Homosexuality is not a sin

Jarod said:
Not to me, but SOME try to hold us to a few old testament "rules" while ignoring others.
Click to expand...

The basic misunderstanding is in what was a cleansing ritual (not wearing blended fabrics, not planting two crops in one field, bathing the feet, anointing yourself before going to temple) as opposed to what is a sin (listed as an abomination and/or a sin, you know murder, etc.). The cleansing rituals go by the wayside because the "blood of Christ" is what cleanses you and makes you ready (it "circumcises your heart")...

The sins are still sins though, and often are listed again. Such as homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans as well as more obliquely in 1 Timothy where it is called in Greek: arsenokoites... which is a rather descriptive word but it basically means "defiling with sodomy" in usage at that time.

While it is not a "sin" in my philosophy, it is understandable that a Christian could consider something directly referenced as a sin in their religious text to be a sin.
 
Damocles said:
The basic misunderstanding is in what was a cleansing ritual (not wearing blended fabrics, not planting two crops in one field, bathing the feet, anointing yourself before going to temple) as opposed to what is a sin (listed as an abomination and/or a sin, you know murder, etc.). The cleansing rituals go by the wayside because the "blood of Christ" is what cleanses you and makes you ready (it "circumcises your heart")...

The sins are still sins though, and often are listed again. Such as homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans as well as more obliquely in 1 Timothy where it is called in Greek: arsenokoites... which is a rather descriptive word but it basically means "defiling with sodomy" in usage at that time.

While it is not a "sin" in my philosophy, it is understandable that a Christian could consider something directly referenced as a sin in their religious text to be a sin.
Click to expand...

I understand why some Christians believe it is a sin, I do not understand why they believe it is more of a sin than for example divorce, or conceving a child out of wedlock while married to another woman or such...

They would vote for a twice divorced and unapologetic adulterous Trump, and not for a gay Buttigieg.
 
Damocles said:
The basic misunderstanding is in what was a cleansing ritual (not wearing blended fabrics, not planting two crops in one field, bathing the feet, anointing yourself before going to temple) as opposed to what is a sin (listed as an abomination and/or a sin, you know murder, etc.). The cleansing rituals go by the wayside because the "blood of Christ" is what cleanses you and makes you ready (it "circumcises your heart")...

The sins are still sins though, and often are listed again. Such as homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans as well as more obliquely in 1 Timothy where it is called in Greek: arsenokoites... which is a rather descriptive word but it basically means "defiling with sodomy" in usage at that time.

While it is not a "sin" in my philosophy, it is understandable that a Christian could consider something directly referenced as a sin in their religious text to be a sin.
Click to expand...

Is adultery still a sin? What is the Biblical solution to adulterers? My guess is that it isn't electing them to high positions in the Republican Party. :thup:

IMO, "bearing false witness" is also a mortal sin. Yet again, We, the People have no problem with electing fucking liars to high office.

Assholes who cherry-pick out of the Bible are not being Christian. Being a Christian isn't a 9 to 5, M-F belief. It's 24/7.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Is adultery still a sin? What is the Biblical solution to adulterers? My guess is that it isn't electing them to high positions in the Republican Party. :thup:

IMO, "bearing false witness" is also a mortal sin. Yet again, We, the People have no problem with electing fucking liars to high office.

Assholes who cherry-pick out of the Bible are not being Christian.
Click to expand...

Yet those same people would never vote for a gay man.
 
Damocles said:
The basic misunderstanding is in what was a cleansing ritual (not wearing blended fabrics, not planting two crops in one field, bathing the feet, anointing yourself before going to temple) as opposed to what is a sin (listed as an abomination and/or a sin, you know murder, etc.). The cleansing rituals go by the wayside because the "blood of Christ" is what cleanses you and makes you ready (it "circumcises your heart")...

The sins are still sins though, and often are listed again. Such as homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans as well as more obliquely in 1 Timothy where it is called in Greek: arsenokoites... which is a rather descriptive word but it basically means "defiling with sodomy" in usage at that time.

While it is not a "sin" in my philosophy, it is understandable that a Christian could consider something directly referenced as a sin in their religious text to be a sin.
Click to expand...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT

Is it still wrong for a slave not to serve his master as he would Christ? Or is that a cleansing ritual?
 
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

It this still permissible? Or was it a cleansing ritual?
 
Jarod said:
I understand why some Christians believe it is a sin, I do not understand why they believe it is more of a sin than for example divorce, or conceving a child out of wedlock while married to another woman or such...

They would vote for a twice divorced and unapologetic adulterous Trump, and not for a gay Buttigieg.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily believe that they do. They believe that every single person has sinned and come short of the "glory of God". Even small sin can keep you from their paradise in the heavens without either the cleansing of the old covenant or the cleansing of the new (belief in Jesus).

As with Trump and Buttigieg they voted their freedom rather than because either of them are a "good Christian". Folks like my mother's pastor said things like, "God can even work through a sinner like Donald Trump to progress his Church"... If they felt that Buttigieg would appoint folks like Amy Coney Barrett to the SCOTUS they would vote for him if they were from that Church... not because he was more Christian or even a good one but because "God's Church" could benefit from it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Is adultery still a sin? What is the Biblical solution to adulterers? My guess is that it isn't electing them to high positions in the Republican Party. :thup:

IMO, "bearing false witness" is also a mortal sin. Yet again, We, the People have no problem with electing fucking liars to high office.

Assholes who cherry-pick out of the Bible are not being Christian. Being a Christian isn't a 9 to 5, M-F belief. It's 24/7.
Click to expand...

I actually spoke about this in my very next post. I'll see if I can find it for you, wait I already did... it is in this thread...
 
All my reading, it was not a sin, but an abomination, something very different from sin.

“What is an "Abomination"?
An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous times. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.
Rituals and Rules
Rituals and Rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith.
The New Testament – Scripture Study
Romans 1:24-27
Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.
This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul’s readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.”

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom...part-ii-what-the-bible-does-and-does-not-say/

 
Damocles said:
I actually spoke about this in my very next post. I'll see if I can find it for you, wait I already did... it is in this thread...
Click to expand...
I'm clarifying because too many assholes sin then claim "we're all sinners" while conveniently forgetting that sinning intentionally is not repentance.

Bill Clinton was famously epitomized the "sin all week, repent on Sunday" Christian which, IMO, is only being a lip-service Christian. Fuck him too.
 
Jarod said:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

It this still permissible? Or was it a cleansing ritual?
Click to expand...


First: Christ did tell folks that they need to follow the law of the country that they live in. Do our laws allow you to stone your children? Because Christ actually said something about things like that....

Second: Can you think of one instance in that scripture where this was done? I'll give you a hint.. you cannot.

While this does describe a process, it does not mean that you are allowed to kill your child for being rebellious without process, nor does it mean that the Elders just go around hucking rocks at your kid. In today's society you can look at this more like the death penalty in a state like Texas. The child would need to be convicted by these Elders... and it simply didn't happen. While many folks were stoned for things like Adultery, not so many for just not eating their peas. While we would think of this as harsh, even then folks loved their kids and this was simply not done, and the Elders didn't lightly slaughter children.
 
Damocles said:
First: Christ did tell folks that they need to follow the law of the country that they live in. Do our laws allow you to stone your children? Because Christ actually said something about things like that....

Second: Can you think of one instance in that scripture where this was done? I'll give you a hint.. you cannot.

While this does describe a process, it does not mean that you are allowed to kill your child for being rebellious without process, nor does it mean that the Elders just go around hucking rocks at your kid. In today's society you can look at this more like the death penalty in a state like Texas. The child would need to be convicted by these Elders... and it simply didn't happen. While many folks were stoned for things like Adultery, not so many for just not eating their peas. While we would think of this as harsh, even then folks loved their kids and this was simply not done, and the Elders didn't lightly slaughter children.
Click to expand...

The book was describing what SHOULD be done. Yes a process proscribed by the Bible. it was not describing the law in all the world at the time. Why should it not be the process today? In a perfect Christian world, would it be the process? You know your “argument” is disingenuous.

Many Modern Conservative Christians chose to discriminate against gay people, using the Bible as justification, while ignoring the parts that are not convenient to them.
 
Jarod said:
The book was described what should be done. Yes a process proscribed by the Bible. Why should it not be the process today? In a perfect Christian world, would it be the process?
Click to expand...
As I said, you can follow that process, see if the Elders still hang by the city gates and are willing to convict your kid... but I would warn you that the laws of this land may make it difficult and your god told you to follow those laws.

Many Modern Conservative Christians chose to discriminate against gay people, using the Bible as justification, while ignoring the parts that are not convenient to them.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this, but so far your examples have been easily explained even for someone that doesn't follow the religion.

What I find interesting are the folks that do this while wearing a D jersey and pretend that they are not. This is the basic "mote in the eye" thing that your religion talks about. You want them to do what you want rather than follow the religion as they understand it simply because you think that this particular sin should be discounted like you believe they discount other sins simply because they vote for folks you consider a sinner.

So far, even as someone who is not a Christian, I have been able to explain to you why these folks see these things as sins and why they may still vote for a "sinner", even one they think isn't much of a Christian while all you have done is tell me that they should ignore the parts of their religion that you want them to ignore and find important "sins" that you want them to find important.
 
Damocles said:
The basic misunderstanding is in what was a cleansing ritual (not wearing blended fabrics, not planting two crops in one field, bathing the feet, anointing yourself before going to temple) as opposed to what is a sin (listed as an abomination and/or a sin, you know murder, etc.). The cleansing rituals go by the wayside because the "blood of Christ" is what cleanses you and makes you ready (it "circumcises your heart")...

The sins are still sins though, and often are listed again. Such as homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans as well as more obliquely in 1 Timothy where it is called in Greek: arsenokoites... which is a rather descriptive word but it basically means "defiling with sodomy" in usage at that time.

While it is not a "sin" in my philosophy, it is understandable that a Christian could consider something directly referenced as a sin in their religious text to be a sin.
Click to expand...

What is the definition of homosexuality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top