WWJD, or say about homosexuality...?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...uality-_n_4489452.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


Sin, at least to me, Christian sin is not a list of specific things. The world is full of grey and not black and white, Jesus did not mention homosexuality... he did sit with a prostitute after saving her from an angry mob and make sure she knew she was loved. He did not point out to her that she was a sinner or remind her that adultery was a sin. She simply ensured she knew she was loved. Sin is simply not living up to your God given potential and not respecting yourself others or helping all to attain God given potential.

So, if you live in a culture where sleeping around and not respecting the results of doing so harms people or yourself, if it prevents you from attaining your God Given potential, then its a sin. But its not specifically the sleeping around that is the sin, its what it causes.

Society and Culture change. Time changes things. Science changes things. This is why specific things are not sins. This is also why judging what is a sin for others is not what Jesus taught us to do. Jesus taught us to ensure that we have done what we can to let everyone know they are loved.

Preaching and prosthalitizing about individual sins and pointing out others sinful behavior is the opposite of what Jesus taught us to do... helping people to know they are loved.
 
illuminati Scottie said:
What knd of fascist hitler wannabe is against sleeping around!
Click to expand...

It can be harmful, however modern advances in technology (mostly birth control, but also disease control) has made the space where it is not harmful to oneself or others much larger than it once was.
 
Where do you get he "sat with" a "prostitute" from that story?

The "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" thing was with an adulterer, never specified a "prostitute" and he didn't sit with her, he told her to go forth and sin no more and moved on.

He didn't say it wasn't sin. Does this mean he was a horrible person? He actually called something that was a sin a sin.
 
Damocles said:
Where do you get he "sat with" a "prostitute" from that story?

The "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" thing was with an adulterer, never specified a "prostitute" and he didn't sit with her, he told her to go forth and sin no more and moved on.

He didn't say it wasn't sin. Does this mean he was a horrible person? He actually called something that was a sin a sin.
Click to expand...

The popular version of the story is that she was an adulterer, and he never specifically called anything a sin.
 
Jarod said:
The popular version of the story is that she was an adulterer, and he never specifically called anything a sin.
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of the bible is as lacking as your knowledge of the law, the Constitution and economics. No wonder you're a brain dead loyal Obamatwit.
 
Damocles said:
Go forth and "sin no more" is pretty clear indication that it was a sin.
Click to expand...

Not to me, not when every accuser had left based on undisclosed sin. Her sin could have been anything, as Christianity acknowledges all of mankind are sinners of some type or another. The specifics of her "sin" are never addressed by Jesus, because they do not matter to him. The crowd of sinners were quick to tell of the specifics. Jesus, when left alone, (sitting or standing as you choose to intemperate it does not matter to me) did not turn to her and ask for any details or for a confession.


She was human and thus infected with original sin.

GO forth and sin no more could have been uttered to any of the accusers who left without throwing a stone for any multitude of sins.
 
The story includes portions about Jesus writing in the sand. Some interpretations suggest he was writing the names and sins of the accusers, others say the name, and we don't really know, but the fact is that generic sin was what was being discussed, Jesus never addressed the accusations of "prostitution" or if you prefer, it does not matter for the purposes of this discussion... "adultery".
 
Damocles said:
Go forth and "sin no more" is pretty clear indication that it was a sin.
Click to expand...

It was not an indication that the accusations were a sin, or even valid. It was an acknowledgement that everyone has sin. Open your eyes to the reality that many modern common teachings, when you study the spirit and entirety and themes of the Bible are clearly wrong.
 
Matthew 22: 35 - 40 (traditional interpretation)

[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So where in there does Jesus mention homosexuality? Did Jesus define any individual sins? NO, he gave an overriding principal. Specifics don't work because society and culture change and that is a universal. Specific acts that are sinful in one situation may not be in another situation. If you are loving God and your neighbor, no matter who he is, you are not sinning. That means that if God created you with a focus on homosexual sexuality, if you live your live loving (respecting) what God gave you, if you celebrate and parse God with it, if you use your God given self in a way that loves (respects) others, you are not sinning.
 
This is where Fundamentalists get it sooo flat out wrong.

Jesus came to free us from fundamentalism, unless you call loving God and celebrating what he gave you, fundamentalism.

If you call obeying dark and old rules with no basis in an overriding principal, if you call living in a changed world, by trying to fit the old ways into the principals that did not change Fundamentalism... then you are not acting in concert with what Jesus taught.
 
Basically Jarod, to me you seem to be saying that there is no sin...or at least Jesus didn't consider anything to be sinful. I really can't follow exactly. And if not committing adultery, fornication or theft because they are sin is "obeying dark old rules" then Jesus might as well have stayed where He was. Like I say, I may have you wrong but it's hard to follow. And you are correct in this, I shouldn't laugh.
 
Jarod said:
It was not an indication that the accusations were a sin, or even valid. It was an acknowledgement that everyone has sin. Open your eyes to the reality that many modern common teachings, when you study the spirit and entirety and themes of the Bible are clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

This post of yours is just an indication of spin. Christ spoke directly to the woman, he never said she was innocent, and then told her to go forth and sin no more.

Pretty much everything in your OP that I spoke to is wrong. You gave this example as him "sitting with a prostitute to give her comfort"...

He didn't do any of that. He came upon the execution of an adultress, not a prostitute, there is no indication he "sat with her to comfort her", he didn't even forgive the sin at that time. He got them to stop killing her then informed her to leave and not sin any longer. That you try to pretend that the salient action didn't matter at all is preposterous nonsense and dancing to get past the fact that you are just making stuff up.

He did not pretend it was not a sin, he told her to stop doing it.

Now, your view of "sin" is far more Eastern than it is Western. In Western religions there is a list of stuff that is simply listed "this is a sin", in Eastern religions (Buddhism specifically) it isn't the action of adultery that is the sin, it is the suffering you cause through the action that makes it a "sin".
 
leaningright said:
Basically Jarod, to me you seem to be saying that there is no sin...or at least Jesus didn't consider anything to be sinful. I really can't follow exactly. And if not committing adultery, fornication or theft because they are sin is "obeying dark old rules" then Jesus might as well have stayed where He was. Like I say, I may have you wrong but it's hard to follow. And you are correct in this, I shouldn't laugh.
Click to expand...

Basically Garud was once again trying to prove the board just how big a fool he actually is. He completely fabricated an 'event' in the bible, twisting and spinning it into a story so that he could turn around and use it to bash Robertson. Garud has no more understanding of the bible than he does economics or law. He is an idiot trying to pretend he is intelligent.
 
leaningright said:
Basically Jarod, to me you seem to be saying that there is no sin...or at least Jesus didn't consider anything to be sinful. I really can't follow exactly. And if not committing adultery, fornication or theft because they are sin is "obeying dark old rules" then Jesus might as well have stayed where He was. Like I say, I may have you wrong but it's hard to follow. And you are correct in this, I shouldn't laugh.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying, I am simply saying that there are no actions on earth that are fixed in stone always sin. Sin is based on a larger principal that one can use as a lens to determine if the action is sinful or not. If you are living a lie or not to the glory of God, you are sinning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top