Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[intricatic]

We are not discussing the function of nature, the question was are two men marrying wrong by scripture, or is it just the sexual act that is considered wrong?

Scriptures in the bible that oppose homosexuality speak of the sexual act, but do not mention all that is external to that act, that is relevant to homosexuals of our society today. Men at the time of writing did not foresee, the way we view homosexuality today.

Earlier I recall when you read about Paul sharing his possession, you said he did so because he erroneously thought the second coming was going to occur in his life time, if we admit paul is capable of errors, why would we not assume he was unable to understand the nature of homosexuality, the way we understand it now?

And in the same sense, we do not carry over the morality that was accepted in the old testament, in our society today.

For one thing, God specifically gave Moses these laws, in a very dirrect and present way.

Secondly, I don't remember making that claim at all, but I may just be having a lapse of memory.

The act itself is a part of how the archetype works, the archetype is not changed because society looks at it differently. Unfortunately, the paradigm and the analogy do not operate properly together.

 

[hithesh]

Besides, the sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government, is it not?

Ah, yes your right, the KKK member who hated individuals because of their race, but called himself a christian, will find himself in heaven, because he never acted on his hate.

Because the sinner is the one who acts, and not the one who carries the sin in his heart.

 

[intricatic]

Ah, yes your right, the KKK member who hated individuals because of their race, but called himself a christian, will find himself in heaven, because he never acted on his hate.

Because the sinner is the one who acts, and not the one who carries the sin in his heart.

I don't think I said that, and I would disagree with that logic.

 

[georgie2319]

You should be walking in love and not be judging people as sin is sin.

 

[intricatic]

You should be walking in love and not be judging people as sin is sin.

Could you clarify this?

 

[hithesh]

I don't think I said that, and I would disagree with that logic.

"The sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government"

Perhaps you can clarify what your concept of sin is, by this statement?

 

[itoldyounoalready]

i

 

[intricatic]

"The sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government"

Perhaps you can clarify what your concept of sin is, by this statement?

How is it applicable to the discussion, though? The logic eludes me.

A homosexual being active in society is only the same as a KKK member in that it's a choice to indulge the given sin. We don't punish, by law, either of them for fighting the urge to indulge a sin, that makes no sense.

 

[hithesh]

For one thing, God specifically gave Moses these laws, in a very dirrect and present way.

Do you believe the laws God gave Moses in Leviticus, where laws for the people of that age, or for our age as well?

And do you believe the Paul's teachings are void of flaws?

Secondly, I don't remember making that claim at all, but I may just be having a lapse of memory.

And I apologize, i went to the thread where I seen the post, and I realized it was not you who said that, but an individual who used the same font as you, and wore similar clothing.

 

[intricatic]

Do you believe the laws God gave Moses in Leviticus, where laws for the people of that age, or for our age as well?

And do you believe the Paul's teachings are void of flaws?

The Laws God gave to Moses are the dynamic of the morality being expressed throughout the Bible, spanning countless generations. I do not think that it's exempt just because we see things differently. The prophets did not think Israel was exempt from it for seeing things much differently than when the Laws were established, either. I think it operates under a far different paradigm now, but not that the archetypical image of morality presented is any different.

As far as Pauls theology, I don't look at it entirely propositionally, although that element does exist. I cannot state whether he was right or wrong, because these terms cannot be used as a blanket statement to something so complex as the Pauline doctrine, as laid out in scripture. As far as linguistic philosophy goes, I would say it's more likely that some modern theologians, who are swayed by postmodernism far too much are flawed in their interpretation, though.

And I apologize, i went to the thread where I seen the post, and I realized it was not you who said that, but an individual who used the same font as you, and wore similar clothing.

No worries, these things happen.

As far as the KKK/homosexual discussion goes. For the sake of brevity, this is what you said:

The question arose because a another person on this forum, said that he does not seek to ban members of the KKK from getting married because the marriage is not a sin.

Since the bible defines the sexual act as a sin, and not the marriage of two men as a sin, why should we then say homosexual marriage is a sin, and seek to legally place a ban on it, but not use the same line of logic for others we consider to be sinners.

My original question was directed to a particular individual, who understood what I was implying.

... and this is what I said:

Besides, the sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government, is it not? And rightly so. It causes harm not only overtly to society as a whole, but subtly to a minority group. It's justified. Taking the same action we take against KKK members and applying it to homosexuals would not be justified in the least, and would, in fact, be incredibly abusive.

The point I was making is that your analogy is flawed.

 

[hithesh]

Just to hear what you have to say about this:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" 1 Corn 11:14

 

[intricatic]

Just to hear what you have to say about this:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" 1 Corn 11:14

Do you understand what an honor/shame society appreciates regarding honor and shame? It's very true; having long hair is shameful in that dynamic, as it should be today. However, long hair was also symbolic of vows, which is the place they served in such a culture. Just look at Samson.

 

[Konkurrent]

Didn't Christ have long hair?

 

[intricatic]

Didn't Christ have long hair?

Possibly.

We really can't be sure, but what Paul was getting at is that having an effiminate persona and keeping long hair to indulge that is shameful. Obviously even historical Biblical figures had long hair, and wore it with pride, and this is true for a reason.

 

[intricatic]

Just to hear what you have to say about this:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" 1 Corn 11:14

What about this:

1 Corinthians 11
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

What authority symbols are being referred to? And why would we put them on a womans head?

The obvious, and relevant point, though: What angels?

 

[hithesh]

Do you understand what an honor/shame society appreciates regarding honor and shame? It's very true; having long hair is shameful in that dynamic, as it should be today. However, long hair was also symbolic of vows, which is the place they served in such a culture. Just look at Samson.

Well, it's not society paul says that teaches you it's shameful but nature. And secondly Paul is speaking against men's hair being longer than woman's, which in your case it is.

But you would rather retain something that is simple to get rid of such as long hair, which serves no value, for what purpose? Why even take the chance, that you are perhaps sinning or being shameful as the result of your vanity?

Men having hair longer than woman is shameful according to nature not society, according to Paul. Unless you're trying to say the nature he's implying is relative to the society of his time?

 

[Blank123]

Well, it's not society paul says that teaches you it's shameful but nature. And secondly Paul is speaking of men's hair being longer than woman's, which in your case it is.

But you would rather retain something that is simple to get rid of such as long hair, which serves no value, for what purpose? Why even take the chance, that you are perhaps sinning or being shameful as the result of your vanity?

Men having hair longer than woman is shameful according to nature not society, according to Paul. Unless you're trying to say the nature he's implying is relative to the society of his time?

Samson was a sinner when he didn't cut his hair then?

 

[intricatic]

Well, it's not society paul says that teaches you it's shameful but nature. And secondly Paul is speaking of men's hair being longer than woman's, which in your case it is.

But you would rather retain something that is simple to get rid of such as long hair, which serves no value, for what purpose? Why even take the chance, that you are perhaps sinning or being shameful as the result of your vanity?

Men having hair longer than woman is shameful according to nature not society, according to Paul. Unless you're trying to say the nature he's implying is relative to the society of his time?

Indeed, neither was God speaking to societies views on such a thing in the case of Samson, but His desire was for a vow to be made, in implication by having long hair. I'm not taking a risk because this is what's defined by God as truth. If you'll notice, 1 Cor. 11 is all about natural roles - long hair is shameful because it implies something about the individual who has long hair.....that he's doing something else he shouldn't be, which was dirrected by society as a norm.....

Men having hair in immitation of a woman's role by nature is shameful. This implies something more pertinent than just length.

 

[Konkurrent]

Samson was a sinner when he didn't cut his hair then?

I don't know about that, but according to many Christians he didn't go to heaven.

 

[intricatic]

I don't know about that, but according to many Christians he didn't go to heaven.

Ever read Numbers 6?

Numbers 6
1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin.
5 ‘All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. 6 All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. 7 He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. 8 All the days of his separation he shall be holy to the LORD.