Why is Fundamental Christians so down on Homosexuality?

[hithesh]

The Question should be "Why is it that it seems as though only the more Conservative Christians still value the truth of the Word of God, the whole truth, not simply parts?".

lol, are you serious?

One set of Christians is literal on every portion except the gospels,the other is more literal on the gospels, and less literal on the other portions.

And if you were to look at Christ, you would see he is also less literal on the other portions, as he always spoke out against certain OT concepts followed by the Pharisees. US liberals value the gospels, just as Christ asked us to.

It's quite strange that these conservative Christians align themselves with the Republican Party, which loves Money, more than others, which serves money, more than god.

 

[Tenebrae]

That's not really what the meaning of that verse means. As a woman I have been raped which was no meant no meant no. And I have also consented to heterosexual sex before giving my life to Christ.

But back to the point in Deut. What was happening is that foreigners including prostitutes (both male and female) were joining God's chosen. Thus, if a woman did not cry out amid a city (which means a lot of people could hear) she was considered a prostitute.

The verses are very clear
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Death for adulterers
deuteronomy 22 23-24 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Ok my bad, techically the passage in question was refering to a virgin to be married... The question remains, who's willing to stone an adulterer....

We use the law to attack homosexuals, yet, we dont follow all the law

 

[hithesh]

We use the law to attack homosexuals, yet, we dont follow all the law

Those laws in the OT are human precepts. But the laws in the NT are not, except of course the passages about woman covering their heads, and men keeping their hair short.

Come on people, Paul is not as wise as we make him out to be, I mean he did give us that dreaded concept of "Original Sin", and filled in gaps, he had no buisness filling in, and in the process only created many more leaks. But what can you expect, from a man who saw Christ in a brief vision (just like our beloved Mormon, Joseph Smith did), and then takes over Christianity with a weak doctrine, that has overshadowed the gospels for thousands of years. But beside this point, Paul wrote letters to particular Churches concerning particular issues at the time; even he was dealing with matters at a point in history relevant to him; he was not speaking to us or our present time, when the questions are much different, and a bit more complex--in foreseeing the future he was not so wise.

Soon, a brother will come along, and give you some fancy concepts tying in the OT rules to those in NT, about why we don't follow certain ones, but other ones we do. Now it will sound nice, but little of it will make sense. And I think it's about time they give up, and confess those OT laws have much to do with the perceived culture at the time.

You cannot say god advocated a certain form of conduct (which we would find deplorable by today's standards), and then takes on a more benevolent moral code in latter years. To say he does, is to say we have a changing god. But God is the same, it's man's perception of him that changes. All early concepts of God, in various religions formulated an Angry tyrant, that kills on wims, and all later version formed a more benovelent, and merciful one, and in the gospels the true nature of God is understood.

God does not care if your a homosexual, he made you that way, as one of his "freaks" of creation. God does many odd things, for purposes beyond our meager understanding. But what he does require of us, is to love him, and be merciful to others, oppresing them by denying them equal rights, is not very Christ like.

 

[intricatic]

Soon, a brother will come along, and give you some fancy concepts tying in the OT rules to those in NT, about why we don't follow certain ones, but other ones we do. Now it will sound nice, but little of it will make sense. And I think it's about time they give up, and confess those OT laws have much to do with the perceived culture at the time.

So.... culture changes, therefore the OT is no longer applicable? I think you just completely lost me. Sorry, I have to follow what makes sense and I can't make heads or tails of a reading of the Bible like this.

 

[GenemZ]

Charles and Genez, (please leave my post for Charles and Genez to answer -- thank you.)

I have a question... Jesus' last prayer for the Apostles to the Father was "sanctify them for the truth, your word is truth"... so, if the NT hadn't been written yet because this prayer was just before Jesus was crucified, what truth of the word would that be?

John 17:17 niv
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."
​

Jesus knew that the Word would be completed in the NT. Not only the OT.

Wouldn't that include the law which is written upon our hearts?

These men did know the Scriptures well. The Law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor as yourself. It does not say the Law is negated by loving your neighbor. These men knew the law as to be a guide in how to conduct their lives.

And part two:

The two commandments really were clarified as "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself -- ALL the law and prophets hang on these two things." (that's a memory quote, I need to check the exact scripture -- brb.)

I guess I answered that one already. Loving your neighbor did not negate the need for the Law. It fulfilled it. The law was given to inhibit selfishness and lust.

Edit in scripture: Matthew 22

22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[/QUOTE]

If you do love the LORD with all your heart? You will hunger for the Word! Just as a babe hungers for milk.

The second commandment follows first loving the LORD. If you love the LORD, your love for your fellow man will be in accordance with the Word of God.

I am not sure if that is what you were asking...

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

[/color][/size][/font]


And from this you think it was about food? The animals are symbolic of Gentiles who are considered animals by the Rabbincal Jews.

What did Peter say about the vision?
Peter says that the vision was about Men not about food.

God was also teaching about food, as well. Peter failed to live up to it at one point, and it took Paul to set him straight.

Galatians 2:12-14 (New International Version)
"Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
​

You think food was not an issue? He ate with Gentiles. Can one eat kosher when eating at the table of Gentiles? God was preparing Peter for going into all the world with his vision. Why was it now OK to freely associate with Gentiles? Even sit at their table? Yet, he had to remain kosher???

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[intricatic]

lol, are you serious?

One set of Christians is literal on every portion except the gospels,the other is more literal on the gospels, and less literal on the other portions.

And if you were to look at Christ, you would see he is also less literal on the other portions, as he always spoke out against certain OT concepts followed by the Pharisees. US liberals value the gospels, just as Christ asked us to.

It's quite strange that these conservative Christians align themselves with the Republican Party, which loves Money, more than others, which serves money, more than god.

He never spoke out contrary to what the law already stated. He did speak out contrary to what the leaders were teaching, outside the law, and He spoke out against how the leaders at the time followed the law themselves.

 

[Charles YTK]

The verses are very clear
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Death for adulterers
deuteronomy 22 23-24 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Ok my bad, techically the passage in question was refering to a virgin to be married... The question remains, who's willing to stone an adulterer....

We use the law to attack homosexuals, yet, we dont follow all the law

I will post this again and hope some will read it.

The Sinai covenant was for the people of Israel in the wilderness and in the lands of Israel. It had a Torah which regulated life. It applied also to the Gentiles who attached themselves to God and became part of Israel. But that covenant is expired, broken by Israel long ago. And the Torah of that Covenant is not valid in total.

Today we live in the New Covenant that was made through Yeshua and sealed in his blood. It also has a Torah. This Torah is written on the heart and it has many things in common with the Torah of Moshe but it is not a word for word copy of the Sinai Torah. It is transformed to be the Torah of a world wide Kingdom and to fit all people in all lands. Things that Yeshua taught are part of this Torah. Things that the prophets have shown us about the Kingdom are part of the New Torah. The prophets said we will mark our days from Sabbath to Sabbath and all the world will keep his Sabbath. We should then recognise that if it is written so for the Kigdom then it is already written on our hearts and begin being obedient to it. So also for many other things. Mcu of the Old Torah is still present in the New Covenant Torah but not all. Yes Kosher dietary laws are in the New Torah as we seem that as part of the judgment against those who say they know God but continue to eat what he calls an abomiation. We should then do as he says.

 

[Charles YTK]

lol, are you serious?

One set of Christians is literal on every portion except the gospels,the other is more literal on the gospels, and less literal on the other portions.

And if you were to look at Christ, you would see he is also less literal on the other portions, as he always spoke out against certain OT concepts followed by the Pharisees. US liberals value the gospels, just as Christ asked us to.

It's quite strange that these conservative Christians align themselves with the Republican Party, which loves Money, more than others, which serves money, more than god.

Your ranting is without understanding. If Yeshua broke the Torah laws then he was disqualified from being the Messiah and you are dead in your sins because his blood would not have been sinless.

There were two sets of laws during 2nd Temple times, the Torah of God and the Oral Torah of the Pharisees. These Oral laws were added by men and in many places frustrated the law of God. It is only these laws of men which are refuted by Messiah and the Apostles. And even then only the ones that were contrary to Gods own laws.

Please study these things for yourself so that you can understand Gods word or listen for a moment to those of us who have studied them. Your Christian preachers teach things that they themselves do not understand. For example Yeshua and the disciples are accused of eating with unwashed hands. (Mark 7) but this is a Rabbinical-man-made law and if anyone would bother to read more than the first two verses they would discover this because it is stated right in the text. It was a Rabbinical law and it stood in the way of th elaw of God and so it is not followed by the Lord.

To take the error further, Christians make the quantum leap to say that Jesus abolished the dietary laws by saying in this passage that it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man but what procedes from the mouth. He is still talking about the Rabbinical law. For the pharisees believed you had to wash your hands before eating otherwise your otherwise clean food would be contamiated with evil spirit and become unclean to eat. Yeshua is refuting this erroneous belief, not aborgating dietary laws.

 

[Charles YTK]

[/font][/size]

God was also teaching about food, as well. Peter failed to live up to it at one point, and it took Paul to set him straight.

Galatians 2:12-14 (New International Version)​

"Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. ​

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"​

You think food was not an issue? He ate with Gentiles. Can one eat kosher when eating at the table of Gentiles? God was preparing Peter for going into all the world with his vision. Why was it now OK to freely associate with Gentiles? Even sit at their table? Yet, he had to remain kosher???

In Christ, GeneZ​

​

Again you are speaking of matters that you simply do not understand. By the law of the Pharisees just being in the presence of a Gentile would make a Jew unclean to sit at table with them or entering their homes would be a terrible breach of Rabbinical purity laws. There is nothing that says that Peter or the Gentiles were not eating Kosher diet. In fact if we look at cornelius we see that he was. And it is very likely that since the Gospel does not cancel dietary laws and they were living according to the gospel, they were eating in accordance with dietay laws. Two of the 4 laws given at the Jersalem council were dietary laws.

In the Gospel what is removed is the division between Jew and Gentile based on a faulted doctrine of salvation through ethnicity. (See Eph 2: 15, Gal 1-3, acts 15) The Gospel is about saving all men not about setting aside the laws of God. Yesha had taught that he did not come to destroy any laws of God.

The error of Peter was to separate from associating with the Gentiles when the Pharisical believers came around. This was hyporasy and injured the Gospel that said that Jews and Gentiles were on equal ground.

Even if we take the position as a theory that the gentile were not observing dietary laws, there is nothing to indicate that Peter was not keeping Kosher. His only offense that the circumcision could mount is that he was eating with them, not that he was eating what they were eating, unclean food, other than the rabbinical law on not being in the presence of a Gentile. Just to show you how strict this was, there is a law in the Oral Torah that is you are walking in front of a Pagan temple and drop money or something valuable, you are not to bend over to pick it up so that no one mistakenly thinks you are bowing down to the Pagan god. This is pretty strict. How much more of an offense to go inside the temple as some were doing in cornith, and eating with former Pagans.

The issue and the one that threatened the Gospel was to enforce Rabbinical laws that said only Jews were accepted in God and had a part in the world to come and gentiles were not really saved or accepted. The Gospel mowed this doctrine down. We are one in Messiah both Jew and Gentile. You will not find a place in the Gospels or the epistles where the dietary laws are set aside. And you see them in force during the coming kingdom.

 

[lilymarie]

IN deuteronomy is says that if a woman is raped within a city, she must be taken along with her rapist to the city walls and stonned. Her, because she did not cry out

I wonder how many people would be willing to be stoning rape victims

The verses are very clear
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Death for adulterers
deuteronomy 22 23-24 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Ok my bad, techically the passage in question was refering to a virgin to be married... The question remains, who's willing to stone an adulterer....

We use the law to attack homosexuals, yet, we dont follow all the law

See, you made my point. You're not getting the whole idea here if you just read one scripture... you need to read the whole book of Deut. to understand, as you can see your two posts of scriptures contradicted themselves and I already knew that already.

However, as to your point about stoning... this was God dealing with early barbaric man. In many instances we have evolved with the law and as a peoples, and in others we have regressed.

Also, I see posters bring up the abolishment of slavery as a case for lets bring on homosexual sex and partay! Well, no, if one studies ancient history and gets a grip about it, a clan mentality was part of survival in ancient times against the barbarism, and also slavery was indeed a necessary part of survival as most needed to eat. However, the economic structure of farming has evolved, although there is still a need for crop harvesters.

And in regards to the question of stoning, yes God was trying to purge the evil out of Israel, because this was his chosen people who would bring about a good and holy life through the promised seed of Abraham, and that seed is Jesus.

However, in the world, it still hasn't happened regarding a holy life lived unto God, even yet today, except for perhaps The Amish who have denounced all the worlds ways and influences.

Since I study ancient histories and archaeology, I am able to somewhat really place myself into the economics and physicalities of a certain time period and completely understand it.

Also, the Bible itself shows the evolution of mankind from eros love, to brotherly love, to getting towards agape love through Christ.

However, I have asked God about 30 times in prayer in the last two weeks or so if homosexual acts are a sin, and I get a definite yes.

So, I will still stand by the word of God.

And, as I said, simply because women can have children via turkey basters, does not mean God has changed.

God said: I am The Lord your God and I change not.

Jesus said: I am the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I think what's occurring in Christianity today is many parents are having to deal with their gay children and thus are manifesting this new gay liberal theology of tolerance within Christianity. I might feel the same way if I had a gay grown up child for a time, but hopefully I wouldn't use a crow bar and tire iron to change the word of God simply to "fit" them in.

I think practicing homosexuals are still in the flesh period and seek after it because of it's taboos.

I think some people are drawn into sexual practices that are taboo. I also think another manifestation is emotional, either lacking a parental figure or lack of appropriate nurturing. I've also heard women on message boards say they turned to women because of having to live a violent life with a man. And so, some women have turned against men. So, I think there are emotional and environmental factors, as well as seeking after the taboo of lust of the flesh.

Also, there is no need for stoning after Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is now the judge, plain and simple as that.

 

[Charles YTK]

The laws of Torah which call for stoning are almost always meant to eastablish the principle and severity of a crime and to provide a deterant to the crime, and then to initiate repentence, restitution and forgiveness. The stoning was almost never carried out. Only in cases of Blasphemy .

In our own society the death sentence is provided for many crimes but is almost always defered in favor of rehabilitation through a lighter sentence.

Even when the nation turned from God into idolatry the sentence would have been death to many but God sent prophets instead and called them to repent, many times and in the end took them alive into captivity punishing them with a lighter sentence, making them prisoners in Babylon rather than slaying them all in Israel.

Gods law looks for Justice and equity. Th elaws of eye for eye, tooth for tooth means the punishment must fit the crime. You do not kill someone for stealing bread or some petty crime. In most cases you payed a cash penalty of restitution.

 

[JacobHall86]

lol, are you serious?

One set of Christians is literal on every portion except the gospels,the other is more literal on the gospels, and less literal on the other portions.

And if you were to look at Christ, you would see he is also less literal on the other portions, as he always spoke out against certain OT concepts followed by the Pharisees. US liberals value the gospels, just as Christ asked us to.

It's quite strange that these conservative Christians align themselves with the Republican Party, which loves Money, more than others, which serves money, more than god.

Your whole post is full of crap.

Republicans dont love money, we love it when the government doesnt try to take our money, like teh liberals vote to do. Kind of ironic that you would say we love money, when liberals love taking money from those who earn it.

And liberals dont take any of it serious or literal, especially the Gospels.

 

[lilymarie]

The laws of Torah which call for stoning are almost always meant to eastablish the principle and severity of a crime and to provide a deterant to the crime, and then to initiate repentence, restitution and forgiveness. The stoning was almost never carried out. Only in cases of Blasphemy .

In our own society the death sentence is provided for many crimes but is almost always defered in favor of rehabilitation through a lighter sentence.

Even when the nation turned from God into idolatry the sentence would have been death to many but God sent prophets instead and called them to repent, many times and in the end took them alive into captivity punishing them with a lighter sentence, making them prisoners in Babylon rather than slaying them all in Israel.

Gods law looks for Justice and equity. Th elaws of eye for eye, tooth for tooth means the punishment must fit the crime. You do not kill someone for stealing bread or some petty crime. In most cases you payed a cash penalty of restitution.

Very interesting Charles.

(Also, sorry to go off topic, but I want to request a new forum to study the Hebrew language for all and also to study the Hebrew culture as it pertains to the Bible, such as The Feast of the Tabernacles and things like that. I have started the request in the Messianic Jewish area, so please anyone who is interested in such a new forum, please put your request and imput in that section of the forum where I started the thread. Thanks! But, please read the rules of that forum area before posting because other denominations are NOT to debate.)

 

[127Rockledge]

Your whole post is full of crap.

Republicans dont love money, we love it when the government doesnt try to take our money, like teh liberals vote to do. Kind of ironic that you would say we love money, when liberals love taking money from those who earn it.

And liberals dont take any of it serious or literal, especially the Gospels.

Please note the difference between a "liberal Christian" and a political liberal.

These are two different things entirely.

And if we really wanna talk keeping the money we earn, we talk libertarian. Not to make this into a political discussion.

 

[JacobHall86]

Im a libertarian as far as fiscal matters go.

I didnt bring politics into it, hithesh did, I just pointed out irony.

 

[hithesh]

He never spoke out contrary to what the law already stated. He did speak out contrary to what the leaders were teaching, outside the law, and He spoke out against how the leaders at the time followed the law themselves.

He speaks out against stoning, he says god does not want sacrifices he wants mercy, he says it's not what eat that defiles you. These things requirements/laws were all written in the OT, and not in laws outside the OT.

What many believers like to say, is that since Christ died on the cross, these rules in the OT should not be followed: "We don't have to sacrifice animals because Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice on the cross". What these believers don't seem to get is that Christ spoke out against these things prior to his death, he doesn't tell people, hey "you can do these things now, but when I pay the price with my life stop", he was telling them from the begining they shouldn't do these things.

No where in the gospels, does he ever say my death, removes all these requirements, he says God does not require these things, he doesn't say God required them at some point, he sais "God does not require them, as if God's requirements were the same from the begining. It's man's requirment's that establish concepts such as sacrifice, and that's why we see animal sacrifices through out many religions, even many predating the OT. God does not rejoice in man's sacrifices for him, he never did, he never did from the begining, because God is the always the same, he required mercy, from the begining, and they did not understand, it took the Son of Man to arrive to teach them the truth, who God really is, and what he truly wants from his "hard hearted" children, who just never seemed to get it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, but that didn't mean that certain things weren't sins anymore. What it means is if we confess our sins and repent of our sins that He is faithful to forgive them.

 

[127Rockledge]

Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, but that didn't mean that certain things weren't sins anymore. What it means is if we confess our sins and repent of our sins that He is faithful to forgive them.

Yes, we all understand that. The question as such, is what is a sin, and what isn't? How do we determine what was kept of the OT, and what was thrown away?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Yes, we all understand that. The question as such, is what is a sin, and what isn't? How do we determine what was kept of the OT, and what was thrown away?

What's stated in the NT such as homosexualy.