Same Sex Relationships

[VaultZero4Me]

The act itself is AGAINST NATURE. And being 'against nature' means directly in opposition to that which is NATRUALLY RIGHT.

But we have already established that gluttony is against nature. The natural reason to eat is to live. Not live to eat. It is polar opposites it is a perversion of the natural order set by God.

The ONLY thing that we KNOW that made them COMPLETELY WICKED was that they practiced HOMOSEXUALITY.

Come on. Your theology is stronger than this isn't it? Christian theology is the only one that interprets this in that way. Traditional and classic Jewish theology states that the main sin of Sodom was of property. What mine is mine, and whats yours is mine.That is how it was interpreted before Christ was even born. Did Christ mention something that reorganized it to mean something else?

True, homosexuality is considered a sin in the original 613 Mitzvah, but haven't we established that Christians are not obligated to the Mitzvah through Christ, therefore all theology must come from the NT? I agree the NT establishes it as a sin as well, but no hierarchy has been shown to me yet in the NT. Therefore Gluttony is as bad as Homosexuality in the NT.

The rest of your argument is predicated off of the two ideas above, which have just been refuted, unless I am missing something.

 

[unred typo]

quote by VaultZero4Me :
Seriously are you just throwing random verses out there as evidence :wink:

Your version of bait and switch theology is getting tiring. You make a statement like; “BTW, please do not portray God as the creator of AIDS to punish homosexuals. That is intellectually bankrupt as well. I thought that kind of thinking went out with the 80’s. Guess not.†and complain that “none of this is biblical†referring to the diseases God uses to punish with.

Then when I show that God does use diseases to punish people, you act as if all you want is “evidence to support your position that God sees homosexuality and gluttony any different.†C’mon, let’s not be so coy. I can back up what I’m saying with verses. I’m not going to try to back up what your straw man version of me is saying.

quote by VaultZero4Me :

What part of this is singling out homosexuals over other idolotry such as gluttony?

I don’t consider either gluttony or homosexuality to be ‘idolotry’. Excessive eating is gluttony. Having sexual relations with somebody of the same sex is homosexuality. Worshipping an idol is idolatry. Saying that God hates homosexuality while not recognizing that God hates some of the things they do, is hypocrisy. Proverbs 6:16-19 says that “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brethren.

As I said, homosexuality is more of a punishment than a sin in itself. The cause of the homosexuality is probably a sin, such as hating God or “worshipping the creature more than the ceator†as it says in Romans. Training a child to be homosexual is more in the category of a sin, imho.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So you are saying homosexuality is a result of sin? Where is your basis for that? Is gluttony a result of sin as well? If not, where is your support to treat them differently?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

If you normalize homosexuality, he may add insult to injury and give God-haters a humiliating disease where they have uncontrollable bouts of explosive diarrhea, for instance. Oh wait, that would be AIDS. (Now please don’t misrepresent me as saying that all AIDS victims are God-haters. That would be as asinine as saying that all people who have diseases are being punished. )

The irony is that your attempt to point out a straw man was an actual straw man attempt to make an ad hom, or you just completely misunderstood. Which I cite as my reason.

I never said you said god punishes all. I said that if God created HIV as punishment for homosexuality, more hetero people are affected by HIV than homo. I never said god punished innocent people to.

Now, to clarify, are you saying that God did not create HIV, but rather punishes homosexuals by somehow getting them infected with it? If thats the case, then why do people not guilty of that, still get HIV?

And yes, I do not want to get off subject. YOU are the one that brought it up in the first place.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Your version of bait and switch theology is getting tiring.

I am sorry, but would you like to point out some more examples of the straw man? This is the first time anyone has mentioned one. How is it that you are tiring of something that nobody is even pointing out as happening?

If it is so tiresome to debate this issue, why follow it? Why either just bow out, or actually cite some scriptural backing for the hierarchy's of the two sins?

 

[turnorburn]

So you are saying homosexuality is a result of sin? Where is your basis for that? Is gluttony a result of sin as well? If not, where is your support to treat them differently?

: Wait just a second here, "homosexuality is a result of sin" "gluttony is a result of sin" Its all a result of sin. "Your a result of sin", Question? where you born in sin? that makes you a sinner,
right? So then why all of this useless dribble? there are lost sinners out there that need a savior.
The only thing that makes you sinless in the eyes of God is his Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Care to comment?

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[unred typo]

quote by VaultZero4Me :
So you are saying homosexuality is a result of sin? Where is your basis for that? Is gluttony a result of sin as well? If not, where is your support to treat them differently?

I said Romans specifically refers to homosexuality being a kind of humiliation or curse for not honoring God as God. I didn’t say homosexuality isn’t officially a sin, per se, or even that gluttony is a sin. That may fit your agenda here but let me clarify what I meant instead. Reading Romans in context would be a good start:

Romans 1:
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(Side note: Just because an activity is found in animals in nature, doesn't mean it is natural for humans or even that it isn't against the 'natural use' of the animal. )

The reason that homosexuality should not be considered normal and healthy is because it isn’t. It’s not helping the person addicted to this behavior to make him feel comfortable about it, any more than it is a kindness to help the alcoholic or drug addict to feel good about their addictions. A person who is overweight needs help to overcome eating disorders. By saying it’s OK to be obese, one is not helping the person get the incentive to change. Letting a person fall into self-destructive behaviors of any kind is not ‘love one another’. Are you afraid that overeaters are not being given as much incentive to change as homosexuals?

Not all self destructive behaviors are the same in God’s eyes. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament as one of the abominations that caused the expulsion of the inhabitants from their lands. Gluttony is not. Gluttony is not specifically named as a sin. ‘Thou shalt not overeat’ just isn’t there. God did not drive people from their lands because they ate too many hot fudge sundaes. There are commands not to commit sexual perversions and those things are considered to be sins. One sin does seem to lead to another. The sin that God judged most harshly in the OT was idolatry and sexual perversions were an integral part of that practice, along with the murder of children in sacrifice to the idol.

A nation that embraces sin of any kind is subject to judgment. That is a good reason to protest against it. The same people who protest against homosexuality are probably also picketing abortion clinics and speaking out against strip night clubs and drunkenness. If God has called these people to minister to the community in this way, we should support their effort. They may be holding back the enemies of this country from attacking us, so instead of being angry about it, thank them. The nation that forgets God, will be punished. Read about the judgments of God against his people in 1 Kings 14-15. Asa was considered a good king for removing the groves for idol worship and the sodomites from the country.

1 Kings 15:11-13
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.

Is there a prejudice involved with the judgment of homosexuality? Perhaps. Perhaps the severity with which God dealt with Sodom has something to do with that, since the traditional view is that it was destroyed because of sodomy, among other things. Perhaps it is the fact that AIDS has been incurable and deadly to those who have been so inflicted. There are good reasons to treat it seriously. It is something that removing the stigma from will only lead to it’s increase. Is that what you want? :smt017


As for your other arguments, I don’t think it would be of any benefit to follow them in this thread. Vic wants me to be nice :smt018 and those are just going to get me in trouble. :smt021 I’ll just retract my references to strawmen and ‘bait and switch’ tactics and let the reader judge those things by reading himself.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Are you afraid that overeaters are not being given as much incentive to change as homosexuals?

That has been my point all along. There is a bias towards homosexuals over gluttons. Gluttons run rampant within the evangelical church.

My point is that many Christians use something outside of the Bible to cause such an emotional reaction.

Not all self destructive behaviors are the same in God’s eyes. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament as one of the abominations that caused the expulsion of the inhabitants from their lands. Gluttony is not. Gluttony is not specifically named as a sin. ‘Thou shalt not overeat’ just isn’t there.

I thought we had come to an agreement on the original commandments. Well if you want to go to the OT some, gluttony surely is talked about in the OT, maybe not as much, but it is.

Deut 21:19-21 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

Clearly in this verse gluttony is one of the major reasons this boy was stoned. That was the NASB. So, if we are in the OT for support, there is going to be a lot of things we are going to have to do as well. Shall I list the 613 Mitzvah?

A nation that embraces sin of any kind is subject to judgment. That is a good reason to protest against it. The same people who protest against homosexuality are probably also picketing abortion clinics and speaking out against strip night clubs and drunkenness. If God has called these people to minister to the community in this way, we should support their effort. They may be holding back the enemies of this country from attacking us, so instead of being angry about it, thank them.

Now you are switching it up to them protecting us. This is supposed to be all scriptural base.

But, lets go with this one. Look up all the secular countries. The countries that have way more incidences of the things listed above. I will list a few.
1. Sweden
2. France
3. Japan
Now, compare those countries violence rates with the US. Also, compare the amount of times those countries have been in a war in the last 50 years, in contrast with the US. I challenge you to find evidence that the more secularized a country gets, the more problems it has. I think you will see the evidence going in the opposite direction.

Again all of that is irrelevant, because this is supposed to be scriptural based.

. Perhaps the severity with which God dealt with Sodom has something to do with that, since the traditional view is that it was destroyed because of sodomy, among other things. Perhaps it is the fact that AIDS has been incurable and deadly to those who have been so inflicted. There are good reasons to treat it seriously. It is something that removing the stigma from will only lead to it’s increase. Is that what you want?

Again, it has only been the tradition of the church to put Sodom in that light.

The original people who witnessed the event, and originally wrote the event, taught the major sins to be of selfishness of property (a very severe sin in the OT. One of the worse in traditional Jewish teachings. Look how many times people are punished in the OT for that offense.)

Again, the HIV stigma was created by Christians only because the original carrier was thought to have been a gay flight attendant, and some of the original cases were in gay men in the US. HIV has no discretion with gay or hetero. In fact, heteros have been the majority of the cases. Is it really fair to use this as a basis?

Removing the stigma should be the goal. Can you think of one thing Christ showed more of by example than not having stigma? How many times did he rebuke people in the bible for that very act? Do I need to provide biblical support for that?

As for your other arguments, I don’t think it would be of any benefit to follow them in this thread. Vic wants me to be nice and those are just going to get me in trouble. I’ll just retract my references to strawmen and ‘bait and switch’ tactics and let the reader judge those things by reading himself.

I do not get offended by being accused of straw men. I do not want to use fallacies in my arguments. If I have, I would certainly like them to be pointed out as I would want to correct them. Point them out in a PM if you would wish. The only thing I do not like is for people to imply or state that I am trying to argue homosexuality to be ok within the Bible as I have been clear in my statements that it is not my intent. That has been done against me several times.
I do not know if it is just because of the emotional response, or if it is on purpose, but never the less, I have been accused of it.

 

[Imagican]

Let us go 'back' to the OT for a moment. In it, Moses gave the LAW. And in IT, there ARE degrees of sin. Some sins required repentance through labor or loss. Some sins required cerimony to remove. And some sins required TIME to become erased. But, SOME sins required DEATH as punishment.

Now, I will AGREE that we are NO LONGER 'bound' by The Law. BUT, that doesn't alter the FACT that IN GOD'S eyes, SOME sins were WORSE than others. And eye for an eye,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but DEATH for certain others PLAINLY offers that to 'steal a chicken' was NOT as DEEP of a sin as FAILING to Honor the Sabath. That touching something 'unclean' was NOT as DEEP as practicing 'wtichcraft or sorcery'.

Now the Law was FOR a 'teacher', (which by the way, MOST seem to be unaware). But IF this IS TRUE, then it was designed to TEACH that certain sin WAS worse than other. So, even though we are NO LONGER "BOUND" by the Law, that doesn't alter tha FACT that it was given to TEACH and the lessons are STILL the 'same'; Love God with all your heart mind and soul, love your neighbor AS yourself. And certainly THIS ORDER shows maginitude of IMPORTANCE. For the FIRST commandment is FIRST FOR A REASON. And this ORDER would point ALSO to importance of SIN; for to break the FIRST is CERTAINLY more severe than breaking the second.

I beileve that the confusion over this issue lies in that you have misinterpreted the 'concept' that we are ALL sinners, to equate with All sins are EQUAL. How WRONG this idea truly is. For ALL HAVE SINNED but ALL sinnners are NOT the same so far as 'their OWN personal sins'. Otherwise, judgement would BE THE SAME for ALL. And we KNOW that this is NOT the case. There is A sin, and then there are MANY sins. Some will be judged for the ONE, and others for MANY. Do you honestly THINK that the 'judgement' will 'be the same' for BOTH?

MEC

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Let us go 'back' to the OT for a moment. In it, Moses gave the LAW. And in IT, there ARE degrees of sin. Some sins required repentance through labor or loss. Some sins required cerimony to remove. And some sins required TIME to become erased. But, SOME sins required DEATH as punishment.

Now, I will AGREE that we are NO LONGER 'bound' by The Law. BUT, that doesn't alter the FACT that IN GOD'S eyes, SOME sins were WORSE than others. And eye for an eye,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but DEATH for certain others PLAINLY offers that to 'steal a chicken' was NOT as DEEP of a sin as FAILING to Honor the Sabath. That touching something 'unclean' was NOT as DEEP as practicing 'wtichcraft or sorcery'.

Now the Law was FOR a 'teacher', (which by the way, MOST seem to be unaware). But IF this IS TRUE, then it was designed to TEACH that certain sin WAS worse than other. So, even though we are NO LONGER "BOUND" by the Law, that doesn't alter tha FACT that it was given to TEACH and the lessons are STILL the 'same'; Love God with all your heart mind and soul, love your neighbor AS yourself. And certainly THIS ORDER shows maginitude of IMPORTANCE. For the FIRST commandment is FIRST FOR A REASON. And this ORDER would point ALSO to importance of SIN; for to break the FIRST is CERTAINLY more severe than breaking the second.

I beileve that the confusion over this issue lies in that you have misinterpreted the 'concept' that we are ALL sinners, to equate with All sins are EQUAL. How WRONG this idea truly is. For ALL HAVE SINNED but ALL sinnners are NOT the same so far as 'their OWN personal sins'. Otherwise, judgement would BE THE SAME for ALL. And we KNOW that this is NOT the case. There is A sin, and then there are MANY sins. Some will be judged for the ONE, and others for MANY. Do you honestly THINK that the 'judgement' will 'be the same' for BOTH?

MEC

Even with this line of reasoning, how does that negate the part where the glutton was ordered to be stoned?

 

[unred typo]

quote by VaultZero4Me :
Unred wrote:Are you afraid that overeaters are not being given as much incentive to change as homosexuals?

That has been my point all along. There is a bias towards homosexuals over gluttons. Gluttons run rampant within the evangelical church.

That’s because gluttony is not considered a sin. It is not a sin against others even though it is harmful against the person who is overeating. (Unless the person is eating someone else’s food or taking it from their children or something ) It is a bad behavior that inflicts it’s own punishment. The craving for food and not feeling satisfied is also mentioned as a judgment against those who have not followed God or who have not given him the place in their lives that he deserves. Contentment with godliness is great gain. I don’t think that means in pounds. :wink:

quote by VaultZero4Me :
My point is that many Christians use something outside of the Bible to cause such an emotional reaction.

Unred:“Not all self destructive behaviors are the same in God’s eyes. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament as one of the abominations that caused the expulsion of the inhabitants from their lands. Gluttony is not. Gluttony is not specifically named as a sin. ‘Thou shalt not overeat’ just isn’t there.â€Â


I thought we had come to an agreement on the original commandments. Well if you want to go to the OT some, gluttony surely is talked about in the OT, maybe not as much, but it is.

Deut 21:19-21 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

Clearly in this verse gluttony is one of the major reasons this boy was stoned. That was the NASB. So, if we are in the OT for support, there is going to be a lot of things we are going to have to do as well. Shall I list the 613 Mitzvah?

This is not a case of stoning the boy because he is gluttonous, but he is eating their food, lying around drunk and rebelling against them in their own house. Whether this is from bad parenting or stubborn genes, the boy will come to no good. Just to have the threat to hold over him would no doubt give the parents some control, which seems sorely needed. You don’t have a command here not to overeat, even if you stretch it sideways. I’m not saying that it is a good thing to be a glutton, but gluttony has an underlying cause that is much more serious. I might say it is a symptom of sin. If you want a sin that is comparable to homosexuality that is rampant in the church, go for adultery.

quote by VaultZero4Me :

Unred wrote:“A nation that embraces sin of any kind is subject to judgment. That is a good reason to protest against it. The same people who protest against homosexuality are probably also picketing abortion clinics and speaking out against strip night clubs and drunkenness. If God has called these people to minister to the community in this way, we should support their effort. They may be holding back the enemies of this country from attacking us, so instead of being angry about it, thank them.â€Â


Now you are switching it up to them protecting us. This is supposed to be all scriptural base.

Did you not read 1 Kings 14-15? That was a prerequisite to understanding where I was coming from.

quote by VaultZero4Me :
1 Kings 14-15.
But, lets go with this one. Look up all the secular countries. The countries that have way more incidences of the things listed above. I will list a few.
1. Sweden
2. France
3. Japan
Now, compare those countries violence rates with the US. Also, compare the amount of times those countries have been in a war in the last 50 years, in contrast with the US. I challenge you to find evidence that the more secularized a country gets, the more problems it has. I think you will see the evidence going in the opposite direction.

Again all of that is irrelevant, because this is supposed to be scriptural based.

Right. Irrelevant, since none of those countries claim to be a Christian nation. They won’t be judged as harshly by God when they bring dishonor to his name. Don’t bother to go into denial about that, I don’t really care if you don’t consider that the US was founded as a Christian nation or not. I notice you aren’t talking about what happened to the Greeks.

There is scriptural evidence of God’s punishment of sin and homosexuality on a national level. Read 1 Kings 14-15.

quote by VaultZero4Me :
Again, it has only been the tradition of the church to put Sodom in that light.

The original people who witnessed the event, and originally wrote the event, taught the major sins to be of selfishness of property (a very severe sin in the OT. One of the worse in traditional Jewish teachings. Look how many times people are punished in the OT for that offense.)

How many times were people punished in the OT for selfishness of property? Chapter, verse? Sodom was exceedingly wicked, in many areas. Reading Jasher will shed even more light on their depravity. Homosexuality was as much a humiliation as a sin there.

quote by VaultZero4Me :
Again, the HIV stigma was created by Christians only because the original carrier was thought to have been a gay flight attendant, and some of the original cases were in gay men in the US. HIV has no discretion with gay or hetero. In fact, heteros have been the majority of the cases. Is it really fair to use this as a basis?

Removing the stigma should be the goal. Can you think of one thing Christ showed more of by example than not having stigma? How many times did he rebuke people in the bible for that very act? Do I need to provide biblical support for that?

Removing the sin should be the goal. Removing the stigma will only increase the homosexuality. I ask you again, is that what you want? Look at what lifting the stigma from divorce and adultery has done. Jesus hated the sin and loved the sinner to use a worn out phrase. The stigma should be on the homosexuality, and not on the homosexual. They are suffering from it’s addiction.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

May I suggest to you too to read Romans. Or just the first chapter and see what you find on this subject. This IS the NT and the Words were written by Paul TO the Romans of THE TIME AFTER CHRIST had returned to the Father.

If you have any questions concerning the nature of the writtings PLEASE feel free to ask.

MEC

I have studied Romans in great detail. What is your specific question or objection to what I am posting.

 

[Drew]

Let me offer this: So far as sin is concerned; ALL have sinned. But one that follows truth must ALSO KNOW that there ARE different kinds of sin. There is that which pertains to SELF: Gluttony, smoking, drinking, drugs. There ARE people that have a problem with these things that allow them to have little if ANY negative effect on those around them. These are sins that have NO victim EXCEPT the one performing them.

Do you really believe that gluttony only pertains to "self"? When people eat themselves into obesity, they jeapordize the emotional and financial well-being of those around them. If Fred dies of a heart attack at 45 due to obesity, he may leave a family that is both emotionally and financialy devastated. As a father in that family, Fred has taken on a responsibility to others - to do all within his power to care for them and support. And gluttony is an irresponsible behaviour in that context.

Not to mention the huge, and I mean huge, health care cost that gluttony inflicts on the health care system.

I do not think gluttony only affects "self".

 

[Kendrix:Evolution]

*bump*

 

[VaultZero4Me]

That’s because gluttony is not considered a sin. It is not a sin against others even though it is harmful against the person who is overeating.

Actually, gluttony has been considered a sin for a long time within Christian theology. I am unsure why you are redefining it.

It does effect people. Are you saying that if someone contracts any of the diseases related to gluttony (I have listed them several times, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Stroke, Cancer, etc. etc.) and dies, it doesn’t affect anyone? What about a 45 yr man that dies from a heart attack and leaves his family behind.

This is not a case of stoning the boy because he is gluttonous, but he is eating their food, lying around drunk and rebelling against them in their own house. Whether this is from bad parenting or stubborn genes, the boy will come to no good. Just to have the threat to hold over him would no doubt give the parents some control, which seems sorely needed.

Dut. 21:18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I am not seeing the parts you added into their. It plainly says to stone him, and that gluttony was part of his sin. Why are you redefining the story?

You don’t have a command here not to overeat, even if you stretch it sideways. I’m not saying that it is a good thing to be a glutton, but gluttony has an underlying cause that is much more serious. I might say it is a symptom of sin. If you want a sin that is comparable to homosexuality that is rampant in the church, go for adultery.

I would like to see the evidence that I am stretching it. That is a claim without merit. I did not take anything out of context. Please show me otherwise, besides you own opinion. We are looking at scriptures here. Not opinions.

Don’t bother to go into denial about that, I don’t really care if you don’t consider that the US was founded as a Christian nation or not.

Your bullying arguing is not becoming. There is nothing to establish that this country was founded upon Christian principles. In fact, many of the founding fathers did not believe in the deity of Christ. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. Even James Madison is very questionable. But this is for another debate, one that I am not really interested in getting into.
Its not that you should care what I think, you should care what the facts actually are, and not what someone tells you they are.

How many times were people punished in the OT for selfishness of property? Chapter, verse? Sodom was exceedingly wicked, in many areas.

The verses are quite numerous, so I will provide you a link to the Jewish encyclopedia that will let you read a lot on that subject.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... ospitality

Removing the sin should be the goal. Removing the stigma will only increase the homosexuality.

Actually, I believe you will find Christs teachings to support a Christian of having a goal of removing their own sins. If the stigma is a sin, than the ultimate goal would be to remove the stigma. You can still consider homosexuality a sin without being overly bias towards it. The rationality you presented there in my own opinion is certainly lacking of scriptural backing.

 

[Imagican]

Let me offer this: So far as sin is concerned; ALL have sinned. But one that follows truth must ALSO KNOW that there ARE different kinds of sin. There is that which pertains to SELF: Gluttony, smoking, drinking, drugs. There ARE people that have a problem with these things that allow them to have little if ANY negative effect on those around them. These are sins that have NO victim EXCEPT the one performing them.

Do you really believe that gluttony only pertains to "self"? When people eat themselves into obesity, they jeapordize the emotional and financial well-being of those around them. If Fred dies of a heart attack at 45 due to obesity, he may leave a family that is both emotionally and financialy devastated. As a father in that family, Fred has taken on a responsibility to others - to do all within his power to care for them and support. And gluttony is an irresponsible behaviour in that context.

Not to mention the huge, and I mean huge, health care cost that gluttony inflicts on the health care system.

I do not think gluttony only affects "self".

And may I offer that your 'thinking' here REEKS of 'the WORLD'. When one starts to explain to me the importance of 'money' to a 'society' I MUST offer that this thinking is NOT Spiritual but Carnal by nature. And if this is what you base your understanding on, (that of this World), then MOST of what I have to offer you IS but FOOLISHNESS.

So I will agree that in 'the world' the objection that you offer IS valid. But in a Spirtual sense it makes NO sense whatsoever.

I NEVER made an indication that gluttony is NOT an irresponsible behavior. But EVEN THOUGH Fred DIED at an earlier than expected age, that makes NO indication that his 'gluttony' was participated in FOR the 'end result' that you offer. In other words, what you have offered points to NOTHING that Fred did 'directly to others'. It was HE who died early.

And if you believe that we should 'pretend' that we are going to live forever in these bodies, then you are 'truly' confused on a Spiritual level. For Death of this body is GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS of your diet, smoking, drinking, drug use, or LACK of any of these.

It seems here that we are dealing with a 'lack of faith' issue rather than what is or isn't a sin or how some may differ from others. You indicate that it is WE that have the power over our own lives to the extent that we are able to prolong or end our lives in a DIFFERENT manner than God wills.

I will STILL maintain that gluttony is a 'self sin' and that Rape murder robbery etc.... ARE crimes or sins that are directed AT OTHERS. That THESE sins are sins of HATE and that gluttony does NOT fit into the SAME category. Sin YES, equal to murder? I think not.

But we weren't discussing murder were we? Gluttony equal with fornication? I think not. Gluttony equal with homosexuality? I suggest if one is unable to discern the truth of this matter perhaps a 'bit of prayer' would be in order. For you see, it is NOT homophobia that brings the chruches to their conclusions in regards to homosexual behavior, it IS The Word and The Spirit. If one is unable to grasp the significance of homosexuality then I would venture to assume that there is "LITTLE" of The Spirit guiding their understanding.

So, if I am discussing this issue with agnostics or atheist it would be ONLY FAIR to state this for arguments sake so that I too am on EQUAL ground with those with whom I debate here.

For the record: I believe that Jesus Christ IS The Son of God. And that God is The Father of ALL creation. AND, I believe that The Word IS the Word of God brought to us by His prophets and only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

Now, if those that I discuss such issues as homosexuality do NOT believe in God or Christ or the prophets it would be ONLY fair to state so HERE so that I KNOW who I am discussing these issues with. For I KNOW that MOST homosexuals would consider my view to be biased and unfounded. For MOST homosexuals ARE Godless and self satifying individuals who couldn't care less about God, Christ or The Holy Spirit.

MEC

 

[VaultZero4Me]

And may I offer that your 'thinking' here REEKS of 'the WORLD'. When one starts to explain to me the importance of 'money' to a 'society' I MUST offer that this thinking is NOT Spiritual but Carnal by nature. And if this is what you base your understanding on, (that of this World), then MOST of what I have to offer you IS but FOOLISHNESS.

He is saying that it affects them because it causes health problems and he cannot work. If he cannot work, he cannot provide for his family. If he cannot provide for his family, than they will not eat. Therefore it does affect more than just self.

He certainly wasn’t saying he couldn’t buy a Porsche over a Kia.

Fred DIED at an earlier than expected age, that makes NO indication that his 'gluttony' was participated in FOR the 'end result' that you offer. In other words, what you have offered points to NOTHING that Fred did 'directly to others'. It was HE who died early.

So leaving a family to fend for itself and causing hardship on mother and child isn’t doing anything to them? Causing undue heartache from an early death isn’t doing anything to them?

I suggest if one is unable to discern the truth of this matter perhaps a 'bit of prayer' would be in order.

Are you saying you are more spiritually connected therefore he is less connected?

If he is a Christian, and I think he stated that somewhere, that is a serious claim.

So, if I am discussing this issue with agnostics or atheist it would be ONLY FAIR to state this for arguments sake so that I too am on EQUAL ground with those with whom I debate here.

I have stated that I am strong agnostic leaning atheist already at some point. If I didn’t I apologize, I thought I did.

Why does it matter though? I have a few Christian friends who feel the same way. Plus, I am looking only for scriptural support. Not evidence from personal faith. Just evidence in the Bible. (which still hasn’t been presented)

 

[turnorburn]

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this but God hides himself the self conceited thoughts of man, Christian friends or no and reveals himself to babes. But if the day should come and you humble yourself before him and ask his forgiveness then he will gladly call you a son.. I hope you make the right decision :D

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[unred typo]

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: That’s because gluttony is not considered a sin. It is not a sin against others even though it is harmful against the person who is overeating.

Actually, gluttony has been considered a sin for a long time within Christian theology. I am unsure why you are redefining it.

It does effect people. Are you saying that if someone contracts any of the diseases related to gluttony (I have listed them several times, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Stroke, Cancer, etc. etc.) and dies, it doesn’t affect anyone? What about a 45 yr man that dies from a heart attack and leaves his family behind.

I’m speaking of how it is perceived in this country today, I‘m not redefining it. I’m not sure if it is a sin or not biblically, since it has never been a topic for sermons that I can recall, and no particular verses of it come to my mind, other than your one instance. I have a feeling it must be but I couldn’t prove it scripturally and I don’t think you have either. I’m not saying it isn’t, and so much concern for the size and shape of the human body is as much a sin as gluttony, if you want to use verses on excess. The new PC will no doubt bring obesity to the forefront as the public enemy #1 and it will become more ‘fashionable’ to attack fat people than homosexuals soon. But that will be good news for the obese since that will put pressure on them to lose the unhealthy pounds. Except for those who were ’born that way’, of course. :wink:

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: This is not a case of stoning the boy because he is gluttonous, but he is eating their food, lying around drunk and rebelling against them in their own house. Whether this is from bad parenting or stubborn genes, the boy will come to no good. Just to have the threat to hold over him would no doubt give the parents some control, which seems sorely needed.

Dut. 21:18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I am not seeing the parts you added into their. It plainly says to stone him, and that gluttony was part of his sin. Why are you redefining the story?

I’m not redefining this either. I’m making an application to life. There is a command to honor your mother and father, but you won’t find a command that says, ‘thou shalt not overeat‘ or a verse that says, ‘he was a glutton and God commanded that he be stoned.’ There are such about homosexuality.

In the NT, it says if a man will not work, neither should he be fed. In context, the church was a commune of sorts and it would be that a person should be expected to do all within their ability to work, before consuming the commonly owned bread. In those days, I think starvation was more of a threat than obesity and fatness was a sign of God’s material blessing. At any rate, the sin of gluttony is not comparable to sexual sins.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: You don’t have a command here not to overeat, even if you stretch it sideways. I’m not saying that it is a good thing to be a glutton, but gluttony has an underlying cause that is much more serious. I might say it is a symptom of sin. If you want a sin that is comparable to homosexuality that is rampant in the church, go for adultery.

I would like to see the evidence that I am stretching it. That is a claim without merit. I did not take anything out of context. Please show me otherwise, besides you own opinion. We are looking at scriptures here. Not opinions.

We’re not seeing a whole lot of scripture here though, are we? We have scripture that says, he who lies with a man as a woman should be stoned, but we don’t have an equivalent verse on gluttony. It’s your opinion that your verse equates the two, but that would be stretching it in my opinion. Guess what? Your opinion isn’t worth any more than mine and the burden of proof is on you.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: Don’t bother to go into denial about that, I don’t really care if you don’t consider that the US was founded as a Christian nation or not.

Your bullying arguing is not becoming. There is nothing to establish that this country was founded upon Christian principles. In fact, many of the founding fathers did not believe in the deity of Christ. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. Even James Madison is very questionable. But this is for another debate, one that I am not really interested in getting into.
Its not that you should care what I think, you should care what the facts actually are, and not what someone tells you they are.

I’m not bullying you. I’m merely saying I don’t care to lock horns over that issue here and you said the same. Don’t read your attitude into my writing, please. Btw, I notice you still aren’t talking about what happened to the Greeks who, as a nation, embraced homosexuality and ignored the true God. If I were bullying you, I would demand that you admit you were wrong there. :wink:

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: How many times were people punished in the OT for selfishness of property? Chapter, verse? Sodom was exceedingly wicked, in many areas.

The verses are quite numerous, so I will provide you a link to the Jewish encyclopedia that will let you read a lot on that subject.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... ospitality

Interesting link. I was wrong. If you had said ‘inhospitality’ or ‘lack of concern’ for the poor and homeless, I would have agreed. I just didn’t recall the ‘selfishness’ term used, but words do mean what they mean.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: Removing the sin should be the goal. Removing the stigma will only increase the homosexuality.

Actually, I believe you will find Christs teachings to support a Christian of having a goal of removing their own sins. If the stigma is a sin, than the ultimate goal would be to remove the stigma. You can still consider homosexuality a sin without being overly bias towards it. The rationality you presented there in my own opinion is certainly lacking of scriptural backing

Well, scripturally speaking, public humiliation and stoning certainly was a deterrent to the rampant decline into homosexuality and gave the person persistently so inclined more incentive to refrain from the activity. It was whenever those things were ignored and accepted that they became more prevalent. In the NT, it was considered a crime against society. Today we may tend to think of it as just a disgusting person affliction but if it is normalized, the homosexuality will increase. Fostering or ignoring sin is not helping the sinner to overcome their sin, and I personally don‘t care what kind of sin it is.

When did Christ remove the stigma of any sin? I don’t think you can back that idea scripturally.

p.s. If you want a theology where you can live however you feel like and still claim to be going to heaven, why don’t you just become a Calvinist? They have everything you could ask for in a religion, and they have removed the stigma of all sin since it has been declared that everyone is equally guilty before God and that all sins are equal in value. It comes with the added bonus that as soon as you can wrap your head around the theology, you get to be one of the elect and once saved, you can never lose that salvation. You can be a follower of Christ who doesn’t have to follow what he says to do in order to be saved. This all can be backed up with scripture in a fashion that covers the minimum requirement and still allows the sinner the opportunity to keep his sin. Cool, huh? 8-) I prefer to just follow what Jesus taught and that makes me a heretic here. :smt102

 

[turnorburn]

The problem is failure to communicate, Sodomites, oh they like to be called homosexuals or gays, sorry. They don't want to take this up with their creator because they think their having fun, do you really think their having fun, no its impossible, you cannot serve God and mammon. :wink:

In His Service,
turnorburn

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: That’s because gluttony is not considered a sin. It is not a sin against others even though it is harmful against the person who is overeating.

Actually, gluttony has been considered a sin for a long time within Christian theology. I am unsure why you are redefining it.

It does effect people. Are you saying that if someone contracts any of the diseases related to gluttony (I have listed them several times, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Stroke, Cancer, etc. etc.) and dies, it doesn’t affect anyone? What about a 45 yr man that dies from a heart attack and leaves his family behind.

I’m speaking of how it is perceived in this country today, I‘m not redefining it. I’m not sure if it is a sin or not biblically, since it has never been a topic for sermons that I can recall, and no particular verses of it come to my mind, other than your one instance. I have a feeling it must be but I couldn’t prove it scripturally and I don’t think you have either. I’m not saying it isn’t, and so much concern for the size and shape of the human body is as much a sin as gluttony, if you want to use verses on excess. The new PC will no doubt bring obesity to the forefront as the public enemy #1 and it will become more ‘fashionable’ to attack fat people than homosexuals soon. But that will be good news for the obese since that will put pressure on them to lose the unhealthy pounds. Except for those who were ’born that way’, of course. :wink:




[quote:c0745]quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: This is not a case of stoning the boy because he is gluttonous, but he is eating their food, lying around drunk and rebelling against them in their own house. Whether this is from bad parenting or stubborn genes, the boy will come to no good. Just to have the threat to hold over him would no doubt give the parents some control, which seems sorely needed.

Dut. 21:18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I am not seeing the parts you added into their. It plainly says to stone him, and that gluttony was part of his sin. Why are you redefining the story?

I’m not redefining this either. I’m making an application to life. There is a command to honor your mother and father, but you won’t find a command that says, ‘thou shalt not overeat‘ or a verse that says, ‘he was a glutton and God commanded that he be stoned.’ There are such about homosexuality.

In the NT, it says if a man will not work, neither should he be fed. In context, the church was a commune of sorts and it would be that a person should be expected to do all within their ability to work, before consuming the commonly owned bread. In those days, I think starvation was more of a threat than obesity and fatness was a sign of God’s material blessing. At any rate, the sin of gluttony is not comparable to sexual sins.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: You don’t have a command here not to overeat, even if you stretch it sideways. I’m not saying that it is a good thing to be a glutton, but gluttony has an underlying cause that is much more serious. I might say it is a symptom of sin. If you want a sin that is comparable to homosexuality that is rampant in the church, go for adultery.

I would like to see the evidence that I am stretching it. That is a claim without merit. I did not take anything out of context. Please show me otherwise, besides you own opinion. We are looking at scriptures here. Not opinions.

We’re not seeing a whole lot of scripture here though, are we? We have scripture that says, he who lies with a man as a woman should be stoned, but we don’t have an equivalent verse on gluttony. It’s your opinion that your verse equates the two, but that would be stretching it in my opinion. Guess what? Your opinion isn’t worth any more than mine and the burden of proof is on you.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: Don’t bother to go into denial about that, I don’t really care if you don’t consider that the US was founded as a Christian nation or not.

Your bullying arguing is not becoming. There is nothing to establish that this country was founded upon Christian principles. In fact, many of the founding fathers did not believe in the deity of Christ. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. Even James Madison is very questionable. But this is for another debate, one that I am not really interested in getting into.
Its not that you should care what I think, you should care what the facts actually are, and not what someone tells you they are.

I’m not bullying you. I’m merely saying I don’t care to lock horns over that issue here and you said the same. Don’t read your attitude into my writing, please. Btw, I notice you still aren’t talking about what happened to the Greeks who, as a nation, embraced homosexuality and ignored the true God. If I were bullying you, I would demand that you admit you were wrong there. :wink:

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: How many times were people punished in the OT for selfishness of property? Chapter, verse? Sodom was exceedingly wicked, in many areas.

The verses are quite numerous, so I will provide you a link to the Jewish encyclopedia that will let you read a lot on that subject.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... ospitality

Interesting link. I was wrong. If you had said ‘inhospitality’ or ‘lack of concern’ for the poor and homeless, I would have agreed. I just didn’t recall the ‘selfishness’ term used, but words do mean what they mean.

quote by VaultZero4Me:
Unred wrote: Removing the sin should be the goal. Removing the stigma will only increase the homosexuality.

Actually, I believe you will find Christs teachings to support a Christian of having a goal of removing their own sins. If the stigma is a sin, than the ultimate goal would be to remove the stigma. You can still consider homosexuality a sin without being overly bias towards it. The rationality you presented there in my own opinion is certainly lacking of scriptural backing

Well, scripturally speaking, public humiliation and stoning certainly was a deterrent to the rampant decline into homosexuality and gave the person persistently so inclined more incentive to refrain from the activity. It was whenever those things were ignored and accepted that they became more prevalent. In the NT, it was considered a crime against society. Today we may tend to think of it as just a disgusting person affliction but if it is normalized, the homosexuality will increase. Fostering or ignoring sin is not helping the sinner to overcome their sin, and I personally don‘t care what kind of sin it is.

When did Christ remove the stigma of any sin? I don’t think you can back that idea scripturally.

p.s. If you want a theology where you can live however you feel like and still claim to be going to heaven, why don’t you just become a Calvinist? They have everything you could ask for in a religion, and they have removed the stigma of all sin since it has been declared that everyone is equally guilty before God and that all sins are equal in value. It comes with the added bonus that as soon as you can wrap your head around the theology, you get to be one of the elect and once saved, you can never lose that salvation. You can be a follower of Christ who doesn’t have to follow what he says to do in order to be saved. This all can be backed up with scripture in a fashion that covers the minimum requirement and still allows the sinner the opportunity to keep his sin. Cool, huh? 8-) I prefer to just follow what Jesus taught and that makes me a heretic here. :smt102[/quote:c0745]