Leaving ELCA

[Tangible]

You were the one putting the 10 Commandments forth as a counter-example, but it is not, all the sins in the 10 Commmandments involve harm to others.

Since all of the 10 Commandments involve harm to others, your point is completely lost on me here?

Coveting.

Coveting doesn't necessarily involve acting on your covetous desires and therefore does no harm to the person whose house, land, wife, servant, ox or ass you're coveting.

It only harms the one who is coveting.

 

[DaRev]

Gen 2:7

Genesis 2:7 is not talking about human conception. It is referring to the very beginning of human existance. Once Adam received the "ruach", the spirit of life, he became a living being (nephesh). Human life began at that point and has never ended. Thus Genesis 2:7 in no way supports your theory. Human conception is the coming together of two living human cells which forms another living human being (nephesh) complete with a spirit (ruach). In no way does Genesis 2:7, nor any other passage in Scripture, support what you allude.

When consciousness develops.

Based upon what?

I did not say it proved anything, I was very specific in my language, I said that Gen 2:7 proves the point while Jer 1:5 "strongly implies" the point.

Jeremiah 1:5 implies no such thing. Rather, it strongly supports the existance of the spirit at conception.

 

[Protoevangel]

I can agree with all this, and fail to see how any of it indicates that homosexuality is inherently sinful.

Ah yes! This is where I have particular disagreement with your side raming square pegs through round holes. The word wrongly translated as homosexual used in the New Testament clearly refers to the commonly existing practice at the time, which was male bisexuality. Male bisexuals are deeply disturbed, highly prone to drug usage and apt to engage in abuse of several kinds. To lump the much smaller homo population of the time in with the bisexual majority is like lumping conservative Lutherans in with the much large number of alcoholics in the world simply because conservative Lutherans love beer. It is an entirely unfair grouping.

You asked: "That is my definition of sin anyway, what is yours?" The definition of sin, by itself does not indicate anything as sinful. The rest of Holy Scripture, as attested to by 2,000 years of Church teaching, do that quite clearly. But but maybe I shouldn't expect one who believes only in "personally-created definitions" to even comprehend that.

 

[Edial]

He also forgives before that, I believe. Jesus did not wait for an apology and a realization of sin in murdering before calling on the Father to forgive His crucifiers.

Because they did not know what they are doing.

LK 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for {because} they do not know what they are doing." ...

We know that homosexual activity (together with an array of other activities) is sin.

It's in the Bible, so we do not have an excuse.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You were the one putting the 10 Commandments forth as a counter-example, but it is not, all the sins in the 10 Commmandments involve harm to others.

Since all of the 10 Commandments involve harm to others, your point is completely lost on me here?

I was giving an example, yes, that the ten commandments don't make excuses for sin that doesn't hurt someone else.

Where in the bible does it say that something is only sinful if it harms someone else?

 

[AngelusSax]

Because they did not know what they are doing.

LK 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for {because} they do not know what they are doing." ...

We know that homosexual activity (together with an array of other activities) is sin.

They didn't know they were killing God (or trying to, anyway). But they did know they made false accusations (Scripture tells us they gave false witness and it didn't agree with others' false witness). That's one of the Big Ten. They handed Jesus over to be crucified, which was not an approved method of capital punishment (stoning was the norm, I think).

So either Jesus was only forgiving the "killing God" aspect, which it doesn't say, or He was simply asking the Father to forgive them, which it does say. Jesus says they did not know what they were doing. Yet these were learned-enough Jews to know that "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Their own teachings stated that "neighbor" was "Jew", which Jesus was.

Is it your contention that Jesus was not asking the Father to forgive them for those sins as well, but just specifically the sin of trying to kill God?

 

[Edial]

...
Is it your contention that Jesus was not asking the Father to forgive them for those sins as well, but just specifically the sin of trying to kill God?

Of course.

That was the context and this verse supports it.

1CO 2:7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Even Paul who was persecuting Christians when he was still called Saul thought he was doing the "right thing".

1TI 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Homosexuals who believe the literal, face-value interpretation is not what was being talked about believe they are doing the "right thing" too.

 

[Edial]

Homosexuals who believe the literal, face-value interpretation is not what was being talked about believe they are doing the "right thing" too.

Cannot be.
Denial of a written fact was never an excuse to be considered.
And in Christianity the Bible is the most relevant document to be considered.

If the Bible is our "Owner's Manual" of ourselves, to claim that we know more than the "Manual" or to go against the instructions found there cannot be considered as a valid path of defense.

We know too much.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Lazerboy]

If the Bible is our "Owner's Manual" of ourselves, to claim that we know more than the "Manual" or to go against the instructions found there cannot be considered as a valid path of defense.

Some don't think they know more than the manual nor that they are going against the Bible's instructions. They just believe in a different interpretation of said instructions.

 

[Edial]

Some don't think they know more than the manual nor that they are going against the Bible's instructions. They just believe in a different interpretation of said instructions.

True. Some things need to be interpreted because they are not clear.

But the plain statements like, like "do not" do this or that need no interpretation.

Of course we might try to interpret things away.
But why?

Who are we fooling, but ourselves?

Forgiveness of sins is here. Why avoid it?

Thanks,
Ed