Wouldn't it be hilarious if some of the writers of scripture were the ones that were condemned for their careless words at the time of judgment, and junobet went to the head of the class? You see, the whole conversation here is about who's words are careless. You have chosen to believe that nothing in scripture can be careless. Many of us believe that is patently untrue.
No more of a derail than this: "Wouldn't it be hilarious if some of the writers of scripture were the ones that were condemned for their careless words at the time of judgment, and junobet went to the head of the class?"
Considerably less related. The half of my post you dishonestly edited out makes the connection clearly. Just stop it, Incorporeal. It's humiliating, and not to me.
Well, why don't you give your own advice a whirl and stop trying to humiliate others on this forum... as for me being humiliated.... not happening... I care less what you think.
When you are first, spewing a bunch of unrelated nonsense from slavery, to child-sacrifice in an attempt obfuscate the issue and muddy the waters to shift the conversation away from the CLARITY of what the Bible says about homosexual sexual behaviors....and second, when all you have to offer is your personal wish-fulfilling, speculative, self-deluding, revisionist fantasy and your suggestion that you know what Jesus thinks better than what is expressed in the Bible...There really is nothing to say.
Obviously you didn’t bother to follow the discussion. While it was me who brought up slavery as a side remark to illustrate how Christian attitudes have changed for the better over the centuries since NT-times, it was prospect who further went in to it and then brought up child sacrifice. I merely answered. (Thanks for a courteous and interesting discussion by the way, prospect.) If you think there’s any clarity in what the Bible has to say about homosexual behaviours, it’s either due to wishful thinking on your side, or to a blatant lack of education. Most likely though it’s due to indoctrination: If the Pope changed his opinion on homosexuality tomorrow, you’d probably change yours in a jiffy. As for my last argument: it is a biological fact that God did not create us as men and women, but with very many shades between these two poles. Not only are some of us born with more or less pronounced forms of intersexuality, but very few of us meet the exact statistical norm in all aspects our biological sex is medically defined by. It’s a common error to mistake statistical norms for ethical ones. We ought to get over it.
It was clear that they were to understand the Spirit of the law over the letter of the law. The only Gentile Christians that took it too far were the ones that had any sexual relations outside of wedlock.'He preached' - "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." = 'Marriage.' Anything farther than that was against his teachings.Today is no different, people are cheating,jumping into bed after saying "hello," Idolizing entertainers and sports figures and rockstars,etc.. bashing religions with multiple beliefs.All of these things misdirect people from being devout. I think Paul had the same problem in his time that most Christians who see the world for what it is today. It was a living faith in Paul's time too. Tell me why you think it wouldn't have made sense in Paul's time ? It was seen as "bad symptom" alone.The question is whether today's Christians should see homosexuality as a bad symptom alone. Again why couldn't you agree more with him ? He could have very well just told people to pick a partner,worship Jesus and stay away from prostitution and Children. Yes he rejected the offer because it was a test to show Abraham That he was worthy.I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Not really. The words were Jesus' words. If you read the passage,he said that if you could live like a eunuch, that it was better than either marrying or remarrying. (That part I am not clear on) but it still correlates with what Paul said. I don't know why everyone gives Paul such a bad rap, he changed his Christian-persecuting life to become one. Really, that's what you get out of the parable ? I really don't get that out of the parable at all. The part that I put in Bold is exactly what I'm saying.By that alone it seems that we are agreement. I agree that we should be "loving each other" and I'm not saying that we shouldn't allow Gay people to be with each other, I just don't agree that the Bible should be changed to fit the needs of others. Do you believe that his words - "from the beginning made them male and female" - to be timeless too or that one should have a clock on it,per,se? I agree that the Emphasis was on "hardness of heart.” People seem to dismiss this idea now. While Jesus was making a point, he laid down the law as to what the only exception was for a divorce. In the event that someone was married and their partner cheated on them, they were allowed to remarry but I believe that Jesus advised against it if they could handle "living like a eunuch." This is why I am unclear as to if he meant marry or remarry,it's kind of a guessing game on that part. I agree with the law of the “New Covenant.” This doesn't mean that people should just do what their hearts desire, just saying. There will always be a scientific explanation to why people do what they do,why they crave what they crave but this doesn't mean that people won't be led astray by it somehow. ..
Try to give it a go. Actually he wrote: "1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.6But this I say by way of concession, not of command.7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that." (1 Cor. 7:1-7) Charming, isnt it? Goes to show that romance wasnt Pauls strong point. It probably would not have been even if Paul hadnt taken that much pride in his own sexual abstinence: Romance wasnt that popular a concept in the 1th century. I totally agree that we live in very sinful times in many ways. And yes, in all likelihood 1th century Corinth had a red light district even worse than 21th century Amsterdams. But what exactly is your point here? That living faith was still very young in Pauls time. It wouldnt have made sense for Paul to condone homosexuality because he did not have nowadays concept of homosexuality. In terms of Ideengeschichte (history of ideas) and social history Paul lived about 2 millenniums too early for that. If he lived today hed probably do just that. But see above: he lived 2 millenniums ago. To put it mildly: gay marriage wasnt quite as much of a public issue in his day as it is in ours. The idea of gay marriage wasnt even remotely within Pauls radar range. If I understood you correctly you tried to suggest that in the eyes of the ancient Israelites child sacrifice was evil independently of pagan-cults and so may homosexual behaviour have been. Well, if they thought child sacrifice to be intrinsically evil, why would they think its worthy to be willing to sacrifice a child? To be willing to sacrifice a child, your most precious, to Yahweh was regarded as worthy, to actually sacrifice a child to Moloch detestable. Thankfully it entered the Israelites heads that Yahweh did not really want child sacrifice, otherwise they may have entered a competition with the followers of Moloch about who sacrifices more children to their God. Just as monotheism this was a great step in the history of religion! Read the OT: half of it is about the Israelites desire to maintain a separate identity from neighbouring people with different Gods. The main reason why they thought it to be an abomination for a man to lie with a man was that this was a rather prominent feature of temple prostitution in the Baals cult. Read the passage again. Jesus doesn't say living like a eunuch is better than marrying. There's no value judgement. And saying that Paul was a child of his time, doesn't give him a bad rap. Quite the contrary: it excuses his blatant sexism. Of course that's not what I get out of the parable. I think I made that clear. It's in there though for people who wanted to find excuses for slavery. And by that were both in disagreement with Paul and most other Christians up to the 18th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery You dont need to change the Bible to fit anybodies needs. You just need to read it with wisdom to make the best possible sense of it in order to meet your very own need of finding the way to salvation. God obviously created us as male and female, but thats also obviously not the whole truth: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/294655-abomination-10.html#post1062436174 Also it doesnt necessarily follow that theres an obligation to only have sex with people of the opposite sex. Today we know that God also created some people with a homosexual orientation. Why do you think He did that? The whole point of the New Covenant is that the law will be written on our hearts (Hebrews 8:6-13) and we will know God. Were not quite there yet. Its work in progress. Imho some of us, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu for example, are on a good way though. History shows that people can be led astray by anything, even by reading the Bible the wrong way. All in all I fear were moving in circles in this discussion by now and are repeating the same questions and answers over and over again. Is that because Im so bad at explaining my viewpoint? If so, I hope I did a better job in this post.
OK, this makes me kind of feel like I am annoying you (which I really don't like to do to people) so I will ask you one question more so we can bail on this discussion. Is it your viewpoint that sex outside of either a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage is a sin ?
No, you didnt annoy me, it was an honest inquiry + I started to wonder whether this would lead us anywhere further. As to your question: Im not a legalist, so Id say that depends. Sexuality is a beautiful gift but also a dangerous one in which peoples feelings can get hurt and their self-respect can get lost. From my own life-experience Id say its best to only share that gift with a very special person that one truly loves. And it makes sense to fully commit oneself to one person either in marriage or in a life-partnership. In that sense I'm convinced that the sexuality my lesbian friend shares with her long-term girl friend is just as pure as the sexuality I share with my husband. And if she cheated on her girl-friend it would be just as sinful as if I cheated on my husband. Personally I certainly wasnt a virgin any more when I married. Do I regard all premarital sex I had as sin? No, not all of it. Some of it was pure, beautiful and good. On other occasions I have become guilty of harming my own feelings and that of others. But as part of my learning-process in life all of it was important to me. Had my heart not been broken by others before him, I probably wouldnt be able to fully appreciate my husbands unconditional and committed love today. Sometimes we have to make our own mistakes in order to grow. By having no sex before marriage one can either avoid such mistakes and having to learn the hard way, or one could make another massive mistake: rushing into a marriage too early with the wrong person, just to have what would be legitimate sex from Pauls point of view.
Yes, it is. Even if we "learn" from it and "grow" in "appreciation" from it--it's still a sin. God certainly can teach from sinful acts--He can make "all things new." However, attempting to rationalize sin is calling evil good. Isa.5 [20] Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Let me restate my question. Is it your viewpoint [According to your interpretation of the Bible] that sex outside of either a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage is a sin ? You are correct that it was honest inquiry but I was also trying to offer my viewpoint on a few things. Just to answer to a few of your posts: There is no distinction from this to what I wrote. So even if you include homosexual marriage into that,it's still leaves room for nothing else. Also, this wasn't about Paul not being into romance, it was his teaching on sexual conduct. Paul does get a bad rap from many people on the forum, and I wasn't talking about Your "child of his time" remark, it was just a general statement. "Charming,isn't it" was a sarcastic remark but It's n/a in this context. Ok so you did understand my point . They didn't think it was "worthy to be willing to sacrifice a child," so much but rather worthy of the Lord. This was a test to show that Abraham would Love the Lord more than anyone else,that he would follow him devoutly. Saying that he was worthy to be willing to kill his child isn't what the worthiness was about. Even Jesus said - "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple. " - which goes to show that the disciples had to choose God over all. After you said this - In order: I said - "Jesus' teachings don't permit it. So that is in contrast with slavery." You said - " Sorry, but in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35) for example Jesus seems to be perfectly fine with imprisoning and beating slaves." I said - "Really, that's what you get out of the parable ? I really don't get that out of the parable at all." You said - "Of course that's not what I get out of the parable. I think I made that clear. It's in there though for people who wanted to find excuses for slavery." The problem here is that if you were being sarcastic, you broke continuity of my original point. In this incidence, it was you that wanted to "find excuses for slavery" though I know it wasn't because you are for slavery but rather for the sake of the discussion. We are already past this but I wanted to bring it to your attention. You can exclude Paul from that list. Well I wouldn't consider Jesus' perspective "hogwash" but I read your post.In answer to your question in Bold. God also created serial killers, pedophiles, playboys, whoremongers,and people that enjoy bestiality, so your guess is as good as mine. I did read it . How about if you pick any Bible version that you would like and give me your interpretation. It seems pretty straight forward that he was preaching abstinence to those who could accept it, like the Essenes.
Pardon my interrupting again.... It is an effect of sin--warping the nature of mankind over time. Predilections contrary to the perfect sinless nature with which God imbued Original Man (ie: Adam & Eve before the Fall) are the result of the effects of sin introduced at the Fall of Man, NOT because God made man to be sinful. It is the result of a freely willed choice contrary to the Perfection of God. God also provided the remedy to the Fall--A free choice to accept His Redemption (ie: Jesus). To rationalize sin is a rejection of the need for redemption.
This topic really has no 'good' answer, as scripture and legalism say one thing, but the spirit of 'love covers a multitude of sins,' and walking in love is the fulfillment of the Law, speak as was Jesus' attitude of not judging nor condemning. And, "Man looks on the outside, where God looks on the inside," as well as "God knows the hearts of men.." I addressed this topic of homosexual marriage and the Christian community on another thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/293824-should-church-change-reflect-modern-society-4.html#post1062400900 In the case of my friend who married, had a child, and tried to live a heterosexual Christian life, but his past and initial 'sexual imprinting' never left him, and he fell and thru 'religious' guilt committed suicide. A person's sexual identity reaches to their soul and is part of 'who they are.' And for those who have not closely known or are related to the 'normal' homosexual (normal being not the yahoos one sees in gay pride parades or on Mardi Gras Fat Tuesday), such as fmr VP Dick Cheney and Sen. Portman, both Conservatives with homosexual children who have recently changed their opinions, the subject may seem black & white and 6+ scriptures can be pulled out to back their opinions. But if we look at as being a part of the fall of man, as disease and genetic abnormalities are now frequently being seen, then that must factor into the behavior of men, not just classifying all as 'sin.' And so we hear "hate the sin but love the sinner' a lot, but that also applies to 'modern' divorced ppl who remarry for a multitude of reasons, alcoholics, etc. But then, what is 'loving the sinner?' The Christian community may not 'sanction' what they do, but do they 'tolerate' them and even 'welcome' them into their church buildings? And, so do they treat them as 'equals?!' Is a faithful, committed same-sex couple, who love God thru Jesus Christ, who marry per a JP (just as many heteros also do), and are even willing to adopt foster children and raise them in a loving home, that far from the mark of the 'acceptable' will of God? The scripture often quoted and argued over: Romans 12:2-3 2 but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. Does it speak of 3 levels of the 'will of God,' or are they merely 3 adjectives defining a single 'will of God?' I've wrestled with this subject and being one who focuses on the 'grace of God' and who is not a NT 'legalist," as legalism yields a hard heart and is not fruitful for propagation of the 'Good News.' The summary of my ref'd post was: Not sanctioning as far as forcing any Christian church to marry a Gay couple, but tolerant and accepting of those who love God, and with their faithful bond to each other, not be cast out but allowed to worship as fellow believers in the Spirit of Love behind the words of Christ.....
With the minor peckadillo that I don't find homosexuality a "defect" in any way, the rest of your post is lovely and confirms to me that we may indeed be at the start of a beautiful friendship.
Sexual identity is a matter of perception, both objective and subjective. Objective in the sense of physical anatomy and subjective in the sense of believing something that is not apparent with the physical senses. So, as I see it, based on what you are saying; it must be, in your opinion, OK to accept the fantasy as the reality. In which case, the sexuality that a person perceives him or her self as being should be also noted as a religious practice that has been manifested in the physical realm.
Going back to Genesis, assuming we are looking for the spiritual messages within, when God got done creating all, He said that "it was good." So then, if man & woman He created, then why would there be a need for a homosexual being? The homosexual cannot procreate, but if anything, limits resources for a growing population of heterosexuals! Going back to my college Sociology course, in an experiment where 'normal' rats when crowded together started showing homosexual behavior. Is homosexuality a 'check' on over population then?
Let me also mention what is considered 'homosexual behavior:' Scripture says that for a married couple: 1 Corinthians 7:3-6 3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. Indicating all is 'permissible' (altho "all that is lawful is not necessarily profitable") between a husband & wife, assuming some 'agreement'---extrapolating to "today's hetero sexual practices," would also include 'anal sex' which is often practiced among 'some' hetero couples. Lawful but not necessarily profitable, as was seen with Farrah Fawcett's colo-rectal cancer and the pap virus. Mainly a hygiene issue rather than a spiritual taboo!
It may be here we diverge, as I don't embrace the mythology of the bible as literal truth, the story is more of a cultural icon than anything else to me. As for the sociology course, to ascribe some purpose to the phenomenon, as in something is enforcing a "check" on overpopulation, I find that to be a stretch. It may function as that, but I doubt it is "purpose driven".
If homosexuality of man is 'natural,' then what is the purpose for it? Men/women can be friends of like sex and still love them in a 'phileo' way without taking it to a sexual level. If it is natural as being 'born that way' than there must be a purpose for such or it is an anomaly or genetic variation which evolutionists would then believe is for a reason! Again, a 'natural' check on over population of the species makes sense...
Eating crawdads and lobster is abominable perhaps in the sense as of a child eating his boogers, it does not carry the burden of potential damnation. You correct them and hope they abandon their little abominable ways before their girlfriend or um boyfriend discover their practice years later. There are no dire warnings, social decline and catastrophe associated with seafood consumption, except perhaps the occasional allergic reaction. Gods warnings against homosexuality are however quite severe in terms of both the here and now and in the scope of eternity. One thing we can all certainly agree on however is that no one should eat homosexuals or lay with crustaceans.
