Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[david_x]

How is manipulating the bible to justify anti-gay prejudice any different from manipulating the bible to justify racism?

It's not, why?

 

[david_x]

Again here is considerable debate about whether or not being gay is a sin at all. The condemnations rely on questionable translations that appear to be in place because of political reasons and not for any linguistic reasons

The Church has a direct line to, with the evidence in the bible we can be sure.

 

[RMDY]

If anyone does not put their faith in Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour and the only way to heaven, how can they make such a decision that homosexuality may not be sinful?

 

[JacobHall86]

Would you like it if someone told you to "Do Christendom a favor and become a Pharisaic Jew?" I'd predict not (and I'm of course not saying it to you) -- what I am saying is to look at Jesus's Commandment the Golden Rule, and act accordingly.

its important to notice what came before "The Golden Rule". To Love the Lord. Its interesting that Liberals always forget that part, and think its MORE important to forsake Doctrine and loving the Lord so that they can love their neighbor.

And there is a difference between taking the call to Holiness seriously and being a Jew, thanks though.

 

[OllieFranz]

And there is a difference between taking the call to Holiness seriously and being a Jew

Yes there is a difference, and Paul, who studied under Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel -- two of the greatest of the great Pharisaical rabbis of the era, and who wrote under the inspiration of the indwelling Holy Spirit tells us about the difference in most of his letters, but especially Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians. We are not to place a stumbling block before someone who chooses to live according to the Holiness code. But it is a choice and we are not commanded to follow it, in the case of kosher food, or in the case of the Sabbath, or in any other part. And those who choose to follow it should not condemn those who do not:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Romans 14:1-13​

 

[RMDY]

We are not to place a stumbling block before someone who chooses to live according to the Holiness code.

Does not Paul also say that we are to flee fornication, live according to the Spirit and not the flesh, and to not defile our bodies, which are God's Holy Temple?

 

[Polycarp1]

its important to notice what came before "The Golden Rule". To Love the Lord. Its interesting that Liberals always forget that part, and think its MORE important to forsake Doctrine and loving the Lord so that they can love their neighbor.

And there is a difference between taking the call to Holiness seriously and being a Jew, thanks though.

Right -- it is far more important to follow the Pope or Martin Luther or John Calvin than to obey the teachings of that Rabbi from Nazareth. After all, they were great theologianss; what did He know?

 

[JacobHall86]

Right -- it is far more important to follow the Pope or Martin Luther or John Calvin than to obey the teachings of that Rabbi from Nazareth. After all, they were great theologianss; what did He know?

Unless you deny that Jesus is God its hard to get around the fact that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality.

 

[SughaNSpice]

The Church has a direct line to, with the evidence in the bible we can be sure.

People were sure (and many still are) and the church supported the “fact” that the bible condones racial equality

 

[SughaNSpice]

Unless you deny that Jesus is God its hard to get around the fact that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality.

Again there is considerable debate about whether or not being gay is a sin at all. The condemnations in teh bible rely on questionable translations that don't hold up to examination and seem to be accepted solely because of political reasons and not for any linguistic reasons

 

[JacobHall86]

Again there is considerable debate about whether or not being gay is a sin at all. The condemnations in teh bible rely on questionable translations that don't hold up to examination and seem to be accepted solely because of political reasons and not for any linguistic reasons

Proof of this horribly inaccurate statement? Blogs wont suffice. Neither will Bart Ehrman. What christian textual critics say that the Bible doesnt say men should not have sex with each other.

 

[JacobHall86]

People were sure (and many still are) and the church supported the “fact” that the bible condones racial equality

Red Herring.

 

[Inviolable]

Again there is considerable debate about whether or not being gay is a sin at all. The condemnations in teh bible rely on questionable translations that don't hold up to examination and seem to be accepted solely because of political reasons and not for any linguistic reasons

I keep having to dig up this post.
I think I'll just keep it in my notebook or something so I can cut and paste from there.

These come from the NIV

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

" 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

"13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.

As for your request. There they are, but for some reason some moron some where claimed to know greek and showed how the translations were wrong or misquoted. Everyone has heard the story about the priest and the prostitute slaves... Nonsense.

I also pointed out that the scriptures I quoted "came from the NIV" for a reason. For the, "you're an expert in Greek" reason.

http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/background.php

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts

The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.

I highly doubt any person in these forums can know more then the "hundreds" of scholars working together did.
Any claims that a poster here attempts to make otherwise, will simply be seen as absurd.

 

[Zeena]

But that gives rise to a question, Jacob. What does 'condoning sin' mean? What actions or inactions 'condone' sin?

Accepting it as a normal part of Christian Life.

If I decline to denounce the people who ban gay people they consider unrepentant from their churches, am I condoning their sin in driving away those whom Christ has called to Himself?

No. This is not what we are to judge.
The instance you gave above judges the person and not the sin.
We don't denounce PEOPLE, we denounce sin!

Where in Scripture are we called on to judge the sins of others?

Paul did, as our example;

1 Corinthians 5:10-13
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Are we not warned that we should not, lest we bring that same judgment on ourselves? (When Jesus says, 'judge righteous judgment,' He is not speaking of sitting in judgment over the sins of another, but of making our judgments conform to His definition of rithteousness -- which is to humble ourselves before God, realizing that only in His grace are we redeemed and justified, and that we have no righteousness within ourselves.)

1 Corinthians 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Pretty simple if you ask me.
The judgement the Lord is speaking of is between right and wrong, according to the Word of the Lord, not persons.

 

[Zeena]

We are not to place a stumbling block before someone who chooses to live according to the Holiness code.

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Also, 'him that is weak in the faith' is someone who barely see's Christ as his Life, even tho He is.

 

[one11]

What scripture is this please?

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

I think the above needs to be read in context, what is the reference number?

Also, the above scripture if just taken like that than not too many people will be going to heaven except people who have been with only one person sexually their whole life, either their husband or their wife, cuz the above verse without context would exclude most (if not all) of us from the Kingdom of God. So, what would have been the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, if you believe the above verse is to be taken by itself alone?

Also, I do believe Jesus, the Christ, kept the adulteress from being stoned to death, as well as talking to the Samaritan women at the well who had five husbands, but was living with someone else's husband. I can't quite remember if she was forgiven at that point in scripture when he talks with the Samaritan women at the well? So I need to check that scripture, too.

But what would have been the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross if the above verse is to be taken by itself alone?

 

[OllieFranz]

What scripture is this please?

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

I think the above needs to be read in context, what is the reference number?

Also, the above scripture if just taken like that than not too many people will be going to heaven except people who have been with only one person sexually their whole life, either their husband or their wife, cuz the above verse without context would exclude most (if not all) of us from the Kingdom of God. So, what would have been the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, if you believe the above verse is to be taken by itself alone?



But what would have been the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross if the above verse is to be taken by itself alone?

I agree that context is necessary. Here is the the context:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corintians 6:1-11
​

Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for two things: finding fault with one another over minor differences and airing these bitter disagreements in public by suing one another in secular court.

First, he sarcastically asks if they have no one within the church to help settle the dispute. He says that even if they can't find someone wise, having the church idiot arbitrate would still be better than the bad example of public lawsuits.

Then he focuses on how their differences are nothing compared to the differences between sinners and God, and yet God reconciled them to Himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The list of sinners in verses nine and ten, is simply a list of people who commit various sins, with none being singled out. It is followed by the statement that "many" of the readers have committed those sins and have been forgiven. Paul's intention is that each of the readers will recognize his own shortcomings. To use the list to focus on the shortcomings of others and to castigate them publically is to not only ignore Paul's intent, but to stand it on its head!

 

[one11]

I agree that context is necessary. Here is the the context:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corintians 6:1-11
​

Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for two things: finding fault with one another over minor differences and airing these bitter disagreements in public by suing one another in secular court.

First, he sarcastically asks if they have no one within the church to help settle the dispute. He says that even if they can't find someone wise, having the church idiot arbitrate would still be better than the bad example of public lawsuits.

Then he focuses on how their differences are nothing compared to the differences between sinners and God, and yet God reconciled them to Himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The list of sinners in verses nine and ten, is simply a list of people who commit various sins, with none being singled out. It is followed by the statement that "many" of the readers have committed those sins and have been forgiven. Paul's intention is that each of the readers will recognize his own shortcomings. To use the list to focus on the shortcomings of others and to castigate them publically is to not only ignore Paul's intent, but to stand it on its head!

Okay, thanks. Yes, people need to read these scriptures IN context.

In the example of my marrying, technically I could have been considered an adulteress as my husband's (the only legal husband I am currently being reconciled too) ex wife was still alive when we got married, though she had been diagnosed with six months or less to live in 1993. We legally married in 1994, and she lived a few years longer than the doctors expected and his ex wife died a few years into our marriage much longer than we ever thought she would live, though even when I visited her in the hospital when she was diagnosed with six months or less to live, I thought the doctors were right in their assessment as did all the family because she was wasting away.

But, we did legally marry before she passed, so if one read it the way it is presented in the post above by Invoilable (post #753), that scripture alone would read as though I were excluded from the Kingdom of God, too.

 

[No Swansong]

Okay, thanks. Yes, people need to read these scriptures IN context.

In the example of my marrying, technically I could have been considered an adulteress as my husband's (the only legal husband I am currently being reconciled too) ex wife was still alive when we got married, though she had been diagnosed with six months or less to live in 1993. We legally married in 1994, and she lived a few years longer than the doctors expected and his ex wife died a few years into our marriage much longer than we ever thought she would live, though even when I visited her in the hospital when she was diagnosed with six months or less to live, I thought the doctors were right in their assessment as did all the family because she was wasting away.

But, we did legally marry before she passed, so if one read it the way it is presented in the post above by Invoilable (post #753), that scripture alone would read as though I were excluded from the Kingdom of God, too.

I just want to make sure I understand this. Your husband was divorcing his terminally ill wife to marry you? Is that correct?

 

[Inviolable]

Okay, thanks. Yes, people need to read these scriptures IN context.

In the example of my marrying, technically I could have been considered an adulteress as my husband's (the only legal husband I am currently being reconciled too) ex wife was still alive when we got married, though she had been diagnosed with six months or less to live in 1993. We legally married in 1994, and she lived a few years longer than the doctors expected and his ex wife died a few years into our marriage much longer than we ever thought she would live, though even when I visited her in the hospital when she was diagnosed with six months or less to live, I thought the doctors were right in their assessment as did all the family because she was wasting away.

But, we did legally marry before she passed, so if one read it the way it is presented in the post above by Invoilable (post #753), that scripture alone would read as though I were excluded from the Kingdom of God, too.

That wasn't really the point.
The translations were being held in question and so the only thing that really needed to be shown was "homosexual offenders"
To show what words were being used.
But you're right, I should've left the book and verse number at the least.