. It doesn't work. The problem is, you KNOW FOR A FACT what your eight-year old was doing, because you felt it as you were driving. You DON'T KNOW what Jesus intended about homosexuality. And if it needs to be repeated: your guesses about Jesus are not equivalent to feeling your son kicking your car seat.

I think I'm done for the night. You don't seem to read what I and others write (the "sexual immorality" issue). And your ad hominems are tiring. I need to get back to my own family.

So much of what the people on this thread who are focused heavily on "sin" is so misguided, and not what Jesus meant at all.

Jesus talks about love, and grace, and above all, loving others as Jesus loved us. THAT is his commandment. He had plenty of opportunity to speak out about homosexuality -- and he did not. When he does address sexuality, it is often in a way to protect women and children from being abused. Masters often abused slaves in the time period; and homosexuality was certainly not unheard of.

It's sad that people miss Jesus' great message in their desire to point fingers at "sinners."