"It was a different culture back then."

DontTreadOnMike · #11 7th July 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by drich0150

Here is a very simple one.

All sexual activity (even lust) outside of a santified marriage is a sin.

A Santified marriage is only defined as between man and woman.

Homosexuality is a sin simply because there is not a santified pretext in which one can rightfully (Meaning without sinning) consumate their relationship in any way shape or form.

I see that you're married. Are you saying you didn't lust after your future wife before you married her? Or at least that you thought it was wrong?

Lusting after and desiring your potential wife (even before you know she might become your wife someday) is natural and healthy. It's part of falling in love and of courtship. Our brains are specifically wired to look at people and decide whether we would want to mate with them. There's nothing wrong with that, it's part of being human. And if God exists, he specifically made us that way.

ViaCrucis · #12 7th July 2012, 12:14 PM

When it comes to the conversation of Christianity and Slavery, the simple fact is that there has, until recently, never been an official consensus in regards to the practice. And one can find proponents and opponents of institutionalized slavery throughout the course of the past two millennia.

It wasn't until the advent of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade that the issue really and fully bubbled to the surface and the deep moral and ethical questions of slavery had to be dealt with in a full and final way. I absolutely do believe that abolition is the only legitimate Christian response to slavery; but I also recognize that this is a sentiment spoken in a world that remembers the sort of slavery that took place in the New World.

The Christian Church has not always been the best at allowing the ramifications of the Gospel truly permeate its social teaching, often it taking great injustices and systematic evils to percolate before the issue is truly dealt with in a meaningful way. For example, it wasn't until the Holocaust that the Church was finally confronted with the grand evil that the fruits of anti-Semitism had wrought. Fortunately, there are men and women in these times that are there willing to confront the rest of us and preach the Word radically and faithfully in such ways that we can no longer avoid such evil or remain morally neutral. This prophetic voice is godly: The St. Francises, Bonhoeffers, and Martin Luther Kings among us ready to speak and act, even if it means being the unpopular voice in the Church--even if it means dying for it.

-CryptoLutheran

drich0150 · #13 7th July 2012, 03:04 PM

[quote=DontTreadOnMike;60918487]

I see that you're married.

Yes

Are you saying you didn't lust after your future wife before you married her?

Nope. I was heavy into lusting, porn ect.. I was definatly one who 'burned with desire.' As paul put it.

Or at least that you thought it was wrong?

I knew it was a sin, which lead me to repent. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sexual sin, and like any other sexual sin it demands the same type of repentance. The problem is when one reclassifies this sin or removes it's sin status then the 'sinner' can not repent. Thus dooming Him forever for the sake of his own pride/personal version of righteousness.

Lusting after and desiring your potential wife (even before you know she might become your wife someday) is natural and healthy. It's part of falling in love and of courtship. Our brains are specifically wired to look at people and decide whether we would want to mate with them. There's nothing wrong with that, it's part of being human. And if God exists, he specifically made us that way.

So what. We are told we are born unto sin. This means our desires are sinful by nature. Lusting after ____________ is apart of that nature. Even so, it is still a sin and as such must find repentance or the sinner will be held to account for said sin. Meaning We are to repent of our sinful nature not make excuses and justify it, otherwise we will be seperated from God for the balance of our sin..

The identification of sin in our lives serves one purpose, and that is to convict and draw us to repentance. Sin is not to be justified or explained away simply because 'everyone does it, or because it is natural." Of course it is natural! We are born of a sinful nature. This is why we need Christ!

food4thought · #14 7th July 2012, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by DontTreadOnMike

This is wrong. So very wrong. Int he OT, the rules for the indentured servitude type of slavery only applied to Jews "owning" other Jews.

But the rules for owning non-jews are as follows...

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
-Leviticus 25:44-46

Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 But, if he lives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property.”

So you can beat your slave as severely as you want as long as he lives at least for a few days. But if he dies after a few days, then you are off the hook because, as the Bible says “he is your property.”

I think you're mixing up the OT rules for Jewish indentured servants and what the Romans did in the NT. A Jew could only own a Jewish slave for something like 7 years (can't remember the exact time period) unless you give him a wife, then he's yours forever. Roman slavery, the type talked about in the NT, could last a lifetime. Sure there were ways to get relative freedom (although you'd then still be attached to your master's household as a lower class citizen) but the master never HAS to let you go after a certain time period. Slavery in the new testament wasn't about paying debts, it was slavery.

EDIT: I found the verses about Hebrew slaves:

" If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)"

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. [WHY NOT?!] If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

This article offers a pretty good answer to your objections here... please take some time and read through it, it's long but not overly so:

Slavery In The Bible (2/5) « Bible Apologetics

Hope this helps;

Mike