SIN IS STILL SIN

[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!

Calling homosexuality a sin always flushes out the Atheists. They really hate it when you call it what it is.

No, God didn't make them that way, they "exchanged" natural relations for unnatural ones. Basically that means they made that choice. But you will not find this in your HIV (Hollywood International Version).

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.

 

[Freodin]

Now that you put your thinking cap on and figured it out, why does it offend you so much?

It doesn't. At least not "so much".
I am not homosexual. So I could just let it go. But when I see others, normal people, good people, being discriminated, pestered, threatened, attacked, killed for what they are... then, yes, that "offends" me.

Things change. Even "God's word". Because it isn't. It's what humans wrote about their beliefs.
2000 years ago, "religion" and "sin" and "the law" was very clearly defined for a lot of people... people just like you. It was written down and made it very clear: there are some things that you have to do and some things that you must not do in order to "not sin".

Like, certain eating rules. Or dressing rules. Or things to do to your body.

And these things changed. For a really law-abiding Jew, it was an abomination to not be circumcised, or to be tatooed. Modern Christians do not care about circumcision, but can wear tatooes freely.
Things change. And the traditionalists rant about it. What else is new?

Do you believe that people are born homosexuals like the world proclaims? That God made them that way?

Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait.
No, I do not believe that God made them that way. (Look at my displayed "faith" to understand why.)

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

If he's anything like street preachers I've seen, they don't care about those verses and usually would selectively interpret love in a way that's borderline abusive, saying that they are harsh because they care, essentially being staunch on a belief and not actually substantiating it

 

[Skidder]

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

The verses I gave you are pretty clear no matter how much you try to twist them.

 

[Skidder]

It doesn't. At least not "so much".
I am not homosexual. So I could just let it go. But when I see others, normal people, good people, being discriminated, pestered, threatened, attacked, killed for what they are... then, yes, that "offends" me.

Things change. Even "God's word". Because it isn't. It's what humans wrote about their beliefs.
2000 years ago, "religion" and "sin" and "the law" was very clearly defined for a lot of people... people just like you. It was written down and made it very clear: there are some things that you have to do and some things that you must not do in order to "not sin".

Like, certain eating rules. Or dressing rules. Or things to do to your body.

And these things changed. For a really law-abiding Jew, it was an abomination to not be circumcised, or to be tatooed. Modern Christians do not care about circumcision, but can wear tatooes freely.
Things change. And the traditionalists rant about it. What else is new?


Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait.
No, I do not believe that God made them that way. (Look at my displayed "faith" to understand why.)

Calling homosexuality a sin always flushes out the Atheists. They really hate it when you call it what it is.

No, God didn't make them that way, they "exchanged" natural relations for unnatural ones. Basically that means they made that choice. But you will not find this in your HIV (Hollywood International Version).

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.

 

[Freodin]

Calling homosexuality a sin always flushes out the Atheists. They really hate it when you call it what it is.

No, God didn't make them that way, they "exchanged" natural relations for unnatural ones. Basically that means they made that choice. But you will not find this in your HIV (Hollywood International Version).

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.

Again, this is not what Jesus said about homosexuality.

I really wonder why it is so difficult to find some words from the guy himself. (Nah, I really don't. Rhetorical point. )

 

[Skidder]

Again, this is not what Jesus said about homosexuality.

I really wonder why it is so difficult to find some words from the guy himself. (Nah, I really don't. Rhetorical point. )

Jesus never promoted any sin, not like you do.

 

[muichimotsu]

The verses I gave you are pretty clear no matter how much you try to twist them.

Pretty sure Biblical scholars would contest your interpretation, not that you'd care even if they agreed with you on everything else, because, as others point out, you're overly fixated on interpreting the bible as anti-gay when it's not necessarily cut and dry. Your insistence is no more authoritative than an appeal to popularity.

Paul in particular is fuzzy because of terms he makes up whole cloth in Greek that have no prior use to reference so we could even remotely try to interpret his meaning, particularly in regards to what may very well be a sexist idea about women having to be submissive even in love-making

 

[muichimotsu]

Jesus never promoted any sin, not like you do.

I don't think anyone's saying he promoted sin, you're creating a massive strawman to make yourself seem vindicated when it's intellectually dishonest to suggest you're engaging in a civil discussion rather than rhetorical twists

 

[Skidder]

If he's anything like street preachers I've seen, they don't care about those verses and usually would selectively interpret love in a way that's borderline abusive, saying that they are harsh because they care, essentially being staunch on a belief and not actually substantiating it

You don't even believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

 

[Freodin]

The verses I gave you are pretty clear no matter how much you try to twist them.

They aren't.
Do you think that it all would have been fine and dandy if the good people of Sodom had stormed Lot's house and demanded: "Where are the women who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

 

[muichimotsu]

Calling homosexuality a sin always flushes out the Atheists. They really hate it when you call it what it is.

No, God didn't make them that way, they "exchanged" natural relations for unnatural ones. Basically that means they made that choice. But you will not find this in your HIV (Hollywood International Version).

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.

It's not that we take your term seriously, it's the opposite, you've failed to argue why the term has any real meaning outside your presumptions about a God existing and having laws to obey that involve you being so fixated on people's private sex lives (seems a bit perverse to me)

Pretty sure the bible wasn't really unique in the antiquated notion of sexual "orientation" being a choice (not that they really had a nuanced idea about sex in terms of anything but behavior anyway) that contradicts any major modern evidence we've found that suggests it isn't that simple at all

 

[IntriKate]

If he's anything like street preachers I've seen, they don't care about those verses and usually would selectively interpret love in a way that's borderline abusive, saying that they are harsh because they care, essentially being staunch on a belief and not actually substantiating it

I personally believe most of these so called preachers wont even make it into heaven, because the numbers of people they turned away from God by their harsh hypocritical approach is most likely more than would come to him. Jesus spoke with love and it breaks his heart when people deny him, and when people hurt others using his name as a microphone it would sadden and anger him, no doubts.
If Jesus is love then how dare anyone else take that from the equation when speaking about salvation.

 

[Skidder]

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.

I'm sorry that calling homosexuality a sin offends you so much. Christ died for our sins not a false definition of sin. Therefore changing the definition of sin is a direct attack on the cross of Christ. Did you not read the title of my first post? SIN IS STILL SIN?

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't even believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

If you could actually bring compelling evidence, I might consider the notion, but in over a decade of engagement, I've seen nothing that isn't either exclusivist or relativist in nature as regards the notion of a deity supposedly saving people. But more foundational to the claims your making is why anyone should regard heaven as a reward or anything good, I've never found it exciting even as a child hearing about it, seemed utterly boring

 

[Skidder]

They aren't.
Do you think that it all would have been fine and dandy if the good people of Sodom had stormed Lot's house and demanded: "Where are the women who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

The bible speaks of people like you, so I'll let His word describe who you are....

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[muichimotsu]

I personally believe most of these so called preachers wont even make it into heaven, because the numbers of people they turned away from God by their harsh hypocritical approach is most likely more than would come to him. Jesus spoke with love and it breaks his heart when people deny him, and when people hurt others using his name as a microphone it would sadden and anger him, no doubts.
If Jesus is love then how dare anyone else take that from the equation when speaking about salvation.

It's not that they're taking love away, they're redefining it to fit the fire and brimstone, turn or burn rhetoric that they prefer to use, because actually talking to people without a microphone doesn't let their borderline narcissistic selves dominate the conversation, it's painfully obvious they want the spectacle rather than actually having a logical argument, purely the oratory talent they feel God has "blessed" them with

 

[Skidder]

If you could actually bring compelling evidence, I might consider the notion, but in over a decade of engagement, I've seen nothing that isn't either exclusivist or relativist in nature as regards the notion of a deity supposedly saving people. But more foundational to the claims your making is why anyone should regard heaven as a reward or anything good, I've never found it exciting even as a child hearing about it, seemed utterly boring

Here is what the bible says about those who deny the Christ...

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Freodin]

Jesus never promoted any sin, not like you do.

I do?

Where?

All I asked you to do was to show where Jesus said that homosexuality was sin. He didn't.

He might have considered it so... he was a Jew after all and followed the general rules of his religion. But he didn't feel it necessary to speak up against it. It might never have come up... like other topics where he did say something.

But then there's these things like circumcision and tatooes. Most likely, Jesus thought that one was necessary and the other forbidden. But he never said anything about it. It just wasn't a topic.
And still these things completely changed. For reasons of convenience.

So, was Paul promoting sin?

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm sorry that calling homosexuality a sin offends you so much. Christ died for our sins not a false definition of sin. Therefore changing the definition of sin is a direct attack on the cross of Christ. Did you not read the title of my first post? SIN IS STILL SIN?

Who says they're changing the definition? Pretty sure they'd still say sin is not conforming to God's expectations for human behavior and such. The question is whether your interpretation actually holds up or is selectively ignoring contrary frameworks because it would bring your belief into question if you took it seriously and impartially

 

[IntriKate]

I'm sorry that calling homosexuality a sin offends you so much. Christ died for our sins not a false definition of sin. Therefore changing the definition of sin is a direct attack on the cross of Christ. Did you not read the title of my first post? SIN IS STILL SIN?

Oh the homosexuality being a sin doesnt offend me, but I dont respect your angle in delivering this message. You act like you are without blame and sinless. You act like being gay is the only sin that God died for. You maybe should repent....