Why should homosexuality be a sin?

BigBadWlf · Mar 1, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
What about "ABOMINATION" is hard to understand?

.

and God also said that eating shellfish is an abomination
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Lev 11:9-12

and that is why eating shellfish is a sin, cause God said so.

and dont forget cutting your hair, shaving, wearing clothing made of different fabrics are also sins because God said so.

gwdboi · Mar 1, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
Because GOD SAID SO.

God is the final authority. He said so, SO IT IS.

.

The utterly sad proof that people today cannot rationalize and think for themselves.

gwdboi · Mar 1, 2007

I must say that none of you save for maybe one or two are following the original intent of the topic.

Let us at least agree on this much: doesn't Jesus say that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love others; and that all other commandments fall under these two?

WalkingforHim · Mar 1, 2007

It shouldn't, because there lacks any rational and sensable reason why it should be.

The utterly sad proof that people today cannot rationalize and think for themselves.

The problem with religion, is it sometimes makes people so arrogant in their lack of knowledge, because they've found something that claims to have all the answers, so they use it as an excuse to simply stop thinking.

Mentally, people like that are no older than when they first found their religious zealotry.

Gusoceros · Mar 1, 2007

gwdboi said:
The utterly sad proof that people today cannot rationalize and think for themselves.

To the contrary- it shows great efficiency in realizing that it doesnt matter what we think, when it comes to determining what it is- it does not change what it is, and it serves to divide us from the Truth. It shows consistency, and one-mindedness with God.

G

intricatic · Mar 1, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
and God also said that eating shellfish is an abomination
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Lev 11:9-12

and that is why eating shellfish is a sin, cause God said so.

and dont forget cutting your hair, shaving, wearing clothing made of different fabrics are also sins because God said so.

Why were shellfish abominations? Not because God simply said so, there are extenuating reasons.

4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

(Acts 11)

Food was antitypal of gentile nations.

4 The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no costalso the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"
(Numbers 11)

It was a correlation to stand to testify to Israel about consuming the cultures of other lands in replacement of that which God had given them. When the time came to establish the universality of God's sovereignty, the cultures were to be integrated into the Church and food was no longer seen as an abomination as the promises were fulfilled under the old covenant.

Homosexuality is exceeded in type and antitype as God's sovereign marriage to the Church is universally expanded.

gwdboi · Mar 1, 2007

Gusoceros said:
To the contrary- it shows great efficiency in realizing that it doesnt matter what we think, when it comes to determining what it is- it does not change what it is, and it serves to divide us from the Truth. It shows consistency, and one-mindedness with God.

G

More like a cop-out to avoid having to abstract once in a while.

BigBadWlf · Mar 1, 2007

intricatic said:
Why were shellfish abominations? Not because God simply said so, there are extenuating reasons.

GeeI missed that in my reading of Leviticuscan you cite the chapter and verse of Leviticus backing up your extenuating reasons?

BigBadWlf · Mar 1, 2007

intricatic said:
Why were shellfish abominations? Not because God simply said so, there are extenuating reasons.

Food was antitypal of gentile nations.

It was a correlation to stand to testify to Israel about consuming the cultures of other lands in replacement of that which God had given them. When the time came to establish the universality of God's sovereignty, the cultures were to be integrated into the Church and food was no longer seen as an abomination as the promises were fulfilled under the old covenant.

Homosexuality is exceeded in type and antitype as God's sovereign marriage to the Church is universally expanded.

Sayisnt the use of any part of the Bible to justify something that's eisegetically found therein, an appropriate use of scripture?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32332650&postcount=177

intricatic · Mar 1, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
Gee…I missed that in my reading of Leviticus…can you cite the chapter and verse of Leviticus backing up your extenuating reasons?

Hi.

The Law was given as a tutor. It was not given for abstract or non-existent reasons. The reason it's often cited as being given, in relation to the dietary purity code, is to seperate Israel from the surrounding nations, and this is partly correct. If you cannot read between the lines, it's kind of difficult to explain typology in biblical texts, but there's a good walkthrough Here.

Or do you have a better idea as to why these Laws were given?

As far as the NT goes, why would that passage from Acts 11 make sense, given the meaning that was attached to it? They obviously weren't eating Gentiles.

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
(Acts 11)

intricatic · Mar 1, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
Sayisnt the use of any part of the Bible to justify something that's eisegetically found therein, an appropriate use of scripture?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32332650&postcount=177

I dunno what you consider eisegesis to be, but the use of an eisegetical interpretation generally refers to an interpretation that's without understanding of the grander thematic unfolding of scriptural message. It would be like me picking a verse out of scripture and saying;

14 He who is pregnant with evil
and conceives trouble gives birth to disillusionment.
15 He who digs a hole and scoops it out
falls into the pit he has made.
(Psalm 7)

Therefore anyone who's evil will go into labor and birth disillusionment, and we should kill their children because they'll be evil themselves.

BigBadWlf · Mar 1, 2007

intricatic said:
Hi.

The Law was given as a tutor. It was not given for abstract or non-existent reasons. The reason it's often cited as being given, in relation to the dietary purity code, is to seperate Israel from the surrounding nations, and this is partly correct. If you cannot read between the lines, it's kind of difficult to explain typology in biblical texts, but there's a good walkthrough Here.

Or do you have a better idea as to why these Laws were given?

As far as the NT goes, why would that passage from Acts 11 make sense, given the meaning that was attached to it? They obviously weren't eating Gentiles.

So you cant actually provide bible verse and chapter to support your claims. ... I see.

intricatic · Mar 1, 2007

BigBadWlf said:
So … you can’t actually provide bible verse and chapter to support your claims. ... I see.

No more than you can provide a consistent reason as to why God gave the Laws to begin with if we're no longer to follow any of them, according to an interpretation without typology. You may be able to provide verses that back up the fact itself, but without any reason as to why that may be the case, we're left with an image of an incredibly inconsistent God who can't make up His mind as to whether sin is a grievous evil to Him or not.

WalkingforHim · Mar 1, 2007

To the contrary- it shows great efficiency in realizing that it doesnt matter what we think, when it comes to determining what it is- it does not change what it is, and it serves to divide us from the Truth. It shows consistency, and one-mindedness with God.

So, think is going against God? Sounds like the mantra of a cult.

Gusoceros · Mar 1, 2007

gwdboi said:
More like a cop-out to avoid having to abstract once in a while.

Except this abstracting actually pits you against God's Word- why would you go about seeking to justify satan's position? Im at a loss to the benefit of such an endeavor. There are plenty of other things to abstract about- and choosing not to justify a satanic position (i.e.- against God), does not equate to a copout.

G

Gusoceros · Mar 1, 2007

WalkingforHim said:
So, think is going against God? Sounds like the mantra of a cult.

If choosing not to purposely spend time justifying the homosexual position before God, equates to being a cult- label me guilty as charged.

G

WalkingforHim · Mar 1, 2007

If choosing not to purposely spend time justifying the homosexual position before God, equates to being a cult- label me guilty as charged.

No one is asking you to do that, but rather, justify your own position.

Gusoceros · Mar 1, 2007

WalkingforHim said:
No one is asking you to do that, but rather, justify your own position.

That is the way it seems- my position on this is God's- and it doesnt seem to be good enough for some reason.

A better question would be Why SHOULDNT homosexuality be a sin?

G

davedjy · Mar 1, 2007

intricatic said:
No more than you can provide a consistent reason as to why God gave the Laws to begin with if we're no longer to follow any of them, according to an interpretation without typology. You may be able to provide verses that back up the fact itself, but without any reason as to why that may be the case, we're left with an image of an incredibly inconsistent God who can't make up His mind as to whether sin is a grievous evil to Him or not.

On the contrary, I think it makes God out to be arbitrary (which He isn't), and it shows one mindedness with doctrine but NOT the truth.

It also shows a consistent amount of ....

amount of.....

babbling !!!

WalkingforHim · Mar 1, 2007

That is the way it seems- my position on this is God's- and it doesnt seem to be good enough for some reason.

You position is not God's position, you do not know God's position on anything, and you are the worst kind of liar if you claim you do.

You think you know what God's position is, from a Book written by men, not by God, but men. To claim that you know God's position from that when one man can read it and get a completely different opinion, is disgusting and shameful, and makes you look like an irrational lunitic to any sane person.

I'm sorry if I come across harsh, but I'm tired of ignorant Christians telling me they got God in a bottle and He agrees with everything they happen to believe. Jesus didn't much care for those kind of peopl either.

A better question would be Why SHOULDNT homosexuality be a sin?

Because it isn't any different than heterosexuality other than the one obvious difference, and there is no reason why it should be more.

Now can you tell me why homosexuality should be a sin, without using God as a cop-out to justify your beliefs?

Why should homosexuality be a sin?

BigBadWlf

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

WalkingforHim

Guest

Head Rhino

...a dinosaur... or something...

Regular Member

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

...a dinosaur... or something...

...a dinosaur... or something...

BigBadWlf

Guest

...a dinosaur... or something...

WalkingforHim

Guest

Head Rhino

Head Rhino

WalkingforHim

Guest

Head Rhino

Well-Known Member

WalkingforHim

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency