SIN IS STILL SIN

[muichimotsu]

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.

And now you're derailing into just ad hominem, generalizing people into groups instead of talking to them as individuals: classy

 

[Freodin]

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.

Which of course is a very compelling argument to those who don't accept your authority.

I get it: you see yourself as a "preacher", not an apologet, a debator.
But you might consider that a lot of people react more positive to you when you talk to them, not at them.

 

[Skidder]

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

I think if I were you I would make sure you know the truth. There is only hell to pay for rejecting Christ

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

 

[Skidder]

Which of course is a very compelling argument to those who don't accept your authority.

I get it: you see yourself as a "preacher", not an apologet, a debator.
But you might consider that a lot of people react more positive to you when you talk to them, not at them.

No Jesus no salvation.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

 

[Skidder]

Which of course is a very compelling argument to those who don't accept your authority.

I get it: you see yourself as a "preacher", not an apologet, a debator.
But you might consider that a lot of people react more positive to you when you talk to them, not at them.

And do you honestly think your religion of Atheism will save you from your sins? The bible says there is only one answer for sin... (((that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day))).

Acts 16:31
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Skidder]

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....

Sin is still sin.

 

[Freodin]

And do you honestly think your religion of Atheism will save you from your sins?

See... this is what I mean about "talk to people".
No, I do not honestly think that my religion of Atheism will save me from my sins.
1. Atheism is not a religion.
2. There is nothing to be "saved" from.
3. There are no "sins".

Perhaps if you talked to atheists a bit more, and considered their point of view, you might find an approach that worked a little better than your "but my holy books says" way.

The bible says there is only one answer for sin... (((that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day))).

Acts 16:31
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Yes, that is something that Bible says. So what?
Consider that I am not someone who believes what your book says. Consider that there are lots of other people - more than there are Christians BTW - who have their own religions and their own "holy scriptures" and who tell me what their book says.

And who tell YOU what their book says. You don't accept any of it on facevalue, do you?

So your approach does not work. Perhaps you should reconsider it.

 

[Skidder]

See... this is what I mean about "talk to people".
No, I do not honestly think that my religion of Atheism will save me from my sins.
1. Atheism is not a religion.
2. There is nothing to be "saved" from.
3. There are no "sins".

Perhaps if you talked to atheists a bit more, and considered their point of view, you might find an approach that worked a little better than your "but my holy books says" way.



Yes, that is something that Bible says. So what?
Consider that I am not someone who believes what your book says. Consider that there are lots of other people - more than there are Christians BTW - who have their own religions and their own "holy scriptures" and who tell me what their book says.

And who tell YOU what their book says. You don't accept any of it on facevalue, do you?

So your approach does not work. Perhaps you should reconsider it.

Your religion is Atheism and it will never change what written in the bible. There is only ONE way, and that is by faith in The Lord Jesus Christ. We are saved by believing in Him because He paid the price for sin. He died for those sin, He was buried, and He rose again on the third day.

 

[Skidder]

See... this is what I mean about "talk to people".
No, I do not honestly think that my religion of Atheism will save me from my sins.
1. Atheism is not a religion.
2. There is nothing to be "saved" from.
3. There are no "sins".

Perhaps if you talked to atheists a bit more, and considered their point of view, you might find an approach that worked a little better than your "but my holy books says" way.



Yes, that is something that Bible says. So what?
Consider that I am not someone who believes what your book says. Consider that there are lots of other people - more than there are Christians BTW - who have their own religions and their own "holy scriptures" and who tell me what their book says.

And who tell YOU what their book says. You don't accept any of it on facevalue, do you?

So your approach does not work. Perhaps you should reconsider it.

There is only ONE NAME given under heaven by which we must be saved!

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

1 Corinthians 1:18-24
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Because of sin's destructiveness and contamination God sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross to redeem his creation. Jesus suffered a brutal death at the hands of those who crucified him... "Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again on the third day according to the scriptures". This is the Gospel message! This is the Grace of God!

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Philippians 2:9-11
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The ecumenical and feel good Gospels of today will never change the message of His Cross. Human excuses and the rationalizations from the silver tongues of men will account for nothing when we stand before Him. The only thing He will accept as payment for our sins is the blood of his dear Son. Without that deposit there remains only a sentence of eternal destruction for rejecting the free gift of His Son who suffered the Cross.

Revelation 3:20
Jesus said, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.”

Acts 16:31
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

 

[Freodin]

Your religion is Atheism...

Atheism is not a religion. You could call "Humanism" my religion, if you want, but at least get it right. It might help you getting taken more serious.

... and it will never change what written in the bible. There is only ONE way, and that is by faith in The Lord Jesus Christ. We are saved by believing in Him because He paid the price for sin. He died for those sin, He was buried, and He rose again on the third day.

Yes, I know that you say that. And you know that I do not believe that.
"There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet". That's what Islam says. A devout muslim can repeat that to you over and over again... and you won't suddenly convert to Islam, would you?

So perhaps you can understand that reciting your claims at someone isn't a very good way of having a conversation?
Well, perhaps that's your intention: proclaim your faith and don't give a fig about the reaction. Feel good and holy and righteous in your own position.

If that's the case, I cannot but find it rather amusing.

Merry Christmas!

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

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

Find me a marriage in the bible where two men or women married each other?

Also, disregarding the most-quoted '6 verses condemning homosexuality' (which, by the way, I have studied numerous times and agree that it is indeed not in favor of homosexuality given the time, place and language)my point was about marriage. There are tons of verses in the bible describing marriage. That, and while I personally don't believe a couple has to pro-create per se, it'd be foolish to ignore the fact that reproduction is also a large component of marriage, biblically speaking; two people of the same sex cannot procreate.

Being a concubine or secondary wife at the time meant being a woman that was there to cater to the man's sexual needs and to provide his offspring should his first wife not be able to. To be honest, I'm not even sure they interacted much with the other 'wives'. And as I said--God didn't even look favorably on polygamy, either. Just like he didn't look favorably on divorce. He only 'allowed' it for a time, and for a purpose...probably because the majority of polygamy-involved figures at that time only suffered because of it (King David, King Solomon, etc). It is also very silly to think of homosexuality as anywhere near a 'norm' or default. There have been VERY scarce times in history where it was ever considered 'normal'...not to mention we're naturally hard-wired to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of pro-creation and survival as a species. So forgive me for assuming that someone, in a time where homosexuality was not widely practiced or approved of, would be straight rather than the opposite.

Like I said, I'm not down to rag on homosexuals. Yeah, they deserve human rights and kindness--but if they aren't ready to sacrifice that part of themselves for their Faith(regardless of any opinions on the topic), Christianity is not for them.

SIDE NOTE: I call it a 'lifestyle' because while the attraction may be there, you do not have to act on it. Celibacy can be considered a lifestyle as well.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

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.

I mean, yes, but it's not YOUR job to change them now is it? It's God's job. Worry about your brothers and sisters in Christ first--this topic should've been in the 'Christians only' section tbh.

 

[Freodin]

I mean, yes, but it's not YOUR job to change them now is it? It's God's job. Worry about your brothers and sisters in Christ first--this topic should've been in the 'Christians only' section tbh.

Shouting at believers isn't as much fun as shouting at unbelievers.

But then again: it's quite amusing for an outsider to see the "true believers" battle it out among themselves. It's just sad that their battles so very often have dire consequences for the innocent bystanders.

 

[muichimotsu]

I think if I were you I would make sure you know the truth. There is only hell to pay for rejecting Christ

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

You're right, and I don't use faith for seeking truth, because that can easily be used to justify any claim to supposed knowledge, even if it's based in demonstrable fallacies or poor methodologies. Truth is harsh, it's not satisfying your needs for certainty in exchange for critical thought

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Shouting at believers isn't as much fun as shouting at unbelievers.

But then again: it's quite amusing for an outsider to see the "true believers" battle it out among themselves. It's just sad that their battles so very often have dire consequences for the innocent bystanders.

Probably.

Arrogance and the 'true believer' mentality is a plague in the community. I don't blame Atheists and others outside of our Faith for laughing at us and not taking us seriously--sometimes it feels like we fight more amongst ourselves than anyone else. Modern-day evangelists aren't doing a very good job at representing our Lord. Pander to the ultra-conservative Calvinist traditionalists, or pander to the nonreligious & the liberal 'woke' Christians. It's always one extreme or the other...always missing the bigger picture.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

You're right, and I don't use faith for seeking tryth, because that can easily be used to justify any claim to supposed knowledge, even if it's based in demonstrable fallacies or poor methodologies. Truth is harsh, it's not satisfying your needs for certainty in exchange for critical thought

I think the worst part is none of us will ever be able to find an 'ultimate truth'. One of the main things of believing in anything is accepting that there will always be a chance you're wrong...I think that kind of thought process helps keep people humble and from getting 'too comfortable' with their knowledge. Since at that point, they just end up believing they know everything and refusing to learn any more.

 

[muichimotsu]

Find me a marriage in the bible where two men or women married each other?

Also, disregarding the most-quoted '6 verses condemning homosexuality' (which, by the way, I have studied numerous times and agree that it is indeed not in favor of homosexuality given the time, place and language)my point was about marriage. There are tons of verses in the bible describing marriage. That, and while I personally don't believe a couple has to pro-create per se, it'd be foolish to ignore the fact that reproduction is also a large component of marriage, biblically speaking; two people of the same sex cannot procreate.

Being a concubine or secondary wife at the time meant being a woman that was there to cater to the man's sexual needs and to provide his offspring should his first wife not be able to. To be honest, I'm not even sure they interacted much with the other 'wives'. And as I said--God didn't even look favorably on polygamy, either. Just like he didn't look favorably on divorce. He only 'allowed' it for a time, and for a purpose...probably because the majority of polygamy-involved figures at that time only suffered because of it (King David, King Solomon, etc). It is also very silly to think of homosexuality as anywhere near a 'norm' or default. There have been VERY scarce times in history where it was ever considered 'normal'...not to mention we're naturally hard-wired to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of pro-creation and survival as a species. So forgive me for assuming that someone, in a time where homosexuality was not widely practiced or approved of, would be straight rather than the opposite.

Like I said, I'm not down to rag on homosexuals. Yeah, they deserve human rights and kindness--but if they aren't ready to sacrifice that part of themselves for their Faith(regardless of any opinions on the topic), Christianity is not for them.

SIDE NOTE: I call it a 'lifestyle' because while the attraction may be there, you do not have to act on it. Celibacy can be considered a lifestyle as well.

That's a black swan fallacy, to say nothing of shifting the goalposts, because I never said the Bible was positive on homosexuality and thus asking me to find examples of same sex couplings is silly (even if one can bring up David and Jonathan I believe), I'm saying they didn't have the concept that we'd call homosexuality anymore than they had a concept of sexual orientation, regarding the whole process as rooted in behavior, not the will

If you acknowledge reproduction is not required, there isn't anything stopping gay people from fulfilling marriage's more basic ideals of fidelity and family in general (bringing families together)

~~~~

Marriage back then was horribly misogynist, women were basically just meant to continue the lineage, they were regarded so little, that the idea of marrying a widow was seen as being compassionate because they couldn't support themselves (I think Esther has a story in that vein, I read it in the manga adaptation where I'm still barely to David last I took time to read it).

~~~~

No one's saying homosexuality is a norm or default, it's a normative variation in the same way that being bisexual or the like is still fitting into healthy human sexual behavior, it's not in the vein of anything damaging like rape or sexual molestation and such, which doesn't respect human autonomy

~~~

Actually, I'm pretty sure the evidence is against you on the idea of us being hard wired to be heterosexual, it's just the more common variation, which is like saying we're hard wired to be right handed and those left handed people are choosing to use their left hand

~~~~

Not sure you can claim with authority anymore than me that homosexuality wasn't common in some respect back then, they just didn't call it that. Again, sex was regarded based on behavior, not on will

~~~

As if Christianity's position on homosexuality is nearly so uniform and monolithic, it's not like you or any Christian gets to tell someone dogmatically how they must behave as a Christian unless you can actually back it up. And then you just get into a tennis match of interpretation bouncing, it gets nowhere

~~~~

Attractions are not lifestyles, or you might as well call an enjoyment of music a lifestyle. The word is not reductive to single traits, it's something that permeates various aspects of one's life and being gay or straight or otherwise is only affecting particular areas notably

 

[muichimotsu]

I think the worst part is none of us will ever be able to find an 'ultimate truth'. One of the main things of believing in anything is accepting that there will always be a chance you're wrong...I think that kind of thought process helps keep people humble and from getting 'too comfortable' with their knowledge. Since at that point, they just end up believing they know everything and refusing to learn any more.

I don't seek out that, it's delusional and unrealistic. I'm not of the opinion I could never be wrong, I'd much rather engage with a Christian that sees doubt as not antithetical to faith, but arguably enhances it in some sense (not necessarily reinforcing it as adding better foundations by questioning those deeply held beliefs)

Dogmatic fundamentalists exist anywhere, but religion, you have to admit, lends itself to more common manifestations of that based on the idea of divine revelation and inspiration, shielding them from falsifiability and thus admission of any real fault in the worldview

 

[Freodin]

Find me a marriage in the bible where two men or women married each other?

If your culture and religion is set against it, they wouldn't advertise it, would they?

But the question is: so what? Is it really an important topic?
Yes, there's a general societal regard for "offspring". It's a cultural and societal thing, especially in times when human power was the most important resource.

But that has changed. Society has changed. Homosexuality will never be "the norm", and no one is trying to make it so. The often cited "homosexual agenda" is very simple: "Just let us live like anyone else."

It's like left-handedness, or red hair. Both traits once had a very negative connotation. In the case of left-handedness, it was tried to "change" these people... get them on the "right" path. As we know now: it didn't work... and it is unneccessary. It's just not a topic.

And it is the same with homosexuality. The only reason it is made into such a big fight is that one side - the religious fundamentalist one - is actively making it into one. If they didn't, it wouldn't matter. Gays and homosexual couples would just be humans a little different from the "norm". Like redheads and left-handers.

It is, like I said, as with circumcision and eating taboos and tattooes and all that other stuff. They don't really matter.

The greatest commandment is said to be: "Love God and love your neighbor." You can derive a lot from that.
Lying can hurt other people. It is not "loving your neighbor". Stealing or killing hurts other people. It is not "loving your neighbor".
But being gay? Having a homosexual relationship? It doesn't hurt anyone. It is human.

 

[IntriKate]

Sin is still sin.

uh obviously...so what is your sin? or do you have none