Thoughts on Jesus/Bible promoting murdering homosexuals

[Ahazmat]

It looks to me like Lev 20:13 means that a man should not sodomize a man as he would sodomize a woman.

 

[NeTrips]

Doesn't matter how many nice things you do, it doesn't change the fact that you took a life.

so if any of your actions, beliefs, or inactions result in the loss of a life, you and your beliefs are forever discredited?

 

[Phred]

Homosexuality, while absent from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, is conspicuously present in both testaments and, just as conspicuously, it is forbidden.

I've read translations that would suggest differently. That the words used to say "homosexual" are not that at all. If this is so your entire argument just washes away on the prejudices of the translators.

This argument also assumes, because Jesus said nothing specific about homosexuality, that He said nothing about heterosexuality as a standard. Jesus referred in the most specific terms to God's created intent for human sexuality, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

As a Christian you may choose to live by this. As an non-Christian these are the words of men writing almost a century after the death of a man whose mouth these words are being place within. I find that to constrain the love of two people by these ancient prejudices serves no purpose. Love will find a way regardless of how many obstacles you put in its way.

Homosexuality may not have been mentioned by Jesus, many other sexual variations were not, either. But He could not have spelled out the standard for sexual expression more clearly: male to female, joined as God intended them to be. He cannot be assumed to have approved of anything less.

As I said, if you believe this, then you go live by this. Leave the rest of us alone please.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

deleted

 

[NeTrips]

I've read translations that would suggest differently. That the words used to say "homosexual" are not that at all. If this is so your entire argument just washes away on the prejudices of the translators.

I will not contest there may be some discrepanceis in minor areas of translation, but, on something as important as sexual ethics, are we really to believe the Bible translators we rely on got it wrong five different times, in two different testaments? And only on the Scriptures regarding homosexuality? (you seem to have no problem with the other Scriptures condemning sins like adultery and child abuse or those promoting charity, peace, and love.)

As an non-Christian these are the words of men writing almost a century after the death of a man whose mouth these words are being place within.

Much of the OT was written many hundreds of years prior to Jesus being born. The Gospels were written fairly soon after Jesus being crucified. If they were written 100 years after His death, that would put many folks of an age over 100 years old.

Love will find a way regardless of how many obstacles you put in its way.

No one ever said man wan't intelligent, just sinful by nature.

As I said, if you believe this, then you go live by this. Leave the rest of us alone please.

...says the non-Christian on the Chrstian forums....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

...says the non-Christian on the Chrstian forums....

Well NeTrips... as a Christian, allow me... if you believe there is something wrong with homosexuality, then you go live by this. Leave the rest of us alone please.

 

[HypnoToad]

Well NeTrips... as a Christian, allow me... if you believe there is something wrong with homosexuality, then you go live by this. Leave the rest of us alone please.

That would be fine. But then tell the non-Christian who started this thread attacking the Biblical view.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That would be fine. But then tell the non-Christian who started this thread attacking the Biblical view.

Why? Does the OP somehow ask an invalid question?

 

[SimplyMe]

I will not contest there may be some discrepanceis in minor areas of translation, but, on something as important as sexual ethics, are we really to believe the Bible translators we rely on got it wrong five different times, in two different testaments? And only on the Scriptures regarding homosexuality? (you seem to have no problem with the other Scriptures condemning sins like adultery and child abuse or those promoting charity, peace, and love.)

Actually, this isn't quite true. There are any number of questions, either of translation or interpretation, about sexual laws. For example, the exact meaning of the word we translate as "fornication" is also heavily discussed. Some contend that fornication covers any sexual activity between those not married -- and that is the belief of most conservative Christians. A more historical view is that it only applies to those not in a formally committed relationship; sex while betrothed, but prior to marriage, was allowable for ancient Jewish couples.

Another example is polygamy. Ask most Christians today and they will claim that is is absolutely forbidden in the Bible when, in fact, there is no true prohibition in the Bible against polygamy.

 

[NeTrips]

Well NeTrips... as a Christian, allow me... if you believe there is something wrong with homosexuality, then you go live by this. Leave the rest of us alone please.

my apologies. I was not aware, must be the lack of any icon.

and who is this nebulous "us"?

 

[NeTrips]

Another example is polygamy. Ask most Christians today and they will claim that is is absolutely forbidden in the Bible when, in fact, there is no true prohibition in the Bible against polygamy.

It takes careful ignorance of Scripture to miss the standard that is set in several places, one being:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It takes careful ignorance of Scripture to miss the standard that is set in several places, one being:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Doesn't say anything about not adding a third party to the partnership, does it?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

my apologies. I was not aware, must be the lack of any icon.

and who is this nebulous "us"?

"Us" are those of us who don't think anyone should try to dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms

 

[NeTrips]

Doesn't say anything about not adding a third party to the partnership, does it?

Exactly. It is clearly states "A" man and "HIS" wife and "the TWO". There is no way to misinterpret this to advocate for anything other than one man and one woman equalling marriage. Any other type of coupling is clearly not held up as the standard.

"Us" are those of us who don't think anyone should try to dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms

bedrooms were never mentioned, the OP was some junk about the Bible endorsing the murder of homosexuals. I didn't see the posted results where anyone was elected spokesperson here for any group, is there a link or something?

 

[Phred]

It takes careful ignorance of Scripture to miss the standard that is set in several places, one being:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

So then you also think we should own slaves? Jesus tells us about them and certainly doesn't condemn them. It takes a careful ignorance of scripture to miss that too.

 

[NeTrips]

So then you also think we should own slaves? Jesus tells us about them and certainly doesn't condemn them. It takes a careful ignorance of scripture to miss that too.

Phreed, please post the scripture and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Phred]

Phreed, please post the scripture and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I don't need to discuss the exact scripture. The references are there in both Luke and Matthew.

 

[HypnoToad]

Why? Does the OP somehow ask an invalid question?

So, what you're saying is that those who want to attack the Biblical view can do so, but those who want to defend the Biblical are somehow obligated to keep quiet??

Not sure how that makes sense, but, alright.

 

[HypnoToad]

I don't need to discuss the exact scripture. The references are there in both Luke and Matthew.

But you seem to state that we "should" own slaves.

Where does Scripture say that??

 

[Kaelestis721]

So, what you're saying is that those who want to attack the Biblical view can do so, but those who want to defend the Biblical are somehow obligated to keep quiet??

Not sure how that makes sense, but, alright.

If there is a question to be asked...then it should be asked and recieved with open ears.

If there is an answer to a question it should be recieved with an equally open ear...in my humble opinion.

Anyways, I've always been lead to believe that Jesus taught us all the love and understand...not to persecute. What a person does with him or her own self that does not openly affect others should not concern anyone but themselves. We shouldn't be the ones to judge.