Why is Fundamental Christians so down on Homosexuality?

[lilymarie]

Could you please tell us all the reason why certain of Paul's letters are included in the canon while others are not? Could you further explain the precise reasoning that led to the canon being set as it is, including some early Christian's writings and not others?

As a student of archaeology I have explained why the Canon is the Canon ad infint naseum, but if you'd like I'll give you an explaination.

First off you need to understand this was early man writing, correct?

Okay... good.

The two criteria to meet New Testament requirements are two-fold:

1) They need to connect to other scriptures of both new and old testaments, as ALL scripture interconnects. (This does not mean every single word, one needs to use logic here, and also look to your Bible where it shows you how to look up the connections to other scriptures.)

2) The writings need to connect to something Jesus said or did.

Thus, let's take The Gospel of Judas for example.

The Gospel of Judas said things such as: They want to become stars like the Angels -- no connection.

The Gospel of Judas said that Jesus appeared to the Apostles as a little child -- no connection.

The Gospel of Judas had Jesus laughing quite a bit. From what I remember off the top of my head went something like this... "Jesus laughed and said"..., and then another time "and Jesus laughed", and then another time, "Jesus laughs". No connection.

The only connection in the Gospel of Judas was it said "don't throw your seed on rock", which was stuck in the middle of some other jibber jabber. The parable of the sower was not included, just that one line, totally out of place to the rest of the writing.

Also, the Gnostics Gospels were written about 280 years AFTER Christ's crucifixition.

And also what the early COPTIC language was WAS the first time Greek had been translated from the Egyptian hierroglyphics which were just pictures, so it was not a good language and didn't last long. Coptic language disappeared around 300 or so years later.

If the writings of the NT do not connect to other scriptures, they are meaningless, as, again, all scripture interconnects.

As far as the early Egyptians and their earliest language, called Coptic, it is not clear what their motivation was for writing these "books". They could have been seeking notarity or monies, who knows?

***************************

p.s. I'm going to put this post in my blog area and/or write it better later in the hopes I never have to write it again.

 

[lilymarie]

God's words are different for every person, no one is trying to change the bible or GOD.

Then put up a scripture that shows homosexual acts are not sin.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Why did god allow a council to decide which Books belong in the NT? Why does he give us no warning that a man who saw him in a vision, is going to fill in the blanks? Why does he tell us, that he's going to return, and tell us more about his second Coming, in much more brutal way, then what he spoke of in the gospels? He only warned of one thing, false christ, and false teachings, never did he say new teachings, outside of what he spoke here, are going to arise, and we are to believe them.

If you were to read the bible from the OT, to the Gospels, you would understand perfectly what god's true plan is. The books after the gospels (particulary Paul's and the pseudo John's Apocalypse), are the plan we desired, are the plan's of God we wanted, not the ones that He wanted.

God allowed men (The council of Niccea) to decide which books get entered into the Cannon, by the popular demand of the people. It is men who decided to enter the book of revelation into the cannon, though many even in the council opposed it's entry. It's men who decided to place Paul's letters in the NT, and not God. Now, you ask why god would allow a complelation of books that he did not favor?

Because if he "pulled up the weeds he would have uprooted the wheat along with them.".

What's occuring now, is the same thing that occured in the 1st century, Christians are questioning the old Books, they are not adding new books to it, but questing the books that are already there, to see if any tares have been passed on since conception, by the faulty hands of men.

As each generation comes, they go through different stages of birth, they form and shake free of certain shackles to understand the truth in a bit better.

The gospels have always been a hidden, and secretive message, and this is plain to see. What men did not realize, is that they are secretive for a reason, because the simple parts can be understood universally, but the complex, more figurative parts can only be understood by later generations, whose hearts and wisdom grows to understand a further extent of the truth.

God does not change, but it's our understanding of him that changes. The further we approach the end, the more awesome he becomes, but many do not realize this, even when the truth is abudant in front of their eyes.

When the gospels are truly understand, it will shine like diamonds, in the mud, because when the gospels are understand void of the filtaration of external understandings provided by men of old, and those who carried the torch of the men of old, they are an entirely different message, and a god so true to all human nature, that is known by the hearts of everyone.

There is this thing, that very few here know. You see, many unbelievers admire christ, but what the believer doesn't get, is that the Christ they admire, is much different than the one we portray.

What the believer does not understand, is that it has always been the unbelievers who understand the nature of our savior, since the begining, and not us the orthodox. When we learn from them who Christ really is, and not when they learn from us, is when we start to understand the gospels void of tares.

And the scriptures that back this up are??????????????

Oh, I have read all the way through the OT and NT, in fact more then once.

 

[savedandhappy1]

God's words are different for every person, no one is trying to change the bible or GOD.

So I read the Bible (KJV, NIV, and the parallel New Testament Greek) and see where He is talking about sexual sins (adultery, homosexuality, fornication) in all versions, but you read it and see what?

 

[savedandhappy1]

What the believer does not understand, is that it has always been the unbelievers who understand the nature of our savior, since the begining, and not us the orthodox. When we learn from them who Christ really is, and not when they learn from us, is when we start to understand the gospels void of tares.

Your serious right?​

It was the unbelievers who said we should take all the songs with blood in them out of our Worship services in the 70's, claiming they could cause kids to be violent. Not talking/singing about the very blood that washes us white as snow, yeah we shouldn't mention that.​

It was the unbelievers who told us that we were just scaring people into believing because we preached hell fire and brimstone. So we started just talking about the love of God, and now alot of people don't believe in Hell or believe that if God really loves us that He won't send anyone to Hell.​

God loves us yes, but He is also a jealous God. A God who will show His wrath and His judgements at the end of this age, and people will go to Hell.​

So who are we helping by not preaching the whole Bible? It sure isn't the unbelievers.​

Also it is the Holy Spirit that shows us the nature of God, and unbelievers don't have the Holy Spirit in them, right? So who do you think really knows the true nature of God again?​

 

[TracerBullet]

All I see here is more and more people trying to change the Word of God, and make it say what they need it to say.

So… you are saying eating shellfish really is an abomination…

 

[savedandhappy1]

And that has what to do with what?

So… you are saying eating shellfish really is an abomination…

 

[hithesh]

Hithesh, Daniel 3:60 does not say the following BECAUSE there is NO Daniel 3:60 as you posted in your post above. Have you made a mistake, or are you posting from websites without checking the scriptures, which many people do on Christian websites?

The NAB website has a daniel 3:60

so do a few other websites: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan003.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/religion/christianity/bible/daniel/3.html

I did notice a couple of versions did not have a Daniel 3:60, and I did a bit of research and it seems to have to do with the omittance of the "Prayer of Azariah", in certain translations.

Psalms 1:148, is another verse though about waters above the heavens: "Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens ", everything can be rooted to genesis 1:7: "God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

The reason why an individual would assume water existed above the heavens, is because the writers did not know the science of rain. They see it rain, and assume that there must be a pool of water above, that sprinkles it. There is really no other reasonable explantion for it. What a simple verse like this proves, is that men who wrote the bible, are limited to the understanding of life as they know it, not life as we know it.

 

[lilymarie]

So… you are saying eating shellfish really is an abomination…

I have put up scientific proof that lobster are the cockroaches of the ocean and shrimp are like the cleaners of the muck and dirt of the ocean. These are all considered ocean insects. I wouldn't eat a cockroach from the earth either! And crabs are of the spider family.

You have a computer, do the research on what shellfish really is.

However, the shellfish still ties into the main point of "don't you know your body is the temple of The Holy Spirit... therefore, honor God with your body."

However, if one wants to eat the cockroaches and insects of the ocean, that is their decision of what to do with the temple of The Holy Spirit.

However, that temple of The Holy Spirit which The Lord asks us to uphold all throughout the OT and NT doesn't excuse homosexual acts... if so the proof stands with you, please.

 

[lilymarie]

The NAB website has a daniel 3:60

so do a few other websites: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan003.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/religion/christianity/bible/daniel/3.html

I did notice a couple of versions did not have a Daniel 3:60, and I did a bit of research and it seems to have to do with the omittance of the "Prayer of Azariah", in certain translations.

Psalms 1:148, is another verse though about waters above the heavens: "Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens ", everything can be rooted to genesis 1:7: "God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

The reason why an individual would assume water existed above the heavens, is because the writers did not know the science of rain. They see it rain, and assume that there must be a pool of water above, that sprinkles it. There is really no other reasonable explantion for it. What a simple verse like this proves, is that men who wrote the bible, are limited to the understanding of life as they know it, not life as we know it.

Hithesh, the NAB is a modern liberal catholic Bible, and I am not catholic.

**************************

The New American Bible has been lauded by modern Catholics and approved by the American Catholic Church; however, it has been derided by traditional Catholics for a number of reasons. For one, it uses gender-neutral language in many places, and therefore the NAB seen in the lectionary differs from the regular NAB since the Vatican is stringent regarding gender-neutrality.
The notes especially have been criticized by traditionalists because of their perceived liberal and higher critical interpretation of passages, such as those which are believed to prophesy the coming of Christ. Traditional authorship of many books is also questioned (e.g. the Pentateuch, Daniel, and some of Paul's letters). Many traditionalists therefore reject its use and call on Catholics to use more conservative interpretations, such as those in the Douai-Rheims Bible and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible series.

***********************************

However, in the Genesis account, read further... it's talking about "sky" and "land". Perhaps you can read the NIV Bible version or King James Version online if you need to get an understanding of Genesis 1.

Anyhow, what does sky and land have to do with the thread? Bait and switch perhaps instead of dealing with the real issues?

Can you present a scripture that shows homosexual acts are not sin?

Edit in scripture:

Genesis 1:7 in context, though I have no idea what it has to do with this topic? Scratching my head?

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


(NIV)

 

[hithesh]

However, in the Genesis account, read further... it's talking about "sky" and "land". Perhaps you can read the NIV Bible version or King James Version online if you need to get an understanding of Genesis 1.

Anyhow, what does sky and land have to do with the thread? Bait and switch perhaps instead of dealing with the real issues?

Can you present a scripture that shows homosexual acts are not sin?

What I am trying to show is that the "homosexuality" the scripture talks about, is not the "homosexuality" we know of today, because the men who wrote such passages are limited in their understanding, to what was occurring then, not what is occurring now. The writers of the bible don't foresee or talk of two men, or two woman, who share the same ideals of love and commitment as heterosexual couples. The writers of the bible did not foresee that two men and two women, would one day long to be married, they are limited in their understanding of homosexuality, to what is known in their world, in their time, not ours.

The passages I brought to you from genesis, Psalms, and Daniel, help to show the limits of understanding, of writers of the bible. All these passages talks of water above the sky, above the heavens, above the "dome" of earth. Now think of it, if you lived a couple thousand years ago, and had no understanding of science as we do today, why would you think water exists above the sky??

 

[MercyBurst]

What I am trying to show is that the "homosexuality" the scripture talks about, is not the "homosexuality" we know of today, because the men who wrote such passages are limited in their understanding, to what was occurring then, not what is occurring now. The writers of the bible don't foresee or talk of two men, or two woman, who share the same ideals of love and commitment as heterosexual couples. The writers of the bible did not foresee that two men and two women, would one day long to be married, they are limited in their understanding of homosexuality, to what is known in their world, in their time, not ours.

The passages I brought to you from genesis, Psalms, and Daniel, help to show the limits of understanding, of writers of the bible. All these passages talks of water above the sky, above the heavens, above the "dome" of earth. Now think of it, if you lived a couple thousand years ago, and had no understanding of science as we do today, why would you think water exists above the sky??

Carnality never ever leads to spirituality. I assure you that every kind of sex you could ever think of was already tried before Jesus was born.

Hebrews 4:

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

There is no "new understanding" of sin.

 

[hithesh]

Carnality never ever leads to spirituality. I assure you that every kind of sex you could ever think of was already tried before Jesus was born.

We are not talking about sex, if "homosexuality" to us was about sex, we wouldn't be defending it. Homosexuality at the time Paul and other writers of Bible, knew was only about "sex". What Paul and OT writers had no familiarity or understanding of was "homosexuality" beyond the sexual act (loving, commited, relationship, etc..). Writers of the bible, are limited to the understanding of things according to their time, as you can see in how they percieved "waters above the dome of the earth".

 

[savedandhappy1]

What I am trying to show is that the "homosexuality" the scripture talks about, is not the "homosexuality" we know of today, because the men who wrote such passages are limited in their understanding, to what was occurring then, not what is occurring now. The writers of the bible don't foresee or talk of two men, or two woman, who share the same ideals of love and commitment as heterosexual couples. The writers of the bible did not foresee that two men and two women, would one day long to be married, they are limited in their understanding of homosexuality, to what is known in their world, in their time, not ours.

Sodom and Gommorah comes to mind here.​

Judges 19:20-25​

20And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.​

21So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.​

22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. ​

23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.​

24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.​

They knew quite well what homosexuality was, and it was called wicked and vile, as you can see in just the scriptures above. I can listed others but I am sure you already know of them. If not let me know and I will listed them also.​

 

[savedandhappy1]

We are not talking about sex, if "homosexuality" to us was about sex, we wouldn't be defending it. Homosexuality at the time Paul and other writers of Bible, knew was only about "sex". What Paul and OT writers had no familiarity or understanding of was "homosexuality" beyond the sexual act (loving, commited, relationship, etc..). Writers of the bible, are limited to the understanding of things according to their time, as you can see in how they percieved "waters above the dome of the earth".

Romans 1 24-32​

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
​

It it called vile affections, not natural affections, against nature affections. Sounds like they understood homosexuality.​

If it is not natural for man to be with man or woman with woman why would the fact that they wanted to commit to this relationship like a man and a woman make it not un-natural?

Verse 24 plainly says that it is unclean lusts of the heart, and dishonours their bodies.
​

 

[hithesh]

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: ​

Every verse you brought contains the same thing, they speak of homosexuality as only "sex". If I lived at that time I would consider homosexuality a sin too, the homosexuality they saw, was the "sexual immorality" of Ted Haggard. If i lived at that time I would also assume water existed above the heavens.

Think of it, how much of the behavior advocated in the OT, we would we find deplorable now? If I went off to war, and brought back a woman as a war prize, or if a general gave the order to his men, to kill every woman and child, think of how deplorable we would view such behavior. You see morality on the basis of the culture relevant to you. Your understanding of morality, is limitied to what you can understand of the world you live in, at a given time. Writers of the Bible are not immune to this limitation, and you see this limitation show, time and time again.​

 

[intricatic]

The NAB website has a daniel 3:60

so do a few other websites: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan003.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/religion/christianity/bible/daniel/3.html

I did notice a couple of versions did not have a Daniel 3:60, and I did a bit of research and it seems to have to do with the omittance of the "Prayer of Azariah", in certain translations.

Psalms 1:148, is another verse though about waters above the heavens: "Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens ", everything can be rooted to genesis 1:7: "God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it."

The reason why an individual would assume water existed above the heavens, is because the writers did not know the science of rain. They see it rain, and assume that there must be a pool of water above, that sprinkles it. There is really no other reasonable explantion for it. What a simple verse like this proves, is that men who wrote the bible, are limited to the understanding of life as they know it, not life as we know it.

The authors of the Bible didn't live in a culture that was obsessed with western scientific thought and technology, so that means what they said about nature and the world is somehow inaccurate? I'm sorry, I think you lost me. Are you also saying that we should glorify man's ability to understand nature in the same post? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that come across as terribly ironic? Are you also saying that there is no water in clouds?

 

[intricatic]

Every verse you brought contains the same thing, they speak of homosexuality as only "sex". If I lived at that time I would consider homosexuality a sin too, the homosexuality they saw, was the "sexual immorality" of Ted Haggard. If i lived at that time I would also assume water existed above the heavens.

I dunno, I still consider homosexuality to be a sin, but I think dragging it out and making it all about condemnation and hate is by far one of the most absurd and counterproductive things that a Christian can do.

But are you also, again, saying that water doesn't exist in the sky as well as the lakes, oceans, and streams on the ground? I should have to wonder where rain comes from, then.

These passages spoke to sexual immorality. Period. Relational views aside, that hasn't changed in our time and culture, and unless we somehow genetically alter ourselves into being asexual, this is not likely to ever change.

Think of it, how much of the behavior advocated in the OT, we would we find deplorable now?

Not much. But it takes a cultural understanding of the terms presented. A failure to understand those terms is to do exactly what you claim literalists are doing; reading our culture into the text. Because there is a cultural difference, does this mean it's not applicable to us? Hardly. The ideas presented in the Bible are still immediately applicable to us. Life itself does not change over time. The only thing that changes is how we decorate it.

 

[intricatic]

Do you personally follow all the laws of the old testament? Or do you find some of those laws no longer applicable?

Are you mplying that they weren't given for a reason?

 

[noparty]

Because homosexuality is gross.

I'm not a fundamentalist and I'm not down on homosexuality, but as a naive, judgemental, fundamentalist teenager, I formulated several reasons and quoted several scriptures to justify my hateful bigotry, but the real reason always was I simply thought homosexuality was gross. Not my proudest moment.