SIN IS STILL SIN

[muichimotsu]

What part is so confusing? What sin did you think I was referring to when the scripture says "they parade their sin like Sodom"? I think it's pretty clear. Sodom was known for homosexuality so the sin I'm referring to is homosexuality. This is the sin that many ecumenical Christians are conforming to and are no longer calling sin. I was simply stating this sin is still sin no matter how popular it becomes. Maybe the term "ecumenical" threw you off? Well, I gave the definition to ecumenical in post #4 along with more detail about what it means to turn your back on God's definition of sin. Did you not read post #4? Is that confusing as well, or maybe it offends you?

A sin that seems to be getting a free pass by many in the ecumenical church of today. But no matter how many Christians conform to this sin or ANY sin. Sin is still sin no matter how popular it becomes.

Isaiah 3:9
The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

Sodom is also known for inhospitality, you conveniently ignore verses that strongly suggest the homosexuality was incidental and not remotely the condemnation that was pointed to for Sodom and Gomorrah as being horrible to visitors in general. Denying food or such is just as bad in Jewish principles of hospitality as trying to rape them

 

[topher694]

Wow, this thread is a great example and reminder of why non Christians are wisely not allowed to post on most forums. The dialog is always utterly predictable and laughable.

 

[hedrick]

Wow, this thread is a great example and reminder of why non Christians are wisely not allowed to post on most forums. The dialog is always utterly predictable and laughable.

My worry isn't about non-Christians posting, but about prospective Christians reading.

 

[topher694]

My worry isn't about non-Christians posting, but about prospective Christians reading.

I agree with you there. I'm not worried about their posts in the least, not the content anyway. That's always the same and silly. But imagine if they did this on every single thread (which would happen), it would be beyond annoying and drive people away for that reason alone.

 

[Desk trauma]

Wow, this thread is a great example and reminder of why non Christians are wisely not allowed to post on most forums. The dialog is always utterly predictable and laughable.

If you find our presence here so distasteful why not remain in the Christians only sections?

 

[topher694]

If you find our presence here so distasteful why not remain in the Christians only sections?

Again 1000% predictable

 

[Desk trauma]

Again 1000% predictable

Ok....

 

[muichimotsu]

My worry isn't about non-Christians posting, but about prospective Christians reading.

Because how dare they differ from your orthodoxy!

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The issue I think people have with Atheists being in the open threads is because it ends up sidetracking everyone from the original post and into the 'You have no proof God is real' argument. Which can easy accumulate several hundred replies. That is an easy time waster when you know the person you're talking to believes in God and has probably already partaken in the argument several hundred times.

Anyway OP, you do need to be a little more concise with your points. Took me a while to figure out you were talking about homosexuality.

In any case, it's a touchy topic. Personally, I treat them like normal people. I don't 'approve' of their lifestyle, but I also don't prioritize that particular sin over all else.

Easy reason why I believe it's sinful; sex outside of marriage is sin. A biblical marriage can only be between a man and a women(or multiple women to one man back in OT days, though it wasn't something God encouraged nor was it the original plan). So if sex is sin outside of marriage, and a biblical marriage is between a man and a woman(as told by the first 'marriage' in Genesis)then that makes homosexuality another subset of sexual immorality, as two people of the same sex cannot have a God-approved marriage. Which is sin.

Is it a special, big sin? no. Is it still sin? Yeah.

I think that paired with the fact that every other mention of homosexuality in the Bible has been in a negative, sinful context...well, the writing is on the wall, my dudes.

side note: because somebody's bound to say it, at least the polygamist wives only has relations with the husband and not each other.

 

[Skidder]

Wow, this thread is a great example and reminder of why non Christians are wisely not allowed to post on most forums. The dialog is always utterly predictable and laughable.

This usually happens when sin is called sin, especially homosexuality. They usually come running to defend one of Satan's most proud strongholds.

 

[muichimotsu]

The issue I think people have with Atheists being in the open threads is because it ends up sidetracking everyone from the original post and into the 'You have no proof God is real' argument. Which can easy accumulate several hundred replies. That is an easy time waster when you know the person you're talking to believes in God and has probably already partaken in the argument several hundred times.

Anyway OP, you do need to be a little more concise with your points. Took me a while to figure out you were talking about homosexuality.

In any case, it's a touchy topic. Personally, I treat them like normal people. I don't 'approve' of their lifestyle, but I also don't prioritize that particular sin over all else.

Easy reason why I believe it's sinful; sex outside of marriage is sin. A biblical marriage can only be between a man and a women(or multiple women to one man back in OT days, though it wasn't something God encouraged nor was it the original plan). So if sex is sin outside of marriage, and a biblical marriage is between a man and a woman(as told by the first 'marriage' in Genesis)then that makes homosexuality another subset of sexual immorality, as two people of the same sex cannot have a God-approved marriage. Which is sin.

Is it a special, big sin? no. Is it still sin? Yeah.

I think that paired with the fact that every other mention of homosexuality in the Bible has been in a negative, sinful context...well, the writing is on the wall, my dudes.

side note: because somebody's bound to say it, at least the polygamist wives only has relations with the husband and not each other.

Never got why people oversimplify and think being gay is a lifestyle, which it isn't anymore than being straight is a lifestyle. It could be an aspect of a lifestyle, but for most people, it's hardly on the level of being a vegetarian or other such things

That brings up the question of whether all sex in a "biblical" marriage is automatically approved, as per 1 Corinthians 7 where it insinuates that you are obligated to provide sex to your spouse (meaning there cannot be rape, because consent isn't really an issue anymore?)

Not sure why taking the few notions that even entail interpreting homosexuality as sin (which are not that many overall) means one can conclude absolutely that their god that inspired the verses doesn't actually approve and you're misinterpreting the verses because of human fallibility in writing them based on historical context

And how do YOU know the polygamist wives don't have relations with each other? Seems a bit presumptuous

 

[Skidder]

The issue I think people have with Atheists being in the open threads is because it ends up sidetracking everyone from the original post and into the 'You have no proof God is real' argument. Which can easy accumulate several hundred replies. That is an easy time waster when you know the person you're talking to believes in God and has probably already partaken in the argument several hundred times.

Anyway OP, you do need to be a little more concise with your points. Took me a while to figure out you were talking about homosexuality.

In any case, it's a touchy topic. Personally, I treat them like normal people. I don't 'approve' of their lifestyle, but I also don't prioritize that particular sin over all else.

Easy reason why I believe it's sinful; sex outside of marriage is sin. A biblical marriage can only be between a man and a women(or multiple women to one man back in OT days, though it wasn't something God encouraged nor was it the original plan). So if sex is sin outside of marriage, and a biblical marriage is between a man and a woman(as told by the first 'marriage' in Genesis)then that makes homosexuality another subset of sexual immorality, as two people of the same sex cannot have a God-approved marriage. Which is sin.

Is it a special, big sin? no. Is it still sin? Yeah.

I think that paired with the fact that every other mention of homosexuality in the Bible has been in a negative, sinful context...well, the writing is on the wall, my dudes.

side note: because somebody's bound to say it, at least the polygamist wives only has relations with the husband and not each other.

I've learned whenever the stronghold of homosexuality is called a "sin", it brings a lot of discomfort to both the ecumenical Christian and the Atheist.

 

[Freodin]

Let me help you out since you keep dancing around the truth. Homosexuality is a sin. And changing this FACT to fit the world's definition of sin is a sin in itself. Jesus is the Word, so changing any definition of His Word is defying Christ.

Oh, that's so cute? I am dancing around the truth?

You are the one who claims that "the world" is changing the definition of "sin"... but when asked for the original "Jesus" definition, you bail out.

Male homosexuality was an "abomination to the Lord" according to the OT. That's as close as you can get to a "definition".
But so is eating bacon. That's what "The Word" says.

And then there came this guy who said it was OK to eat bacon. He changed the definition of "The Word". And Christians are perfectly fine with that. But when it comes to homosexuality - a topic about which this same guy didn't say a single word, they get all riled up.

You guys are so cute. And, yes, predictable.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Freodin]

The issue I think people have with Atheists being in the open threads is because it ends up sidetracking everyone from the original post and into the 'You have no proof God is real' argument. Which can easy accumulate several hundred replies. That is an easy time waster when you know the person you're talking to believes in God and has probably already partaken in the argument several hundred times.

Anyway OP, you do need to be a little more concise with your points. Took me a while to figure out you were talking about homosexuality.

In any case, it's a touchy topic. Personally, I treat them like normal people. I don't 'approve' of their lifestyle, but I also don't prioritize that particular sin over all else.

Easy reason why I believe it's sinful; sex outside of marriage is sin. A biblical marriage can only be between a man and a women(or multiple women to one man back in OT days, though it wasn't something God encouraged nor was it the original plan). So if sex is sin outside of marriage, and a biblical marriage is between a man and a woman(as told by the first 'marriage' in Genesis)then that makes homosexuality another subset of sexual immorality, as two people of the same sex cannot have a God-approved marriage. Which is sin.

Is it a special, big sin? no. Is it still sin? Yeah.

I think that paired with the fact that every other mention of homosexuality in the Bible has been in a negative, sinful context...well, the writing is on the wall, my dudes.

side note: because somebody's bound to say it, at least the polygamist wives only has relations with the husband and not each other.

The OP was very vague. There's a lot of talking about "sin", but as long as you don't specify what you mean, it could go into any direction.
The most he did was this reference to "Sodom". Well, what were the "sins of Sodom", clearly spelled out?

(Ez 16:49) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

So his rant could have been about the general coldness and mistreatment of the needy in today's world. It was possible. So we had to ask.

And, lo and behold, it turned out that it, of course, turned out to be the topic Number One of modern Christianity: TE GEYS! Because that is what modern american evangelistic Christianity has turned into: be against abortions, be against gays.

Well, as Skidder so very much was focused on what the "real" definition of "sin" was, I had to ask. Nothing about "there is no God"... just "what did Jesus say about homosexuality?"

Did you see him answering? I didn't.

I wonder why.

Merry Christmas!

 

[muichimotsu]

I've learned whenever the stronghold of homosexuality is called a "sin", it brings a lot of discomfort to both the ecumenical Christian and the Atheist.

The "stronghold"? Since when has it been referred to in those militant terms? And that specific term...it's not even figuratively a building or a worldview in any sense that could be referred to as such

 

[Skidder]

Sodom is also known for inhospitality, you conveniently ignore verses that strongly suggest the homosexuality was incidental and not remotely the condemnation that was pointed to for Sodom and Gomorrah as being horrible to visitors in general. Denying food or such is just as bad in Jewish principles of hospitality as trying to rape them

It's pretty obvious what that verse in Isaiah was talking about.

Genesis 19:4-5
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Not only that, but Romans even tells us it's a vile passion against nature...

Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Like my original post says, "sin is still sin". And this is true no matter what the world says.

 

[Skidder]

The OP was very vague. There's a lot of talking about "sin", but as long as you don't specify what you mean, it could go into any direction.
The most he did was this reference to "Sodom". Well, what were the "sins of Sodom", clearly spelled out?

(Ez 16:49) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

So his rant could have been about the general coldness and mistreatment of the needy in today's world. It was possible. So we had to ask.

And, lo and behold, it turned out that it, of course, turned out to be the topic Number One of modern Christianity: TE GEYS! Because that is what modern american evangelistic Christianity has turned into: be against abortions, be against gays.

Well, as Skidder so very much was focused on what the "real" definition of "sin" was, I had to ask. Nothing about "there is no God"... just "what did Jesus say about homosexuality?"

Did you see him answering? I didn't.

I wonder why.

Merry Christmas!

Now that you put your thinking cap on and figured it out, why does it offend you so much? Do you believe that people are born homosexuals like the world proclaims? That God made them that way?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

OK, how about you present some solutions or advice and encouragement on how to prevent or get set free from the behavior you are criticizing. You're not preaching the gospel if you tell people they are doing something wrong without pointing to a solution. To not do so is to present an unbalanced gospel of condemnation only.

Like Peter did when he preached — and 3,000 were added to the Church?

 

[IntriKate]

I'm a Christian and I do not support homosexuality, but nor do I support arrogance. You say you are an internet preacher yet you dont speak with love at all. Giving people the truth of Gods heart without condemnation does not mean you accept their sin. You need to check yourself at the door because your attitude is so focused on one sin and almost frantic about it and you just isolated people instead of reaching them, because striking someone verbally and expecting a change from them is not the message Jesus gave when he died for us.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's pretty obvious what that verse in Isaiah was talking about.

Genesis 19:4-5
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Not only that, but Romans even tells us it's a vile passion against nature...

Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Like my original post says, "sin is still sin". And this is true no matter what the world says.

That story doesn't have to entail homosexuality at all if they were seemingly just as open to raping Lot's daughters. The problem Sodom had is something I feel like we both would argue is universally bad: rape, because it violates human autonomy

Romans is rooted far more in the evangelizing angle than Genesis is, telling a story in contrast that has moral elements to it. Paul is just sermonizing ad nauseum on how everyone is doing Christianity wrong when he was its worst critic anyway. It's like he didn't really change that much except in advocating for it, but being a fundamentalist instead of harsh critique and persecution

Asserting that sin exists is not going to be convincing merely because you're intransigent on your position and have strong convictions, you have to substantiate it, give a reason for the faith you hold, 1 Peter 3:15. I don't really see respect here, I see contempt