Originally posted by whodeyThe real issue that is being avoided here is whether or not homosexual acts are a sin. Then whether it is recognized as such or not the question then becomes what to do about it if anything at all. WHODEY
MLK? What if he were a drunk? What if he were a liar? What if he were a murderer etc, etc? I think we are talking about two different things here. One is what constitutes a sin and the other is what to do about a particular sin when it is identified? I would assume you would agree that being a drunk, being a liar etc, etc, are sins. Therefore, what wou ...[text shortened]... is recognized as such or not the question then becomes what to do about it if anything at all.
But the issue is also if it is a "sin" what kind of sin is it? Also , what form of human condition is it part of ? why is it a sin? Is it behavioural or biological? Does it fall within the part of the brain that can easily be accessed and changed (if at all)? Is it hurtful in any meaningful way to society? How far do we go down the road of religiosity before we see the human cost? Can science help us to re-evaluate scripture? If not why not? Is the church's stance partially influenced by homophobic attitudes? These are the issues that are avoided in the church my friend.
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnce one states something to the effect that the truth is a person, the word takes on some other (existential ratrher than propostional?) meaning.
"There is no conflict between love and truth: because truth bows to love."
Does truth turns into a lie when it bows to love ?
Neverthless, see my post above to Freaky.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAnd sadly you ignore the Mosaic laws that Christ continually pointed to as I have shown.
And sadly you ignore the Mosaic laws that Christ continually pointed to as I have shown. Therefore, to get to me you must go through the Mosaic law. You said earlier that you interpreted Leviticus 18:22 as targeting male prostitutes and those who were promiscuous etc, etc, and not committed homosexual relationships. How is it that you interpret it this way not answered these questions and really there is nothing more to say until they are addressed.
And sadly you miss christ himself ( the christ who might say-- "when I was rejected did you welcome me in? " )
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, I do not expect those not of the faith to adhere to what I am saying because part of the position of the person of faith must reside in faith of what God has said. Other favorite topics include God smitting people such as in Sodom and Ghommara or people during the flood of Noah, and shy would a loving God damn someone to hell etc, etc. Perhaps because these topics are offensive to many they too should be watered down or even explained away altogether so as to make the faith appealing to those that do not understand why God would allow such things to happen? Do you accept such occurences or do you explain them away as you do the issue of homosexuality?
Question- why is the sin of homosexuality so often discussed but the sin of rejecting human beings , judging and leaving christians isolated outside the church community not discussed. Do you not realise that people commit suicide over these issues? When is the church going to wake up to it's hidden sins? Whatever the issues are around sexuality it's ...[text shortened]... ing unaccepted by christs followers - this is too high a price to pay for scriptural niceties.
In the past I have tried to explain the other side to such issues knowing what awaited me at the other side which was ridicule and intolerance for defending such seemingly undefensible actions. Therefore, tredging through this topic I knew would be an uphill battle as well but I felt that the other side needed to be represented because it needed to be heard no matter the name calling and jeering that I knew would insue. My concern was mainly for those who claimed to be of the faith abandoning their faith in favor of what seemed right to them over what is right in the eyes of God. There is a passage of scripture which says something to the effect that there is a way for man to travel which is right in his own eyes, but the end of which brings destruction. This is why we are people of faith. This is why we need God.
Having said that, I would agree that sins within the church are often askew in terms of severity. For example, hypocrisy, which I have continually been accused of in this thread, seems to be far weighter than for other "sins" mentioned in the Bible, however, within the church it is often not percieved as being so. However, if one were to have the moral authority to say that hypocrisy is wrong according to Biblilcal teaching, why is it that I do not have the same right to say so regarding homosexuality that according to Biblical teaching is an abomination? Must we understand why something is a sin for it to be a sin? This seems to be your position, however, anything can be explained away. I have heard people explain away every sin imaginable. Even Hitler used scripture to say that the Jews were "evil" to condone what he did. Hitler did what was right in his own eyes as well yet we know what his fate would later become.
As I have stated, the Mosaic text in Leviticus 18:22 clearly calls homosexual acts as an abomination. This is what I cannot get passed because I believe the Mosaic law to be inspired by God rather than the whims of men as did Christ. So if you agree that it is inspired by God, why is homosexuality condemned? This is really all that is being asked. I am not so concerned with coming up with "reasons" why something is bad as I am God telling me that something is bad. Your position, therefore, must be that it was not an edict from God but from error prone man or that it should be interpreted as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre they ?
The real issue that is being avoided here is whether or not homosexual acts are a sin. Then whether it is recognized as such or not the question then becomes what to do about it if anything at all. WHODEY
But the issue is also if it is a "sin" what kind of sin is it? Also , what form of human condition is it part of ? why is it a sin? Is it behavi ...[text shortened]... ced by homophobic attitudes? These are the issues that are avoided in the church my friend.
Originally posted by whodeyI am not so concerned with coming up with "reasons" why something is bad as I am God telling me that something is bad. WHODEY
The reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, ...[text shortened]... ed as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
However God does not tell us something is bad for no good reason.
Originally posted by whodeyMy concern was mainly for those who claimed to be of the faith abandoning their faith in favor of what seemed right to them over what is right in the eyes of God. WHODEY
The reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, ...[text shortened]... ed as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
....I do not see myself as abandoning faith I see the church as abandoning homosexuals via religiosity and therefore abandoning christ. If I have to choose between abandoning faith or abandoning Christ's call to include rather than exclude I will abandon faith in favour of christ. If the Bible told you that torturing babies was Ok would you do it?
Originally posted by whodeyThere is a passage of scripture which says something to the effect that there is a way for man to travel which is right in his own eyes, but the end of which brings destruction. This is why we are people of faith. This is why we need God. WHODEY
The reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, ...[text shortened]... ed as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
Did not Jesus break the sabbath to heal the sick? There's a difference between going your own way and recognising the when the law is a ass.
Originally posted by whodeyAs I have stated, the Mosaic text in Leviticus 18:22 clearly calls homosexual acts as an abomination. This is what I cannot get passed because I believe the Mosaic law to be inspired by God rather than the whims of men as did Christ. WHODEY
The reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, ...[text shortened]... ed as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
However , despite the Bible being God inspired it also contains obvious cultural tendencies (eg Jewish nationalism -which has sweet FA to do with God's love) . It's not an either /or thing. It is also a historical document that contains the limits of the knowledge at that time. Epileptics were thought to be demon possessed etc etc. There are all sorts fo influences in there. Are you really suggesting that no homophobia at all could not seep in? It's pretty clear that sexism got into the Bible. No women priests? What a surprise! I wonder if it was men writing this down in a male dominated society. As we know , times have changed......I think God means for us to see the Bible with eyes of intelligence and cultural context too.
The problem is you are a literalist and I am more contextual. The Bible to me is not infallable.
Originally posted by whodeyIn the past I have tried to explain the other side to such issues knowing what awaited me at the other side which was ridicule WHODEY
The reason that homosexuality is being discussed is that it was brought up by Nemesio. Why was it brough up by Nemesio? It is because it is a contraversial and devisive issue that appears on the one hand to be condemned by the Bible and, on the other hand, seems unreasonable to be condemned by many in todays world including yourself. As I have said before, ...[text shortened]... ed as not being directed at homosexual couples who are committed. Which is your position?
Don't play the victim with me . I am on your side ultimately . I am not ridiculing you I am trying to open you. It's Ok faith still exists on the other side. Imagine how hard it was for some of those guys in the ealry church to accept samaritans and uncircumcised as Ok in the church. Things always move on with God.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou mean like asking you to sacrifice your only son? I wonder what Abraham thought? Some have suggested that he believed that God would raise him up once sacrificed. Who knows? One thing is for certain and that is he placed his entire faith in God without having all the answers.
My concern was mainly for those who claimed to be of the faith abandoning their faith in favor of what seemed right to them over what is right in the eyes of God. WHODEY
....I do not see myself as abandoning faith I see the church as abandoning homosexuals via religiosity and therefore abandoning christ. If I have to choose between abandoning faith ...[text shortened]... faith in favour of christ. If the Bible told you that torturing babies was Ok would you do it?
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is a difference between being infallible and being wrong. As far as sexism goes, if I recall their were prophetesses and judges who were women. It just so happens that there were no priests. Therefore, to say that the OT is sexist I think is a stretch.
As I have stated, the Mosaic text in Leviticus 18:22 clearly calls homosexual acts as an abomination. This is what I cannot get passed because I believe the Mosaic law to be inspired by God rather than the whims of men as did Christ. WHODEY
However , despite the Bible being God inspired it also contains obvious cultural tendencies (eg Jewish nation ...[text shortened]... problem is you are a literalist and I am more contextual. The Bible to me is not infallable.
One thing to consider before throwing out the Mosaic law, Christ, as I have repeatidly shown, placed great significance on the teachings of Moses. I wonder why he would do such a thing if he thought it corrupt?
As for it being a historical document, I though you were not a biblical lieteralist, hence Noah's flood never happened, Johan and the whale never happened, yet it is a historical document. How can you have it both ways? I suppose you could say it is an inaccurate historical document, however, what of biblical archaeology? It has historical information, don't get me wrong, however, the Bible is a spiritual document more than an historical one.