It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homosexuality is Not Condemned by Christianity (Proof from the Bible!)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
With many of the recent threads discussing whether homosexuality is right or wrong, good or bad, a sin or not a sin, etc., I was inspired to create a thread compiling arguments for the reasons that Christians should not condemn homosexuality if they want to actually teach from the bible. Note: I have taken some of my arguments from other threads that went largely unnoticed and edited and expanded on them below, I am not reposting them word for word.


Homosexuality is Not Condemned by Christianity, as Demonstrated Through Proof from the Bible

It seems fitting to begin with the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus, which Christians generally view as the old law.

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22

Many Christians, when asked why they believe that homosexuality is wrong, jump to quote good ol' Leviticus because of how clear it was in taking a stance against homosexuality. This is quite puzzling however, because logically it would seem that if you are going to use the book as a reference for what is wrong and right according to God's will, you would believe that the entire book still applies since of course it is, well, GOD's will! Let’s review some of the laws in Leviticus that a person who still views Leviticus as valid must follow.

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." Leviticus 15:19

We should separate menstruating women and put them into isolation for seven days and make sure that nobody can touch her.

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

I hope you don't wear linen and wool T-shirts, otherwise you're committing a sin against God's will.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

Make sure to give any man that has sex with another man the death penalty, because otherwise you are going against a command of God.


Many more laws in Leviticus also say some pretty ridiculous things. Most Christian's believe that Leviticus is the old law and isn't in effect anymore, but then when they are asked to show why homosexuality is bad they bring up passages from the same book. It seems very hypocritical of them if you ask me.

Only a very few other passages in the bible, like Romans 1:26-1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10 are even used to condemn homosexuality. However, these passages often translated poorly to include the word "homosexual", when in reality the word itself wasn't coined until the late 19th century.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word "malakoi" is often wrongly translated in bibles to mean homosexual, when the actual closest English translation is "soft". The King James Bible much more correctly translates malakoi to mean "effeminate". However, even this translation would present a dilemma: God will permit burly, manly homosexuals to inherit the kingdom but not feminine ones? It's likely that every translation attempt of this word has not been quite dead-on.

Some even try to use 1 Timothy 1:10 as a means for condemning homosexuality through attempting to translate the word "arsenokoitai". Literally, the word meshes together two words- men and boy. Many agree that the word more likely refers to either "masturbators, pimps, prostitutes, boy sex slaves, male prostitutes, or abusive pedophiles" (Religious Tolerance).

(continued below...)




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Now lets take a look at Romans 1, which many claim is the ultimate deal-breaker for people like me who try to prove that the bible does not condemn homosexuality.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Romans 1:26-1:27, New International Verison

If read out of context, like posted above, the passage seems to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural. This is what many Christians cut-and-paste into their argument that God believes homosexuality is wrong. However, let’s view this part of Romans 1in its intended context.

"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Romans 1:21-1:27, New International Version


Now it becomes obvious what Paul is writing about--Paganism and Pagan idolatry worship, including through sexual rituals. Paul is clearly writing about Paganism throughout this passage. The worship of false idols of birds, reptiles, and other animals found in 1:23 explains that the Pagan practice of worshiping earthly and naturalistic idols was forbidden by God.

Many agree that this first part of Romans 1 does refer to Pagan idol worship, but then say that the following verse (1:26-27) is strictly about homosexuality and no longer about Paganism.

It seems odd to think that Paul would begin to write about Paganism and then suddenly shift the entire focus of the letter to homosexuality one sentence later. When the letter is so solid in its description of Pagan idolatry worship, and also, in the interest of maintaining the symmetry of the verses, it is obvious that Paul continues to discuss forbidden Pagan practices as Romans 1 continues.

Romans 1:24-1:27 proceeds to graphically explain that Pagan sex rituals are also strictly forbidden, just as idol worship, because they lead away from the Way of God. But Paul also says something else very intriguing in 1:26-27. He writes that men and women performed "unnatural" acts in these sex rituals, having sexual intercourse with people of their same sex. Does this prove that homosexuality is unnatural? No, not quite.

If you were to hold the belief, as modern scientific research seems to suggest, that sexual orientation is innate and not something that we can choose, then any sexual act for a normally heterosexual person with someone of the same sex is unnatural. Parallelly, a sexual act for a normally homosexual person with someone of the opposite sex is also unnatural.

As common in Pagan rituals, normally heterosexual people would sometimes engage in acts with members of the same sex who were dressed in costume to represent pagan God's. The Pagans believed that they were not having sex with a person but instead with the God manifesting itself in that person. This was a form of idolatry, which is forbidden.

(continued below)

[edit on 4/1/2008 by InterestedObserver]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
To a non-Pagan, a normally heterosexual person having sex with someone of the same sex could only be explained as unnatural, as it departed from their normal sexual orientation. Just as today it would seem unnatural for a homosexual to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, since it goes against their biological sexual orientation.

Paul clearly stated that these types of Pagan rituals were forbidden not because of the “unnatural” sex that took place during them, but because they included the worship of false idols, especially during sexual rituals in which they had sexual intercourse with people representing Pagan Gods. Romans 1:21-27 talks entirely about the forbiddenness of the Pagan worship of idols, and 1:26-27 serves to further describe a common type of this worship in graphic detail.


So in actuality, the bible really says hardly anything regarding homosexuals, spare Leviticus, but recall Leviticus is regarded as the old law and is no longer in effect.

But wait, what about Genesis 19 and the story of Sodom?

Well this one is actually much easier explained than the above scriptures, and it comes with some hard proof as well. Contrary to how many Churches would like to have you think, Sodom was not destroyed because they practiced homosexuality. Sodom was actually destroyed because its citizens were so inhospitable towards the guests of their city. Don't believe it? Let’s use the bible to prove it.

"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." -Ezekiel 16:49-50

Wait... what? Doesn't nearly every Church preach that the sin of Sodom was that they practiced homosexuality? I mean, that's even where we get the word SODOMY from in the first place. It turns out the church likes to keep Ezekiel 16:49-50 in the dark, because it really knocks down their interpretation of the destruction of the city of Sodom and the backbone of their argument against homosexuality. The sin of the Sodomites is that they were "arrogant, overfed, and did not help the poor and needy." Their sin was NOT homosexuality.

Alas, we can now surely come to the conclusion that the bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. Unless of course we were to follow the old laws of Leviticus, which by all means go ahead if you wish, but if you choose to do so please avoid being hypocritical and follow all of them if you believe they are still truly God's will. Hopefully I have cleared up some misunderstandings and curiosities about this subject for at least a few people.


Sources:

www.religioustolerance.org...
www.biblegateway.com...
www.jeramyt.org...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
When Satan tempted Eve in the Garden what was his technique?

God said this... "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

When Satan approached Eve notice how he takes what God said and completely twists it...

" Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"(Gen 3:1)

From "you can eat from any tree except one" to "he said you can't eat from any of these trees?" see how he twists Gods words to make him seem unreasonable and like sin is a good idea?

That is the signature of deception.

Recognize it here in this case of homosexuality?

Romans 1:
"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

There is no escaping the clear intent of this passage"leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

"leaving the natural use of the woman" for "men with men"

Natural is with the women. Unnatural is "men with men". Very clear.
Do not be deceived by distraction.


Even if the context is a pagan ritual, the homosexual act (men inflamed with lust for one another) is described as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion.

Shameful of vile affections comes from the greek word atimia which means 1 dishonour, ignominy, disgrace
cf.blueletterbible.org...

unnatural is the opposite of the Greek physis which means opposing monstrous, abnormal, perverse making it mean thse very thing since it is the opposite.
cf.blueletterbible.org...

indecent or unseemly comes form Greek aschēmosynē which means unseemliness, an unseemly deed ,of one's nakedness, shame.
cf.blueletterbible.org...

It is finally descrbed as a perversion or error from the Greek word planē which means error, wrong opinion relative to morals or religion
cf.blueletterbible.org...

I judge the sin not the sinner. We all have our cross to bear and temptations to avoid. That doesn't mean we can change the rules and call it acceptable. Let no one fool you. The Bible is very clearly opposed to homosexuality. They can try to cloud the waters to justify sin but it doesn't change the very clear Biblical stance against it.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 



Hopefully I have cleared up some misunderstandings and curiosities about this subject for at least a few people.


No, you have engaged in deliberate obfuscation.

As we are fortunate to enjoy freedom of speech, you have the right to deny what Christians of all persuasions throughout the ages have understood en masse from the passages you quoted. I'm sure many Christians will wonder whether you have given equal consideration to what the Bible says about misleading people as to what the Scriptures say: "...The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures". (2 Peter 3:16)

You are simply denying the plain teaching of the Bible: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions... and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude verse 7) Fortunately for us sinners, God's anger for sin was poured out on Christ, who offered himself in place of us, so that Chrsit suffered the punishment for every sin, (including sexual immorality of every type,) so that those who have lived in the same way as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah can receive God's forgiveness if they believe the Gospel and turn from living according to their own desires, and live from then on for God's glory.

You do no-one any favours by telling them they can be accepted by God while continuing to practice immorality, which, according to the Scriptures, is any sexual activity outside life-long marriage between one man and one woman. You are offering a false hope, a false Gospel, a deception.

This is what the Bible tells us about Heaven: "Nothing profane will ever enter it: no-one who does what is vile or false, but only those written in the Lamb's book of life". (Revelation 21:27) That book is full of people who had lived in everything from prostitution to homosexuality to adultery, murder and rape before they came face to face with Christ's words and deeds. But all of them turned from every form of immoral and ungodly behaviour when they became His disciple.

That is the nature of Biblical Christianity. It transforms sinners like me, and leaves us awed at how God ever cared enough about us to send His only Son to the Cross, so that we might be forgiven, and learn to live like Him.

Jesus told the parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22:1-14) to warn that there will be people who try to enter Heaven on their own terms, not His. The king says to such a person: "Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?" The verse continues: "The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him up hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'". (Verses 12& 13) People who end up experiencing this will not think kindly of those who taught them that everything would be fine if they continued to practice immorality.

People are free to make their choice. They can follow you, or they can follow the plain teaching of the Bible.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
oh ffs here we go again.


can't we just all play nicely?

Look,you're not going to change the views of some of the devout Christians in here,so is there any point in this?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Goodness. How many threads like this are we going to have? About five (that I am aware of) have been made over the last few weeks. Since it took me pages upon pages in another thread to explain it all even resorting to the Hebrew and Greek only to fall on deaf ears, here is a brief summary of my conclusion on the other thread:

_______________________________________________________________________________________



Anyone remember the story of Eve in the Garden? What did the serpent ask her while he tempted her? 'Hath God said?'

Did God really say not to eat the fruit? Did God really say if you eat it you would really die?

This is the exact same scenario going on in this thread.

Did Jesus technically mention homosexuality? Did Jesus technically say homosexuality is a sin?

Yes, the Bible in both Old and New Testaments mention clearly homosexuality is a sin. Jesus also set down guidelines for male/female, child/parent, pastor/congregation, etc., relationships. What is conspicuously missing from this? Homosexuality. What is specifically mentioned in the NT passages sites over the last several pages as being a sin? Homosexuality.

Many apologies for being the bearer of politically incorrect news but yes, 'God Hath said.'

EDIT: Damn you, Whammy! You stole my argument you copycat!


[edit on 4/1/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Hey i learned it at church... all deceptive teaching bears that mark.

I will arm wrestle you for it.:bash:

Let's share.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I will arm wrestle you for it.:bash:


I'd rather have a break dancing contest to determine the winner.



I win!

Can't arm wrestle. You'd break my toothpick arm!



Seriously, though... CONFIRMATION!!!





posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcidtasticLook,you're not going to change the views of some of the devout Christians in here,so is there any point in this?


I'm not here to change the minds of fundamentalist Christians, their minds are already made up from years of being brainwashed. I'm here to let other Christians that have always pondered why the church was against homosexuality know that it really shouldn't be if the scripture were to be followed correctly. I'm also here to let homosexuals know that they should be accepted by the Christian church (many Episcopalian churches do already)

There's no possible way to change the minds of the fundamentalists unless Jesus himself came down to Earth and told them the true Way. Their minds are made up already. They're even so die-hard as to draw comparisons between me and the "Devil". Good thing I realize that the Devil and the concept of a fiery, burning Hell were invented to scare people into converting to Christianity for almost its entire history! I am very truly a Christian, but I seriously believe that Christianity is in need of some serious reform.

[edit on 4/1/2008 by InterestedObserver]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 





They're even so die-hard as to draw comparisons between me and the "Devil".


It wasn't directed at you personally. I believe you have been deceived by a false and dangerous teaching. That teaching has been around and is nothing new. It's authorship is exposed by it's deceptive nature.

It's a nice sentiment to want to defend a segment of society that is ostracized. We can care for the people spiritually without excusing the behavior. The Bible is very clear on the behavior. Part of our challenge in life is to overcome our weaknesses with Gods help.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Wow! another thread on this? I'm to blame I guess for starting the original thread. Look, nothing can be further from the truth guys. Being gay is wrong. In nature, in the bible and with God. It's very simple. Trying to use the bible as an easy way out wont work. on my thread, 90% of users have agreed that homosexuality is wrong. You don't realize how many U2U's I got over this and how many people called me names over it. I'm a christian and I don't need to read the bible to know common sense. Gay people are against God. And that explains why many of them are atheits.

take care everyone and stay straight.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 



I'm not here to change the minds of fundamentalist Christians, their minds are already made up from years of being brainwashed.
No, being abject sinners like the next man, we turn to God's wisdom, not our own. Not brainwashed, but humbled by what God has said and done. Years, decades, of daily Bible reading and prayer for light from His Spirit. "Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2)

Transformed through honest turning from sin as a result of diligent Bible study? Yes! Brainwashed? That is for those who soak up the dross dished out by the mass media that reflects the thinking of the worldly wise-men of this age.


I'm here to let other Christians that have always pondered why the church was against homosexuality know that it really shouldn't be if the scripture were to be followed correctly. I'm also here to let homosexuals know that they should be accepted by the Christian church (many Episcopalian churches do already)
As I have previously clearly demonstrated, you twist the Scriptures, then claim to follow them correctly. Homosexuals always have been accepted, and welcomed by true churches, in the same way as all who have practised sexual immorality. Christ gave his life that all such sin might be forgiven in those who turn from a sinful lifestyle.

There have always been those who teach that you can go on willfully disobeying God's Word, living immorally, and still think of yourself as a Christian, because God will forgive all in His grace. The Bible warns against such false teachers and the dangers of following them. "Certain men, who were designated for this judgment long ago, have come in by stealth; they are ungodly, turning the grace of our God into promiscuity..." (Jude verse 4). Apparently this is now an advert for the Episcopalian church.


There's no possible way to change the minds of the fundamentalists unless Jesus himself came down to Earth and told them the true Way.
Of course the apostles, who spent years living with Jesus and risking their lives to pass on his teaching did not know the true Way. If Christians want to know what He taught, they need to wait until InterestedObserver comes on the scene.


Good thing I realize that the Devil and the concept of a fiery, burning Hell were invented to scare people into converting to Christianity for almost its entire history!
Here you put the last nail in your own coffin. Anyone who reads Jesus' own teaching will see that he repeatedly, consistently taught that the very reason he chose to come into the world was to save us from sin and its consequent eternal judgment: hell.

Is a parent who warns its child about the dangers of going near a fire guilty of scare tactics? No, he/she knows what they are talking about, and love compels them to warn their child repeatedly, and sternly. A parent who doesn't have the moral fibre to give the warnings, and even says "It's not a real danger" would be foolish and morally reprehensible.

You claim to know better than Jesus. (Apparently so does the Episcopalian 'Church', so-called.) I therefore end by completing the quote from Jude v.4: "...turning the grace of our God into promiscuity and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Being gay is wrong. In nature, in the bible and with God.


Actually, it's not. The only arguments against homosexuality are religious arguments. In nature, homosexuality is found all the time. Beetles, sheep, orangutans, and dolphins are among a few. Homosexuality is found throughout nature. Furthermore, twin study research seems to suggest the same thing. It was found that with identical twins, if one was homosexual, 52% of the time the other was also homosexual. This provides even more strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic and not something that can be chosen. If it were genetic, then my arguments are infallible.

That is the basis of my argument for Romans 1: if sexual orientation is determined by genes then I am not distorting anything written in that passage. My other arguments are not dependent on this however, so we will have to wait and see to find the truth through more definitive scientific studies.


Originally posted by pause4thought
You claim to know better than Jesus.


Oh do I? I'm actually not familiar with one thing that I said implying that I know better than Jesus. Even if I wanted to say I knew better than him on this subject, I wouldn't be able to because he never even talked about homosexuality, so either way I would have no proof.

I never claimed to know better than the Lord, but I did claim that the bible, after 2000 years of being handed down and handed down, translated and retranslated, is definitely going to have edits that were made to reflect the times, or the wishes, or the feelings, of people in positions of power (such as in the Catholic Church). I firmly believe that the concept of a burning Hell was also created this way.

Hell is a complete and eternal separation from God. The loneliness would be unbearable. Hell is not a burning pit of flames where demons prod you with pitchforks.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 



Homosexuality is found throughout nature.
Animals frequently tear each other to pieces and eat their own young, as I pointed out on a recent similar thread. They have no knowledge of good and evil, so their behaviour has no bearing on human morality.


If it [homosexuality] were genetic, then my arguments are infallible.
Interesting how you deny that the Bible is infallible, but claim it for your own arguments. This says a lot.

Your arguments are not infallible - they are groundless to anyone who knows and believes the Bible. Even if homosexuality were inherted, so is human proclivity to sexual immorality of other types.

According to your logic, sex before marriage and adultery would be fine, as it comes from a natural predisposition. You are simply advocating living according to the natural nature of man, which is inclined towards sin and immorality. Again you demonstrate to all that you have not yet understood the elementary principles of the Word of God, which, according to Hebrews 6:1&2 include "the foundation of repentence (i.e. 'turning away') from dead works".

Frankly most of the 4-8 year old Sunday school kids I know have a firmer grasp of Scripture than you display. Your lack of understanding has as its core the same spiritual blindness that gripped the Pharisees of old. They sought popularity through teaching externals, but knew nothing of the inner reality of a new heart that rejects sin and loves God and His Word, as Jesus did. Jesus told them: "You travel over land and sea to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!" (Matthew 23:15)


There's no possible way to change the minds of the fundamentalists unless Jesus himself came down to Earth and told them the true Way.
I pointed out that you imply here that you know better than Jesus.

You retorted:

I'm actually not familiar with one thing that I said implying that I know better than Jesus.
You really are getting yourself in knots here. You are so blind that you haven't noticed that JESUS HIMSELF ALREADY CAME DOWN TO EARTH AND TOLD US THE TRUE WAY. We follow what he, and the apostles who passed on his teaching, said, and that's why people call us fundamentalists! We believe it and teach it. You deny it and twist it.


...he never even talked about homosexuality...
Jesus said that what comes from the mouth originates in the heart, and reveals its sinful state (Matthew 15:18) This includes all manner of "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false tesimonies, blasphemies... (Matt. 15:19). 'Sexual immoralties' are all sexual acts outside male-female marriage, which is the universal testimony of the Old and New Testaments.

Admit that you don't like what the Bible teaches instead of denying it and twisting it. At least you would be consistent.


I did claim that the bible, after 2000 years of being handed down and handed down, translated and retranslated, is definitely going to have edits that were made to reflect the times, or the wishes, or the feelings, of people in positions of power (such as in the Catholic Church).


These rehashed claims again display your ignorance, and reveal the true nature of your teaching: "Listen to me, not the Bible. You need me to interpret it for you, as it's not trustworthy on its own." The Catholic church similarly kept people in ignorance until the mid 20th Century by forbidding people to read the Bible in their own language without a priest to interpret it for them.

A myriad of scholarly books destroy this teaching. People who wish to be informed could try The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, but there are plenty of others too.

Jesus taught hell is real, I agree. Greek 'gehenna' meant 'place of burning'.

[edit on 2/4/08 by pause4thought]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Messiah says He did not come to do away with the law that you find in the old covenant.

matthew5:17 do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets;I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18for truely I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away,not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished.

not only has heaven and earth not passed away yet but when Messiah returns to rule the earth from zion/jerusalem the temple will be built again and animal sacrifices will be resumed by the aaronic/levitical priesthood(ezekiel40-48)

we are so used to doing it our way it is going to come as quite a shock for all of us to start thinking differently and start living our lives the way G-D intends--------for our own good.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
These rehashed claims again display your ignorance, and reveal the true nature of your teaching: "Listen to me, not the Bible. You need me to interpret it for you, as it's not trustworthy on its own."


I will only respond to this, as I have already defended myself from the indictments in the rest of your post and see no reason to keep repeating answers and getting the same response again and again.

I do not at all think that people need to me to interpret the bible for them, that is ridiculous. I believe that by me giving another perspective on the scriptures of the bible, one that many actually already do support believe it or not, it will open the eyes of others who are attempting to seek answers.

I'm sure that my arguments have been brought up, argued, and defended before, but I'm here to attempt to further interpret the scriptures of the bible and also to spread the beliefs and views that many in the Christian faith already hold. I do this to let others know that there are alternate interpretations on the stance of homosexuality in the bible, that the fundamentalist view is not the only one. Just as there are other denominations of Christianity that teach different interpretations of other parts of the bible, there are different interpretations of whether homosexuality is condemned by the bible.

Also, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't use quotes to give the impression that I said something that I very much did not write.


Originally posted by yahn goodey
we are so used to doing it our way it is going to come as quite a shock for all of us to start thinking differently and start living our lives the way G-D intends--------for our own good.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are saying that Christians should live by Levitical Law? If so, then you have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. But, I would like to point out that if we are still to follow this law, then answer this.

Peter's vision as explained in Acts 11:5-9, seems to suggest that the old law (Levitical Law) was no longer in effect, as all that was unclean was now cleansed by God. Which is why Acts 11:1-18 ends with,

"18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."" Acts 11:18.

It seems that God had repealed the old law himself, what do you have to say to that? Or perhaps you are Jewish, which in that case this argument is null to you and I completely understand



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are saying that Christians should live by Levitical Law? If so, then you have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. But, I would like to point out that if we are still to follow this law, then answer this.


I would answer this with Romans 7:6. We are no longer obligated to uphold the Torah. But that is a whole other topic.

I'm not sure I really understand the point to all this. Why are you attempting to twist Gods words to fit your own need? At that point you become no better than the televangelists who promote "seed" donations so that you can be rich. You are walking on dangerous ground my friend. Because someday you will have to answer for everything you have done.

I am going to go on the assumption that you claim to be a Christian. If you claim to not believe in God or Christ then the conversation is pointless and you have no motive to bring it up other than to sow seeds of descent among Gods children. But I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Moving on in the assumption then. As someone who knows the bible apparently you should be familiar with the sermon on the mount Mathew Chapters 5,6,7. I will post a small yet completely in context portion of it here.


Mt 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mt 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Mt 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


I would especially like for you to take a real close look at 5:19. Called least in the Kingdom of Heaven is a bad place to be. Examine your motives here my friend. Is this a topic that hits close to home with you? Is that why you are attempting to justify what the bible tells us in numerous places to be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord? This is not intended to be an attack. I am simply trying to get you to look inside yourself, and if you decide to share what you find, we can all understand why you would say these things.

You have posted several scriptural quotes to try and support your claims. But do you have any scripture that actually says that it is acceptable for a man to sleep with another man? By our very natures, the bible tells us, we are sinful, so just because it comes naturally to some does not make it acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

I am going to toss this out for what its worth. If you would like to discuss this via u2u feel free to message me. It might make for an easier conversation. You don't have to but you are more than welcome.

Brother to the world
Dave



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Actually, it does not hit anywhere near close to home as I don't have any friends (at least that I know of) that are homosexual. And trust me when I say I am completely, 100% heterosexual. The reason that I am so spiritedly arguing this point is because it is what I think is right and I truly believe that the scriptures do not disagree.

A good example is this, during the Civil Rights Movement people that were not black stood up for the rights of blacks when they were being persecuted. They did not have to be black to see what was right. My situation is the same, only for gays and lesbians.

I do not have to be gay to realize that it is not a sin to be homosexual. That is comparable to saying that it is a sin to be mentally retarded (hear me out on this), since they are both caused by genetics. Neither party aforementioned has a choice to be or not to be. Though this is an admittedly extreme example it is still valid, because where genetics are responsible for human qualities choice is not an option over biological construct.

Furthermore, of course I've seen no scriptures that say it's okay for a man to sleep with another man, but if what I'm saying is correct than there are no scriptures that say that it's not okay either (spare Leviticus, but once again that is the old law).


Zombie, I am gathering that you are using Matthew 5:18 to say that the old law must still be followed. If you were not, then excuse me, but are you not familiar with Galatians?

"10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."" Galatians 3:10-11

"24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24


Faith is the way to righteousness, not the old law. Levitican Law is no longer to be followed because faith in Christ is now the Way to being accepted by God.

So like I said, if the old law is no longer valid and if we learn that sexual orientation is completely driven by genetics, my argument would indeed be the correct one--that homosexuality should not be condemned by Christians.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
A few rebuttal's.



Zombie, I am gathering that you are using Matthew 5:18 to say that the old law must still be followed. If you were not, then excuse me, but are you not familiar with Galatians?


If you are going to quote me then do it correctly. I referred you to 5:19 not 5:18. I started my post with a verse that you were apparently unwilling to look up for yourself. So I will copy and paste it here for you "Ro 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. NIV"



A good example is this, during the Civil Rights Movement people that were not black stood up for the rights of blacks when they were being persecuted. They did not have to be black to see what was right. My situation is the same, only for gays and lesbians.


Big difference here. The bible says homosexuality is wrong. It does not say being black, white, yellow, red, blue, or chartreuse is wrong. You are comparing apples to oranges.



I do not have to be gay to realize that it is not a sin to be homosexual. That is comparable to saying that it is a sin to be mentally retarded (hear me out on this), since they are both caused by genetics. Neither party aforementioned has a choice to be or not to be. Though this is an admittedly extreme example it is still valid, because where genetics are responsible for human qualities choice is not an option over biological construct.


Where has there been solid evidence that homosexuality is genetic? Oh thats right you took care of that one later in your post


So like I said, if the old law is no longer valid and if we learn that sexual orientation is completely driven by genetics, my argument would indeed be the correct one--that homosexuality should not be condemned by Christians.


It has not been proven and until such time your argument is not the correct one. It is a "possible" argument. But even if it were "proven" it still would not hold water. As I pointed out, just because it comes naturally does not make it OK. Sin is out nature. I don't know how else to say it.

Ever looked at a woman walking down the street and said to yourself "Man she is hot, the things I would do to her"? Of course you have. Its natural. I've done it. Any man has done it. I still do it from time to time. I try not to but I do. But it comes naturally to me. Even following your "genetic" defense, its still a sin.

"Mt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
Mt 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." NIV

So your genetic theory doesn't hold water. I am not saying that a homosexual is necessarily condemned to hell. If they repent (more on this in a minute) and accept Jesus they will be saved.

Now onto repentance: If you look at the Greek text you will find the word μετανοέω or in english characters metanoeō the meaning of which is to "think differently, or reconsider. Alot of people think that to repent means to walk completely away from sin. Not gonna happen. Its natural for us. But we are told to recognize the sin, and understand it for what it is. Even though it is natural, sin is still an abomination. We do not have free reign to do whatever we want though. Once we recognize a sin for what it is, we should make every effort to avoid repeating the same sins. It doesn't always work like that but we should try.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join