Does, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' mean homosexual sex is okay with Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Essentially, the moral branch of atheists can love God too is what you're saying. What some people define as sexual immorality is what others define as loving other people.
That veers dangerously close to the discussion about whether or not one must acknowledge Christ to be saved, which is a discussion I really don't care to get into now... But essentially, yes. An athiest who lives by the "golden rule" can be as "God loving" as any Christian, at least so far as their acts and attitudes are concerned. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? That was kind of the point of it.

As to sexual immorality/loving others... I'm not sure what your saying.

It isn't the sex part, specifically, that is the "loving others", its the arriving at the conclusion that its OK that is the "loving others" part. I thought I explained it in the simplest possible terms a few pages back. Sexual immorality exists, and, to me, its pretty easy to determine. "Would I want someone doing that to me if I were them?" If the answer is no, then it would be immoral for me to do so. Thats all there is to it.

And it works for anything. Not just to determine sexual morality, but for ANY moral question... ask yourself honestly, if you are considering an act that will effect other people, and you cannot honestly say that, were you in the other person's position, you would want it done to you, then don't do it, because its immoral.

Now, lest obtuse people who like to argue for the sake of arguing butt in here, yes, there are occasions, usually to do with "greatest good for greatest number", or self defence or defence of others, where things get a bit more complex. However, the basic paradigm holds. If you always use it as your guiding principle, just simple little "would I want it done to me if our roles were reversed?", and you can't go to far wrong.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That veers dangerously close to the discussion about whether or not one must acknowledge Christ to be saved, which is a discussion I really don't care to get into now... But essentially, yes. An athiest who lives by the "golden rule" can be as "God loving" as any Christian, at least so far as their acts and attitudes are concerned. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? That was kind of the point of it.

As to sexual immorality/loving others... I'm not sure what your saying.

It isn't the sex part, specifically, that is the "loving others", its the arriving at the conclusion that its OK that is the "loving others" part. I thought I explained it in the simplest possible terms a few pages back. Sexual immorality exists, and, to me, its pretty easy to determine. "Would I want someone doing that to me if I were them?" If the answer is no, then it would be immoral for me to do so. Thats all there is to it.

And it works for anything. Not just to determine sexual morality, but for ANY moral question... ask yourself honestly, if you are considering an act that will effect other people, and you cannot honestly say that, were you in the other person's position, you would want it done to you, then don't do it, because its immoral.

Now, lest obtuse people who like to argue for the sake of arguing butt in here, yes, there are occasions, usually to do with "greatest good for greatest number", or self defence or defence of others, where things get a bit more complex. However, the basic paradigm holds. If you always use it as your guiding principle, just simple little "would I want it done to me if our roles were reversed?", and you can't go to far wrong.
 
Upvote 0

DRD4Him

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2010
737
9
✟952.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They do? That's not what Jesus said. As between your opinion of what He meant in His parables and His own, I prefer His, thanks.

By their fruit you will know them. Both have eternal life, one to "the kingdom of heaven" and one to eternal hell. OK, then, the believer and those that do as believers do.

"If anything defines the evangelical Christian lifestyle today, it is the desire to replace American democracy with a vaguely defined theocracy in which they alone get to say what people may and may not do, all the while performing the acts they publicly condemn in secret hypocritically."

Can't argue with truth when you finally present it. But, the liberal version of Christian power is that non and anti Christians get to be called Christians and that they get to perfom their sins in public and get cheered on by everyone or else.

Two can play at that game. If that doesn't define you and your Christian friends, consider that maybe what you have to say doesn't define all gay people either.

Obviously, there are Christians that don't act like Christians PER JESUS and, under the surface, are not Christians and likewise, obviously, there are many people caught up in gay life that really are not what they say they are. We have them in our churches.

Yeah. According to you. Including grace or forgiveness or mercy. May He who is our Judge judge you as you judge others.

Liberal theology wipes away grace and forgiveness and replaces it with a new definition of anything goes. If one does not repent, there is no forgiveness of sins. Is that NOT in your theology???:confused:

You must have posted this in the wrong place. Because I specifically said I was opposed to wanton sin and sinning,

By redefining it. Calling a baseball bat a toothpick. And then gathering around the teachers to give itching ears what they want to hear. 2000-years of Christian opposition to homosexuality and you think your new movement is going to rule now?

"Look," say the parents as the marching band goes by "my child is the only one in step."

This newly (re) named "LGBT" thing has been here before.

. . . in another post, and spelled out the idea that the "clobber passages" condemn abominable sins in this one. Or is it that this would not fit your desire to twist my words to fit your own lies?

Clobber passages is becoming a factoid. In fact, the entire "Christian movement" we call Apostolic Christianity stands against 21st century liberalism as a matter of prophecy. Or is prophecy old hat as well?

No, DRD4him teaches it exactly opposite the way Jesus and I do.

Prove that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," has no secular political connotation to it. It does not encourage the licensing of pagan ways and calling them Christian so as to not insult the anti Christian crowd.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And I am not even going to bother to refute them.

You can't.

Except to note that a church that shuts out "LGBT" people is also shutting out their Creator and Redeemer.

True, but the church that celebrates sin is one that is just as bad. The same powers and principalities are at work in them both.


Nice bunch of generalizations. Let's see, there are several gay and Lesbian people posting in this thread. Please name which of them have threatened legal action against you or Phinehas or anyone else who has posted in opposition to them.

Let's see, you do this very thing below . . .

Listen, I can recommend a good remedial Reading for Content class; you apparently need one.

Yet it is you that can't understand the concepts plainly spelled out in the new testament. You have to use new words in place of authentic meanings to get your political power dominating Christians.

This is true. Now, would you be aware of the percentage of 'out' gay people who engage in seducing children and youth, compared to the number of 'good Christians' with a secret letch for kids who do? I think you'll be very surprised at the numbers.

I don't see a difference. I see homosexuality as antithetical to the Gospel. A wolf in sheep's clothing as opposed to a wolf that has discarded the disguise? By their fruit is it not written?

First, this has been soundly refuted, demonstrated to be a slippery slope fallacy, more times even than arsenokoites has been parsed for meaning here.

Refuted??? The liberal positions have been driven back to where they come from sir.The slippery slope is a fact that cannot be hidden. From Moses to John on Patmos, the slippery slope is preached as a warning to God's people of where are enemies are the most lethal. Anytime you wish to debate that please point me to where you want the testing done???? Especially arsenokoitai which is literally a refutation of Paul of the historic LGBT/Humansim/Liberalism movement.

Second, I can give you a concrete refutation: all the major pro-gay lobbying groups and Pride parade organizers have universally denied NAMBLA the right to participate. Why do you think that is?

Out wolves are a terrible thing.

The next time you identify "we Christians" in a way that implies liberal Christians are not Christians, expect to be reported, with a request for an infraction to be imposed if not a ban.

"Implies?" Implies?

History forgotten? And such recent history?

Nice bunch of generalizations. Let's see, there are several gay and Lesbian people posting in this thread. Please name which of them have threatened legal action against you or Phinehas or anyone else who has posted in opposition to them.

We don't get to see our accusers here at CF, nor are we allowed to defend against the chrages we are saddled with. And assuming guilt is not a Christian thing to do. You must judge the truth by what a person says and does.

But you just threatened me.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nice bunch of generalizations. Let's see, there are several gay and Lesbian people posting in this thread. Please name which of them have threatened legal action against you or Phinehas or anyone else who has posted in opposition to them.
Where's the threat?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
How many warnings have you or Polycarp1 received from the Mods? How many suspensions?

Not meant to talk about mod decisions in open threads... PM me and I'll send you my "staff contact" list.

I have seen many instances of rules violations here by the libs and most have thousands of posts.
Funny, I frequently think the same thing about those pasting hatred and bigotry.

Still don't see the "threat" though.
 
Upvote 0

DRD4Him

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2010
737
9
✟952.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where's the threat?

I'm sorry, excuse me:

"The next time you identify "we Christians" in a way that implies liberal Christians are not Christians, expect to be reported, with a request for an infraction to be imposed if not a ban."

- Polycarp1
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm sorry, excuse me:

"The next time you identify "we Christians" in a way that implies liberal Christians are not Christians, expect to be reported, with a request for an infraction to be imposed if not a ban."

- Polycarp1

Oh, OK. Missed that bit.

I guess you could take it as a threat. Or you could take it as sound advice. The rules ARE, after all, fairly clear on the matter of saying people aren't "real" Christians... so if you, or anyone else, don't make such judgements of others, its not really going to be an issue, is it?

Anyhoo, thanks for pointing out the specific bit you felt was threatening.

So now, um, who's threatened you with legal action? Or rather, what did you say that someone felt warranted legal action, or that any law enforcement body was in jurisdiction of?

Just curious, you understand.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
EnemypartyII
That veers dangerously close to the discussion about whether or not one must acknowledge Christ to be saved, which is a discussion I really don't care to get into now...
but that is it. If Christ saves us by forgiving sin through repentance, which is a core part of the gospel, to not recognise but promote a sin casts a question mark over where one has faith in Christ and thus salvation. One doesn’t need 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 to spell that out exactly without working out the logic oneself.


But essentially, yes. An athiest who lives by the "golden rule" can be as "God loving" as any Christian,
well no it can’t as Christ’s teaching shows without Him we can do nothing. Those who do not produce fruit in keeping with repentance are like branches cast into the fire.


The loving others as has been demonstrated means all kinds of things to different people. Atheists do as much good and show as much love as Christians according to what atheists see as love and good works. Christians see and seek to do what is loving according to God. What you are proposing is humanism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
EnemypartyII
but that is it. If Christ saves us by forgiving sin through repentance, which is a core part of the gospel, to not recognise but promote a sin casts a question mark over where one has faith in Christ and thus salvation. One doesn’t need 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 to spell that out exactly without working out the logic oneself.

well no it can’t as Christ’s teaching shows without Him we can do nothing. Those who do not produce fruit in keeping with repentance are like branches cast into the fire.

The loving others as has been demonstrated means all kinds of things to different people. Atheists do as much good and show as much love as Christians according to what atheists see as love and good works. Christians see and seek to do what is loving according to God. What you are proposing is humanism.
You are utterly missing the point of my post.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Beanieboy,
That's not biblical.
Of course it is Biblical. All you have done is give half the truth, half the truth is not the truth. You know that the law and prophets are summed up by loving God first and then loving ones neighbour.


1 John 3:10 “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”
1 John 4:21 “And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”

What you say about the story of the Sheep and the Goats is fair enough, but having what God calls sexually immoral relations with others isn’t loving them.

1John 4:20,21 Anyone who says, ‘ I love God,’ and hates his brother, is a liar, since a man who does not love the brother that he can see cannot love God, whom he has never seen.
This is true, it’s the other part of loving God and neighbour.



I can’t spell this out any clearer, what you are ignoring is the condemnation of homosexual relations, that’s the issue, which means they are not loving God, and the other 1 John verses one recalls about being a liar is the one who denies they sin.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Polycarp1,
They do? That's not what Jesus said. As between your opinion of what He meant in His parables and His own, I prefer His, thanks.
I prefer Jesus opinion as well, but its what DRD4Him outlined.

Liberals always come up with Matthew 25 as a humanistic creed, an interpretation at odds with the gospel holistically. Yet what is certain is believers are to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and visit the prisoners, physically and spiritually, but no mention of sexual relations!

If anything defines the evangelical Christian lifestyle today, it is the desire to replace American democracy with a vaguely defined theocracy in which they alone get to say what people may and may not do, all the while performing the actsthey publicly condemn in secret hypocritically."
Which to me is an indication you don’t like the Kingdom of God, or at least you don’t have the same gospel


Two can play at that game. If that doesn't define you and your Christian friends, consider that maybe what you have to say doesn't define all gay people either.
Indeed, some people change from gay to believing what Evangelical Christians show the Bible says happens.

Yeah. According to you. Including grace or forgiveness or mercy. May He who is our Judge judge you as you judge others.
Yes good, we will make sure we speak His truth.

No, DRD4him teaches it exactly opposite the way Jesus and I do.
Jesus doesn’t mention any golden rule, sorry you obviously don’t know the same Jesus as I do. I refer you to my previous post to Beanieboy, there is no golden rule to love ones neighbour, that’s humanism, any sort of golden rule concerning loving ones neighbour is subject to loving God. Any sort of golden rule is to have faith in Christ and thus seek to obey all He taught.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And I am not even going to bother to refute them. Except to note that a church that shuts out "LGBT" people is also shutting out their Creator and Redeemer.
Right, right right, Gay marriage is a complete rejection of Christian values. The entire new testament is a clobber passage about gay behavior. "LGBT" belongs to the world and not the church.
 
Upvote 0

Texan40

seeking wisdom
Feb 8, 2010
835
53
Houston, TX
✟8,687.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I could be wrong here but I don't believe I have seen any post that implies or directly states LGBT folk are somehow excluded from seeking God. I do not froth at the mouth nor feel self-righteous in the face of homosexuality. Jesus wants me to spread His good news and to plant seeds of His love in others that it might grow and transform them as it did me. Homosexual behavior is described as sexual immorality along with fornication. Fornication is between two consenting adults but nevertheless is sinful action in God's eyes. The Love of Jesus Christ can heal anyone of desire to sin but the seeds need to be lovingly planted, not forced into someone with a battering ram. We can argue all day over whether or not this or that is "really a sin" but what does that solve? The letter of the law brings death while the Spirit brings life.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Polycarp1,
I prefer Jesus opinion as well, but its what DRD4Him outlined.
Liberals always come up with Matthew 25 as a humanistic creed, an interpretation at odds with the gospel holistically. Yet what is certain is believers are to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and visit the prisoners, physically and spiritually, but no mention of sexual relations!

Leave it to you to miss the point that Jesus gives four examples of how to show compassion for others. I presume that if this person whom you have visited in prison, fed and given water and clothed, is now discovered by you to be spending a subzero night in an unheated abandoned building for lack of shelter, your proper Biblical course is to say, "That's nice" and go on your way, since you have no explicit command to provide him shelter?

Holistically, J.C. Smuts who created holism would agree with me. I find it hard to believe you cannot see that Jesus's teachings are, not secular humanism, but humanism within the context of a right relationship with God Almighty.

Which to me is an indication you don’t like the Kingdom of God, or at least you don’t have the same gospel

Apparently so. The Gospel I believe in calls for discernment of moral behavior towards one's fellow man and the carryng out of that behavior as a divine command, not rote obedience to the literal sense of a series of unconnected ordinances.

Indeed, some people change from gay to believing what Evangelical Christians show the Bible says happens.

I reserve judgment on this claim. Including that you have any clue what 'gay' means, based on previous posts by you on the subject..

Yes good, we will make sure we speak His truth.

That would be nice. When will you start?
Jesus doesn’t mention any golden rule, sorry you obviously don’t know the same Jesus as I do. I refer you to my previous post to Beanieboy, there is no golden rule to love ones neighbour, that’s humanism, any sort of golden rule concerning loving ones neighbour is subject to loving God. Any sort of golden rule is to have faith in Christ and thus seek to obey all He taught.

Either this is disingenuous or I owe you an apology for using a phrase seemingly known to every English speaker but you. The rule of behavior expressed by Kung Fu-Tse and Hillel among others in the negative, and by Jesus in the positive, not merely refrain-from-doing but do-this, enunciated at Matthew 7:12 is commonly called the Golden Rule. Perhaps you were too busy studying Lev. 18:22 to have noticed this?

Honestly, Phnehas, I do not comprhend how you seem to consstently miss the obvious in the Gospel while straining language to make your own points.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm sorry, excuse me:

"The next time you identify "we Christians" in a way that implies liberal Christians are not Christians, expect to be reported, with a request for an infraction to be imposed if not a ban."

- Polycarp1

Let me simplify this. It was not a 'threat' -- it was a strongly worded statement of expectation that you will abide by the CF rules you gave your word to abide by in signing up, stated directly to you rather than invoking the already-overworked Society area staff to advise you to. The post to whch that was a response, I had every right to report as a violation of those rules; instead, I drew your attention to your violation of them and the fact I could have, in the expectation you would get the point: on CF, if two people claiming o be Christians disagree on an issue, one may not call the other "non Christian". Not you of me, not me of you, not Catholics of Protestants, not Baptists of UCC-ists, nobody.
 
Upvote 0

DRD4Him

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2010
737
9
✟952.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let me simplify this. It was not a 'threat' -- it was a strongly worded statement of expectation that you will abide by the CF rules you gave your word to abide by in signing up, stated directly to you rather than invoking the already-overworked Society area staff to advise you to.

I have abided by the rules of not saying you are not a Christian for the things you write. Or rather, I have not said the things you write are not Christian like. Why try to intimidate me? And I notice that you seem to believe you have authority to tell the Mods what to do.

But I notice that you are very typical in using obfuscation instead of answering the challenges to your points and positions. It is like Phinehas2 points out about humanism, secular humanism, as being the basis of liberalism and liberal social activism. To claim the Golden Rule is going to OK gay behavior is almost beyond the pale. If we were discussing this matter face to face in YOUR Church, I would be more direct.


The post to whch that was a response, I had every right to report as a violation of those rules;

I violated no such rule. In turn, how often do you attach the word "hate" to conservative positions?

. . . instead, I drew your attention to your violation of them and the fact I could have, in the expectation you would get the point: on CF, if two people claiming o be Christians disagree on an issue, one may not call the other "non Christian". Not you of me, not me of you, not Catholics of Protestants, not Baptists of UCC-ists, nobody.

I have not disqualified YOU as a Christian.

It seems quite often, when you liberal CHRISTIANS have your positions soundly and utterly refuted, you turn to accusation of rules vioaltion OR just shrink back to charging you challenger with the label of hate, biogtry or whatever.

There is absoluetly NO reason why you (you liberal Christians) cannot fully support the anti-gay positions of conservative Christians when they are based on holiness and righteousness. While in turn, our not being able to support your liberal views should also be understandable and justified.

The answer to the OP is NO.
 
Upvote 0

DRD4Him

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2010
737
9
✟952.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Polycarp1,
I prefer Jesus opinion as well, but its what DRD4Him outlined.


It's all I can do.

Liberals always come up with Matthew 25 as a humanistic creed, an interpretation at odds with the gospel holistically. Yet what is certain is believers are to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and visit the prisoners, physically and spiritually, but no mention of sexual relations!

Yes, the Golden Rule is not for orgy time. But Humanism demands it.

Which to me is an indication you don’t like the Kingdom of God, or at least you don’t have the same gospel

In all fairness with the appropriate testing of all things . . . some liberals may be just fine in their heart-filled umbrella outreach to predators. It is not the fault of Catholics what many homosexual priests and heterosexual priests do to children under cover of church life.

Indeed, some people change from gay to believing what Evangelical Christians show the Bible says happens.

Since the liberals sell "gay" as just a thought process, this is obviously true.

Yes good, we will make sure we speak His truth.
Jesus doesn’t mention any golden rule, sorry you obviously don’t know the same Jesus as I do.

I refer you to my previous post to Beanieboy, there is no golden rule to love ones neighbour, that’s humanism, any sort of golden rule concerning loving ones neighbour is subject to loving God. Any sort of golden rule is to have faith in Christ and thus seek to obey all He taught.


You need to re-phrase your position. The Golden Rule does not mean to license immorality. That does seem to be happening with "it" in liberal political activism. The way LGBT activists mean it, the Golden Rule does indeed support gay sexual behavior. Certainly, if I was engaged in a gay sexual lifestyle, a Christian should be trying to get me out of it, not encouraging me. This whole new guise of "it's only a orientation, not behavior" would be laughable if it were not so tragic. LGBT's mean it behavior-wise 100%.


Right, right right, Gay marriage is a complete rejection of Christian values. The entire new testament is a clobber passage about gay behavior. "LGBT" belongs to the world and not the church.

100% correct on all three positions
 
Upvote 0

*Starlight*

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
Jan 19, 2005
75,337
1,471
37
Right in front of you *waves*
Visit site
✟133,073.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Hmmm... If "love your neighbor as yourself" is the main commandment that sums up all God's laws, then it shows that homosexuality isn't a sin, because homosexuality doesn't go against it. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DRD4Him

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2010
737
9
✟952.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hmmm... If "love your neighbor as yourself" is the main commandment that sums up all God's laws, then it shows that homosexuality isn't a sin, because homosexuality doesn't go against it.

Um, I don't think Jesus was applying the Golden Rule to sexual tastes. And same gender sex acts are in no way condoned by the Golden Rule. In Christian reality, it would be applying the Golden Rule perfectly in being anti-gay in action and belief.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.