Why is homosexuality focused upon, but disobedience of the commandments ignored?

[b&wpac4]

Well, Job was rich and righteous, and after testing him, God doubled his riches, right?

Yes, but I'm looking for a specific verse or chapter that says for keeping the commandments, one will become rich. Job would be the story that one man was rewarded after being directly tested, but in no way does it say all will be thus rewarded after being directly tested.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, but I'm looking for a specific verse or chapter that says for keeping the commandments, one will become rich. Job would be the story that one man was rewarded after being directly tested, but in no way does it say all will be thus rewarded after being directly tested.

Well, to be fair, I think it's a bit of a strawman to read his statement and take from it that every single person who follows OT laws will be lead towards personal wealth. Although he implied something pretty close to that, I don't think he said that specific idea. On the other hand, ancient Israelites placed a lot less emphasis than later religions on an afterlife, and instead focused more on this life. If one can lead a noble, god-fearing life here and now, but go unrewarded by love, wealth, peace, prosperity, health, or offspring, then the purpose of the Tanakh is rather diluted. So, what he says is probably partially true, that they did believe that their efforts would go rewarded here and now, by one means or another.

The only verse I can think of that meets your requirements is from the Christian New Testament as opposed to the Hebrew Bible. It's one used often by televangelists to justify their expensive suits.

Matthew 6:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Lots of televangelists preach that by following the way of Christ, and by not caring about material possessions, that all of these things like wealth and prosperity and happiness will be added unto them. (Crowds come pretty quickly with statements like that.)


-Lyn

 

[b&wpac4]

Sometimes I just like seeing the responses that will be brought up.

 

[Penumbra]

Another instance I can think of is that of Solomon. (In a way, the verse I posted from the NT kind of echoes that of Solomon.)

In the OT, God asks Solomon what he wants, and Solomon asks for wisdom. God is impressed that he did not ask for wealth or the destruction of his enemies, so he gives him his wish of wisdom but also gives him things he didn't ask for, such as wealth. It doesn't specify that everyone who does this will get wealth, though. As the Hebrew Bible is fond of pointing out, God brings all things, blessings and calamity, so to hope for one but not the other is foolish. As Nihilist directly or indirectly pointed out in post 18, God's character in the Bible tends to play favorites, picking some for greatness, prosperity, wealth, fame, joy, success, personal relationships, and so forth, while not having such intimate relationships with thousands of others in the kingdom.

 

[Beanieboy]

The answer is beanieboy, why when you don’t acknowledge the Bible condemnations of same sex relationships do you expect others to acknowledge the 10 commandments? Reminds me of the speck and the plank and the bit where one looks down on another.

I have researched the supposed condemnations of the Bible on homosexuality, and I don't think the bible condemns it at all. Any in depth research would show that it isn't a cut and dried case. If one looks only at the English text, out of context, doesn't see who is talking, to whom, and about what, then you can condemn anything.

Such people, for example, look to Leviticus, and point to the clear condemnation of homosexuality. Eating shellfish and pork are condemnations in Leviticus. A husband is not to sleep with his wife while menstrating. You can't point to "this counts" while saying just about EVERYTHING else in Leviticus doesn't.

But the point of the OP? Not that I am arguing that homosexual is or isn't sin. I am asking why it is focused upon SO MUCH MORE than the obvious breaking of the 10 Commandments - such as, worshipping materialism or wealth, or swearing, of saying o my g, etc.

How can one dare to hold up homosexuality as some important sin while all around them, the 10 commandments are being broken, and they are silent about them?

THAT is my point.

I don't spend a lot of time talking about hetersexuals being promiscuous, or heterosexuals who seem to emulate porn stars and strippers these days, or heterosexuals who insist on enlarging their breasts and revealing them as much as legally possible, or heterosexuals who employ prostitutes. It would make no sense that I don't address my own life, or talk about the gay community and promiscuity.

To only focus on heterosexual immorality is just trying to pull focus away from myself, and says more about me than them.

Today, I was at the gym. One of the many TV's had a movie on where a bunch of guys were having a stag party. There were 2 girls - strippers. The one started and took off her cheerleader-like uniform, simulating pedophilia of a high school girl. The other girl helped her take off her clothes, undoing her skirt with her teeth. The women kissed and ran their hands over each other, to the delight of the ogling men. And this was a TV Movie on W.

Were the men upset because it was homosexuality? Seriously? They think it is hot. They think it is hot when two girls act sexual toward one another, because it is for the benefit of the men.

And when are they doing this? Usually before the guy gets married, as part of his bachelor party. That's how he approaches his marriage - with hookers, who lap dance, even offering the men sex sometimes, or allowing the men to watch the two women have sex with each other.

Before you say, "that's only a movie", does that happen? Yeah. It actually happens. That's why it's believable when it happens in a movie - because it happens in real life.

But it isn't homosexuality between women that men are disgusted with, or bothered with, but encourage it, and enjoy it, when it is done for their benefit.

So, before you want to talk about the "sin of homosexuality," answer for the lust of heterosexual men who have girl on girl porn, hire strippers, go to strippers where nude women give them lap dances, as part of their ritual of getting married, and we can talk.

But I don't think homosexuality, and it being a sin, or edifying one's homosexual Christian brothers has ever been the point. I think it is simply to condemn others while forgiving oneself.

 

[Beanieboy]

Well, Job was rich and righteous, and after testing him, God doubled his riches, right?

Jesus was poor. He was born in a stable. He was a carpenter, not an earthly king. Was he, because he was poor, not following God the Father?

To the wealthy man, unwilling to sell all that he had, he said, "It is harder for the rich man to enter the Kingdom than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

Why would he say that if rich=obedient to God?

 

[Beanieboy]

The answer is beanieboy, why when you don’t acknowledge the Bible condemnations of same sex relationships do you expect others to acknowledge the 10 commandments? Reminds me of the speck and the plank and the bit where one looks down on another.

I have actually debated with Christians on this board, saying that "one should love your neighbor as yourself," to have them reply, "Why should I!"

Loving God, and loving others as you do yourself, according to the words of Christ himself, which are a commandment, fulfill the law.

Such people really have no place to be telling me what is and isn't sin, when they blantantly disobey the command of Christ, and don't acknowledge it.

It's a bit like Christians says o mg, something that you can't even abbreviate on this board, and then demand nonChristians to be obedient to a Law they don't even follow themselves.

And that makes sense to you?

 

[Penumbra]

Jesus was poor. He was born in a stable. He was a carpenter, not an earthly king. Was he, because he was poor, not following God the Father?

Well, first of all, I wasn't echoing the one poster's claimed view that according to the OT, all those who follow God become wealthy. My point was simply that the OT does not look down on wealth, that many of the key people in the stories are rich in material or rich in admiration of followers, or rich in power, and that God does reward people often in the OT with riches and other things, like Job and Solomon.

Like I said before, ancient Israelites places a lot less emphasis than modern Christianity on the afterlife, so they expected to prosper in the here and now if they were doing what is right. (Although when that didn't always work out, arguably from the atheist point of view that their god doesn't actually exist, they had stories of God testing people, God choosing to bring calamity when he wills it, rain on the just and unjust, and so forth. It's kind of like how prayer always works, except when it doesn't.)

To answer your question, as the story goes, Jesus is god. He could conceivably make a mountain of gold in front of him if he wanted to. Also, Jesus claims to come back in glory and power and all that, so he expects a certain kind of riches for himself anyway.

To the wealthy man, unwilling to sell all that he had, he said, "It is harder for the rich man to enter the Kingdom than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

Why would he say that if rich=obedient to God?

Why would he say that? Jesus said a lot that disagreed with OT sensibilities, so why would this stand out as being unusual? Job was rich and God doubled it because he passed a cruel test. Solomon was made rich by passing God's test of asking for wisdom instead of something shallow. Jesus had a thing against wealth (despite using a number of rich people in his parables to represent God), probably because he was under the impression that the earth was coming to an end shortly. Jesus introduced Christianity (though of course not under that name originally), a religion that focuses a lot on the afterlife at the cost of this one, which is different from Judaism. He urges people to seek treasure in heaven that cannot be destroyed by moths or stolen by thieves, and urges the man that finds something valuable in a field to sell everything he owns to purchase that field.

-Lyn

 

[Mark Zamen]

This is a very good post, well expressed and reasonable. Your essential message of not over-emphasizing homosexuality as a sin in relation to other conduct considered unacceptable by Christian standards is well taken, as is your point about the debatability of whether or not it is a sin at all. It is a sad fact that a large segment of society, particularly the religious right, still regards gay men and women as second-class citizens – or worse. This lack of compassion and understanding can and often does have catastrophic consequences. That is the salient point of my recently released biographical novel, Broken Saint. It is based on my forty-year friendship with a gay Mormon man, and chronicles his internal and external struggles as he battles for acceptance (of himself and by others, including co-religionists). More information on the book is avaialable at http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BrokenSaint.html.
Mark Zamen, author