| Christian Philosophy & Ethics The forum to discuss philosophy and ethics from a Christian perspective. |
 | | 
26th February 2009, 12:31 AM
|  | Urban Nomad. Literally.
     
| | Join Date: 2nd November 2007 Location: Freezing, America
Posts: 14,478
Blessings: 1,538,287 My Mood 
Reps: 416,617,700,174,524,864 (power: 416,617,700,174,543) | | Originally Posted by IAmLegion.  "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."
Yeahhh....this is a tough one.
Modern Christians aren't to eager to bring this one up. What are we saying as a whole now? Seriously, tell me what you think. Is the Pentateuch the "Old" Testament, outdated and (bluntly) insane? Who can find the best glasses for the omnipotent nearsightedness of God?
The Law is separated into three main kinds of laws: sacrificial, ceremonial, and moral. This is indicated by the sections used and the wording used. Things that required sacrifices for atonement are moral laws, for example.
When Jesus came, He fulfilled the sacrificial and ceremonial laws by dying on the cross and declaring that His way was for everyone, not just the Jews. Jesus also made a new covenant with us, one that did not require stoning.
__________________ Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr"> "Offense" is something TAKEN. No one MAKES anyone feel anything. IF we are offended by something, we CHOSE to be offended by it...
But I think that OFTEN, people confuse discussion with fighting. Disagreeing is not personal, it is not an attack, it is not disrespectful or flaming, it is not offensive per se. It ONLY means, "I disagree." Nothing more. Nothing less. It suggests NO emotional response whatsoever.
NO ONE is mandated to agree with anyone. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
26th February 2009, 12:36 AM
| | Senior Contributor
45  
 | | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 134,034 My Mood 
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by IAmLegion. HUNTINGMAN!!! Thank you. BRILLIANT. Intelligence is refreshing among the static. Solid argument. I doubt you want to be associated with me, but I think that we both agree that: The bible condemns homosexuality as a definite sin. It is an enumerated position. Correct?
Ah, the name. Good catch. Different allusion though.
Well apparently someone was looking for a reason to hit the report button (obvious enough), so Ill lay off the screenname other than to repeat that is quite a peculiar one for this particular forum.
That said, homosexual sex is an abomination and anyone who believes differently is fooling themselves.
Last edited by HuntingMan; 26th February 2009 at 12:42 AM.
|
26th February 2009, 12:38 AM
| | Senior Contributor
45
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 134,034 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Stinker
I think it best to be silent where the Bible is silent. When one has to 'go outside the Bible' to find support for a doctrine, I think that is when one is in trouble. So just as the Bible does not address transexuality/transgender, the hermaphrite, and homosexual men and women, neither did the Law of Moses address lesbianism.
So since the Nt doesnt mention bestiality or having sex with my mother....even tho the law DOES mention those, are you saying under this covenant that we should be silent about bestiality or incest ? |
26th February 2009, 12:39 AM
|  | Senior Contributor
  
| | Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 8,325
Blessings: 45,793,910
Reps: 178,751,386,065,373,056 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by HuntingMan So since the Nt doesnt mention bestiality or having sex with my mother....even tho the law DOES mention those, are you saying under this covenant that we should be silent about bestiality or incest ?
Consentual homosexuality is not comparable to incest or beastiality. |
26th February 2009, 12:43 AM
| | Senior Contributor
45
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 134,034 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LightHorseman Consentual homosexuality is not comparable to incest or beastiality.
Actually its exactly the same since Gods law has forbidden them all equally.
Nice try tho...."consensual' sin is still sin.... |
26th February 2009, 12:45 AM
| | Senior Contributor
| | Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 8,325
Blessings: 45,793,910
Reps: 178,751,386,065,373,056 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by HuntingMan Actually its exactly the same since Gods law has forbidden them all equally.
Nice try tho...."consensual' sin is still sin....
I think you are wrong.
God doesn't condemn things without reason. Since there is no reason to condemn homosexuality, God doesn't condemn it. |
26th February 2009, 12:46 AM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 25th February 2009
Posts: 44
Blessings: 71,780
Reps: 3,598,740 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LightHorseman I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
In my opinion, consentual homosexuality doesn't harm any third party, and makes the participants happier than they would be without it, so
a. It does no harm
b. It actually improves some people's condition
ergo, theres nothing wrong with it.
I'm sorry I've been egging you on. I have the same exact respect for humanity. I cringe at 20:13. I've been trying to find someone with an opposing view to talk with, to hear their side. I just wasted a lot of your time. Sorry. Its nice to see a humane side to the religion though. But, I think saying "nothing" is wrong contradicts the words of God. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, some question the eyesight of God. |
26th February 2009, 12:49 AM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 25th February 2009
Posts: 44
Blessings: 71,780
Reps: 3,598,740 (power: 0) | | | So Huntingman, you take the Pentateuch's condemnation and penalty as dogmatic truth that needs to be upheld? |
26th February 2009, 01:07 AM
| | Senior Contributor
45
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 134,034 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by IAmLegion. So Huntingman, you take the Pentateuch's condemnation and penalty as dogmatic truth that needs to be upheld?
What I think is that the word 'fornication' in the NT is partly defined by the sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic Code.
This is evidenced by the fact that there is NO NT prohibition specifically forbidding having ones fathers wife, something the law did prohibit, yet we see Paul in 1 Cor 5 having the man tossed out of the fellowship who was committing this fornication.
Where did this precept come from...out of thin air ?
The sexual prohibitions in the OT that werent simply about ceremonial cleanness issues are very much forbidden today....such as bestiality and having sex with a brother or sister.
I see these lame comments about 'consensual' but that doesnt work. A brother and sister could consent in some country where there arent any specific laws against it and Id bet that every single person here would agree that its against Gods law......yet for gay sex they play these pathetic semantic games...  |
26th February 2009, 01:08 AM
| | Senior Contributor
45
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 134,034 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LightHorseman I think you are wrong.
And I dont honestly care....
God doesn't condemn things without reason. Since there is no reason to condemn homosexuality, God doesn't condemn it.
Sorry but He does...I suggest you READ His word.... | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
