Homosexuality

[LLWHA]

Yes, and Jesus did not write any of the Old Testament.

You need to be careful when you cite the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, because Leviticus calls for stoning to death a man who lies with another man as with a woman. Do you believe in stoning people to death? Somehow I doubt it.

Many Christians commonly ignore much of what is written in the Old Testament, and they rationalize it by saying that the New Testament supeceded the Old and makes some of it obsolete. That sounds like a rationalization for picking and choosing from the Old Testament, a rationalization some use to lift a few statements out of the OT and beat gay people over the head with them.

I believe in stoning people to death.

The only men redeemed from this earth sing the New Song.

Rev.14:3 And they sung as it were a New Song (Isaiah 42:10) before the Throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that "Song" except the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the Earth.


Rev.15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over its image, and over its mark, [and] over the number of its name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
15:3 And they sing the "Song of Moses" (Old Covenant - Deut. 31) the servant of God, AND the "Song of the Lamb" (New Covenant), saying, Great and marvellous [are] Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] Thy Ways, Thou King of the holy people.

You can not get back home to Heaven singing half the song.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes, stoning people to death is totally inline with Christ's teachings about love and forgiveness

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
The Christian churches have always believed that God's word is the Bible...

I'm well aware that it's a widespread belief throughout Christianity. I just question how much validity there is to it, given that it has absolutely no Biblical basis.

corrupted, gay religion is about the only religion which thinks as your statements.

What on earth is "corrupted, gay religion"?

Personally, I've no interest in "religion" of any kind. I just want to be a disciple of Christ, and to honour God with the way I live my life.

David.

 

[Sam48]

Yes, stoning people to death is totally inline with Christ's teachings about love and forgiveness

Exactly. Christ meant to bring forgiveness and love.

Stoning people was an awnser in the OT, before Christ came. The world wasn't saved... or attempted safe by Christ. Laws were cruel and hard to keep rules and life safe. He tried to change that by giving His life for us.

 

[Ohioprof]

The law condemns homosexuality because it is unfruitful and not profitable to mankind's perpetuity or continuation. If homosexuality could produce offspring, it would not be outlawed. However, the laws that WERE *back then* are still the same laws now, albeit we have been freed from the curse of sin and death by the gospel.

Yet still Jesus has made statements which exalt the law, (seeing as Jesus, being Lord, MADE the law) -

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

What --I-- don't understand is why Christians so often toot the horn about homosexuality, but they speak nothing of covetousness or idolatry, both of which are very awful sins, or pride (hint hint christian peoplez), repent of pride, please. Jesus was meek, please, be meek. You can speak the truth with authority and still be meek.

I do not regard being gay as a "sin," nor do I regard same-sex relationships as "sinful." I don't care what the scriptures say. They have no authority in my life. I try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I am not a Biblical idolator; I do not worship the Bible as some here seem to do. If a very few vague passages of the Old Testament condemn same-sex relationships and call for stoning gay men to death, this is clearly wrong, and we should ignore those passages of scripture as Christians easily ignore many other passages of scripture that appear right alongside these. As for Paul, he wrote plenty that is wrong for people today, notably about women. Christians easily ignore much of what Paul has written, while choosing to highlight what he apparently said about gay people and saying, "Look, sin!" These Christians have designated themselve the sin police. I reject this. I don't regard any of the Bible as authoritative, and I particularly reject what the sin police are doing to gay people. It's wrong, and it is not what Jesus would do.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

There are plenty of churches that do not regard the Bible as literally true or inerrant.

I would say most people in the world, let alone Christians, would say such churches as those weren’t Christian.

 

[Sam48]

Dear Ohioprof,
I would say most people in the world, let alone Christians, would say such churches as those weren’t Christian.

I agree! You can't mix the wine with water.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
I would say most people in the world, let alone Christians, would say such churches as those weren’t Christian.

Christian churches in the United States began serious debates over the question of Biblical inerrancy in the 19th century, after Darwinism created a crisis in the faith. Darwinian theory challenged the churches, because Darwin's theory did not confirm the literal truth of scripture. The result was a broad 3-part division among Christians. One group, the group whose thinking was most nearly consistent with my own thinking today, rejected the truth of the Bible altogether. Another group responded by saying that Darwinism was simply bad science and it was wrong. This is the group that launched the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century, declaring that to be a Christian, one had to agree with certain "fundamentals." These included the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the truth of all Biblical miracles, the resurrection, and Christ's substitutionary atonement for human sin. Thus was born what we commonly call Christian fundamentalism. The third group of Christians continued to embrace the Bible as the word of God, but they conceded that the Bible is not literally true or inerrant, and they said that the Bible points to higher moral truths and is not a literally accurate description of events on earth or an accurate description of earthly history. This group argued that science and faith address different kinds of questions, and the Bible is to be interpreted for its moral messages, not taken whole or literally. Out of this group emerged support for the German Higher Biblical Criticism, and this group came to form what many would call liberal or mainstream Christianity. So for at least the past 100 years in the United States, Christians who disbelieved in the inerrancy of the Bible have formed two major groups within Christianity. The third group, the fundamentalist group, tends to regard the other two groups as not truly Christian, because they do not adhere to the "fundamentals" that fundamentalists say are necessary to being a true Christian. Those "fundamentals" include a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

 

[walloffire]

They have no authority in my life. I try to follow the teachings of Jesus.

You, uh, just contradicted yourself there.

Also, since you say you follow Jesus, listen then to what he taught about the scriptures that you despise:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

As for stoning people to death, Christ suffered the death that we all deserve. That doesn't make sin any less sinful or any less needful to be repented of, and yes, homosexuality is a sin. If Adam had been a homosexual, or if any of your ancestors for that matter, had been homosexual, you would not have been born.

 

[Ohioprof]

You, uh, just contradicted yourself there.

Also, since you say you follow Jesus, listen then to what he taught about the scriptures that you despise:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

As for stoning people to death, Christ suffered the death that we all deserve. That doesn't make sin any less sinful or any less needful to be repented of, and yes, homosexuality is a sin. If Adam had been a homosexual, or if any of your ancestors for that matter, had been homosexual, you would not have been born.

I've explained this on a number of occasions in the past, before you were posting here, and so I'll explain it again. I do not regard the Bible as the word of God. I regard the Bible as a set of historical sources that provide insight into what early Christians and Jews thought. It's a source that must be interpreted critically and carefully. I also regard other sources as valuable also, including the Gnostic Gospels. Both the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels provide us with insights into who Jesus was, what he said, and what he did. The work of many scholars is to try to determine what Jesus actually did and said.

I try to follow the teachings of Jesus. Not all of what is attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels is something he probably ever said. Most of what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John he probably never said. Most of John was apparently made up later by followers. The three synoptic Gospels have more in them that Jesus either probably said or may have said, and they are in quite a few respects similar to each other. (There is of course the "synoptic problem," which many scholars resolve by theorizing the existence of the Gospel they call Q, which they believe to have been a sayings Gospel.)

I think we can use material in both the canonical Gospels and in the Gnostic Gospels to get a relatively good idea of what Jesus taught. Scholars from the Jesus Seminar have worked long and hard to give us a clear picture of what Jesus probably said and what he may have said. I try to follow those teachings.

So I do not "despise" the Bible. I view it as a valuable historical source and some of it as great literature. I simply do not regard the Bible as the word of God.

As for whether I would not have been born if my ancestors had been gay, this makes no sense. Gay people have children all the time. Being gay does not destroy our reproductive systems. Many people whom I know either are gay biological parents themselves or are the children of gay biological parents. I am a gay parent, but I am an adoptive parent.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear Ohioprof,
I would say most people in the world, let alone Christians, would say such churches as those weren’t Christian.

Then you'd be wrong.

Biblical literalism is a MINORITY belief among Christians.

A dangerous minority to be sure, but a minority nonetheless

 

[Floatingaxe]

Then you'd be wrong.

Biblical literalism is a MINORITY belief among Christians.

A dangerous minority to be sure, but a minority nonetheless

It's dangerous to preach anyhing BUT biblical literalism, which is why the dilution and secularism of the Church is so prevalent.

We are on the cusp of a worldwide revival that will blow the lid off this creepy, insipid, lukewarm Church we see so much today!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It's dangerous to preach anyhing BUT biblical literalism, which is why the dilution and secularism of the Church is so prevalent.

We are on the cusp of a worldwide revival that will blow the lid off this creepy, insipid, lukewarm Church we see so much today!

I have higher hopes for mankind than that. Down the Biblical literalist road lie crusades and inquisitions. God gave us rational enquiring minds that we might make the world a better place. It is a sin not to use them.

And anyway, Bblical literalism fails on so many levels. Talking snakes? Global floods? I mean come ON!

 

[Floatingaxe]

I have higher hopes for mankind than that. Down the Biblical literalist road lie crusades and inquisitions. God gave us rational enquiring minds that we might make the world a better place. It is a sin not to use them.

And anyway, Bblical literalism fails on so many levels. Talking snakes? Global floods? I mean come ON!

Yep, come on.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yep, come on.

so wheres you evidence?

Absolutely no evidence of a Global Flood anywhere in the world. Prove me wrong.

 

[Floatingaxe]

so wheres you evidence?

Absolutely no evidence of a Global Flood anywhere in the world. Prove me wrong.

There are tons of evidence in the geology of earth's crust.

Stop derailing this thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There are tons of evidence in the geology of earth's crust.

Stop derailing this thread.

I'll stop it when you present any scientifically valid "evidence" of a global great flood.

Or when you admit you got no evidence

Until that time, I shall continue to be one of those horrible children who doesn't restrict herself to asking nice, simple, safe questions that don't challenge anyone's beliefs

 

[Ohioprof]

I think that the strong evidence for evolution has pretty well done in the idea that everything in the Bible is literally true. People still cling to Biblical literalism, but they do so against overwhelming evidence. You don't have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a person of deep faith. One great benefit of having the literal truth of the Bible shattered is that it may prompt people to stop worshipping the Bible, to stop clinging so tightly to religion as doctrine and to embrace a more flexible, open faith, a faith that take the true message of Jesus as its core: that we are to love God and we are to love our neighbor. And who is my neighbor? Everyone. That includes gay people.

 

[walloffire]

I do not regard the Bible as the word of God. I regard the Bible as a set of historical sources that provide insight into what early Christians and Jews thought

See, that was your first mistake.

I also regard other sources as valuable also, including the Gnostic Gospels.

And your second mistake.

Not all of what is attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels is something he probably ever said.

And your third mistake is this: You do not believe God is powerful enough to safeguard his scriptures effectively.

 

[walloffire]

I think we can use material in both the canonical Gospels and in the Gnostic Gospels to get a relatively good idea of what Jesus taught.

What would be the point if Jesus is so weak so as to not be able to safeguard his scriptures via the Holy Spirit? Surely the eternal omnipotent God can put a Bible together and keep it together across ages. You obviously believe Jesus is too weak to do this though.