Sin of yesterday or not...

[Blazin Bones]

It seems like there is one topic several users enjoy discussing, homosexuality. So let's do it right. Some claim it's still a sin, some claim it's a sin of the past, still others claim it's natural(which can not be proven). Where do you stand?

Ground Rules:
1. This is an open discussion. Keep in mind that if you cross the line from discussing the act to promoting the act, you are violating the ToS. In other words, be responsible and choose your words carefully.

2. This topic can often become heated. Again, this does not mean that you may breech the ToS with flamming posts.

3. Remember you are on a Christian board. Whatever you think of the sin, direct that feeling to the act, not the people. If you can not separate the two, do not post in this thread.

If we can act like the adults most of us are, this should be a very interesting thread.

 

[peace4all]

well im an atheist, so u know where I voted. But i do agree that if you are going to use the bible, to persecute people for diffrent things, then you have tp persecute everyone that is suppose3d to be persecuted from the bible.

and not only that, But if god wanted you to follow plans in the bible, and you are letting gays/atheists/blasphemists live, then are you not sinning? you are refusing to take part in the bible.

I think i read somewhere

"curse ye who refuses to raise your sword to the blood of the sinners"

 

[bibleberean]

well im an atheist, so u know where I voted. But i do agree that if you are going to use the bible, to persecute people for diffrent things, then you have tp persecute everyone that is suppose3d to be persecuted from the bible.

and not only that, But if god wanted you to follow plans in the bible, and you are letting gays/atheists/blasphemists live, then are you not sinning? you are refusing to take part in the bible.

I think i read somewhere

"curse ye who refuses to raise your sword to the blood of the sinners"

Christians have no authority in the church to kill fools (atheists) perverts (Sodomites, or any fornicator).

The laws for Israel do not apply to the church. The death penalty for those types of sin were for Israel and those in it's boundaries.

No matter how many times this is explained to people they fall back on an argument that has no application for the church.

The church has a mandate to spread the gospel and preach repentance from sin. We cannot stone false prophets, stone adulterers etc.

Speaking to Israel God said:

Leviticus 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

Israel is distinct from all other peoples...

Leviticus 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

We do not dwell in the land of Israel and we are not Jews. The church has no authority to take the lives of sinners.

Luke 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

Luke 9:53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

Luke 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

The church can eat and drink with non-believers that are fornicators with the intention of winning them to Christ...

Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Fornication (Homosexuality etc.) was a sin, is a sin and will always be a sin...

 

[NRoof]

I am a Christian so you know how I voted.

There are many places in the Bible that show this to be a sin and I can find nothing in the Bible that rescinds it.

Even if you take the Bible out of the equation it still goes against nature.
If we assume its natural then there would be a gene or something of that nature that would be defective (for lack of a better way to put it). That being the case the defective gene would cease to exist because it couldn't reproduce itself.
I know people can come up with all types of examples as to how this could continue but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

 

[Quath]

Christians have no authority in the church to kill fools (atheists) perverts (Sodomites, or any fornicator).

The laws for Israel do not apply to the church. The death penalty for those types of sin were for Israel and those in it's boundaries.

No matter how many times this is explained to people they fall back on an argument that has no application for the church.

The church has a mandate to spread the gospel and preach repentance from sin. We cannot stone false prophets, stone adulterers etc.

History says otherwise. Many pagans died to Christians as they expanded. This included children playing with pagan statues and a Christian mob killing Hypatia of Alexandria with glass shards.

Some excerpts from Bible God:

• Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded.[/*:m:32518]
• Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany.[/*:m:32518]
• 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown.[/*:m:32518]
• Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [/*:m:32518]
• Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings.[/*:m:32518]

Also, Christianity was used to justify the killing of the American Indians

• The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."[/*:m:32518]
• What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
  "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."[/*:m:32518]
• "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [/*:m:32518]
• When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
  Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
  The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children."[/*:m:32518]

There has been much killing in the name of the Christian God. You may think they do not have the authority to do what they did. However, Christians do kill for their God as history shows.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

We are all aware of bloody "Christian" history. This is not news to anyone.

The church is not authorized by Christ to do those things.

These are acts against God...

Even atheistic Communists murdered countless millions... :roll:

 

[ThinkerMan]

I am a Christian so you know how I voted.

There are many places in the Bible that show this to be a sin and I can find nothing in the Bible that rescinds it.

Even if you take the Bible out of the equation it still goes against nature.
If we assume its natural then there would be a gene or something of that nature that would be defective (for lack of a better way to put it). That being the case the defective gene would cease to exist because it couldn't reproduce itself.
I know people can come up with all types of examples as to how this could continue but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

Scientists are very doubtful there is a single "gay gene" that is either A or B. Rather, any genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is a combination of genetic and biological forces.

As for your contention that the "defective" gene would eradicate itself through lack of reproduction, there are a couple of problems with that.

A. Historically, and even today, many homosexuals repress their feelings and have children. Thus, the genetic potential may still be passed on. With today's fertility options there is no reason to believe your contention will hold true.

B. Just because a genetic "abnormality" occurs which would prevent reproduction, doesn't mean that it won't occur again. Men with Down Sydrome are sterile and incapable of reproduction, yet it continues to occur at a generally stable rate.

 

[NRoof]

Scientists are very doubtful there is a single "gay gene" that is either A or B. Rather, any genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is a combination of genetic and biological forces.

Its also a possibility this is a choice or learned behavior. Please understand I'm not saying it is but it is a possibility. Its also a possibility it is a defect (birth defect as an example) that with proper training could be overcome.

A. Historically, and even today, many homosexuals repress their feelings and have children. Thus, the genetic potential may still be passed on. With today's fertility options there is no reason to believe your contention will hold true.

I do understand this hence why I said:

I know people can come up with all types of examples as to how this could continue but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

If morality (and science) were taken out of the picture I believe you would a different picture.

Bottom line I don't know what causes it but I do know what the Bible says about it. I also know it's not my job to condemn homosexuals but to share with them what God says about it. It is his job to make changes and ultimately judge them (and me) for our actions.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Scientists are very doubtful there is a single "gay gene" that is either A or B. Rather, any genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is a combination of genetic and biological forces.

As for your contention that the "defective" gene would eradicate itself through lack of reproduction, there are a couple of problems with that.

A. Historically, and even today, many homosexuals repress their feelings and have children. Thus, the genetic potential may still be passed on. With today's fertility options there is no reason to believe your contention will hold true.

B. Just because a genetic "abnormality" occurs which would prevent reproduction, doesn't mean that it won't occur again. Men with Down Sydrome are sterile and incapable of reproduction, yet it continues to occur at a generally stable rate.

Scientists don't think there is one gene anymore. This is due to the fact that they have not been able to find one conclusive link of Genetics and homosexuality.

As for the second half of the post:

A: is based on the assumption homosexuality is genetic. However, most feelings are not controlled by genetics. Until a geneitc/biological link can be proven, this arguement is mute because it is only based on speculation.

B: This is a correct point. There is nothing to prevent a mutation from occuring more than once. In fact, Reoccuring mutation is a principle peice to the theory of Evolution. However, Homosexuality has never been proven to have a definitive link to any Genetic mutation either.

 

[Quath]

We are all aware of bloody "Christian" history. This is not news to anyone.

The church is not authorized by Christ to do those things.

These are acts against God...

The point I was making is that the Church did believe it had the authority.

There is still some picking and choosing. People look at the OT and say "God didn't like homosexuality." But you can just as easily look at it and read "God didn't like people not killing homosexuals."

So do you want to be someone that God doesn't like? You let homosexuals live when God was clear that He preferred them dead. So you may be displeasing Him with your tolerance.

But if you tolerate them enough to let them live, why not tolerate them enough to let them marry?

It seems like cherry picking beliefs to me.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

We are all aware of bloody "Christian" history. This is not news to anyone.

The church is not authorized by Christ to do those things.

These are acts against God...

The point I was making is that the Church did believe it had the authority.

There is still some picking and choosing. People look at the OT and say "God didn't like homosexuality." But you can just as easily look at it and read "God didn't like people not killing homosexuals."

So do you want to be someone that God doesn't like? You let homosexuals live when God was clear that He preferred them dead. So you may be displeasing Him with your tolerance.

But if you tolerate them enough to let them live, why not tolerate them enough to let them marry?

It seems like cherry picking beliefs to me.

Quath

Well, I am sure their are lot of things that "seem" a certain way to you...

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[antitox]

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them. Hence, a valid statement made earlier in this thread:

No matter how many times this is explained to people they fall back on an argument that has no application for the church.

:roll:

 

[Quath]

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them.

I see Christians saying many different things from acceptance of gays to killing them. There is no Christian position and non-Christian position.

Non-believers tend to side with gay rights because there is no secular reason to discriminate against them.

Quath

 

[Blazin Bones]

I see Christians saying many different things from acceptance of gays to killing them. There is no Christian position and non-Christian position.

Non-believers tend to side with gay rights because there is no secular reason to discriminate against them.

Quath

Quath, save It. Of course nonbelievers support Sin, because it alows them to continue in their own little worlds doing whatever they please.

There is too a Christian Position, for those who are true to God's Word. You can find it in Leviticus 18:22. It is a Sin. That is the Christian Position. If a person who cliams to follow Jesus, can't follow what the Word(Jesus is the Word John 1:1) says, they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. At least where this issue is concerned.

Quath, you like to live in gray areas, but the truth is, there is none if you hold to what scripture teaches for this issue. You either hold to the Word of God, or hold to your sin.

 

[antitox]

This subject always ends up ridiculous every time it is brought up because the same arguments ensue due to the inability of the non-believers to perceive anything Christians say, because if they do, they'll see they don't have a valid argument if they honestly consider the content of what is presented to them.

I see Christians saying many different things from acceptance of gays to killing them. There is no Christian position and non-Christian position.

As always, you don't hear what we explain to you, but you go on to discredit Christianity based on differences among people who believe in God. Again, you don't hear the core issue of what we say; you only want to discredit, so you find something inconsistent among people. We tell you that that does not define the truth of the matter. Yet you cannot accept that, so it goes on to a senseless volley of words.

[quote:8dfd3]Non-believers tend to side with gay rights because there is no secular reason to discriminate against them.

Quath

[/quote:8dfd3]

Of course, because there's no moral absolute among atheists.

 

[Drew]

There is still some picking and choosing. People look at the OT and say "God didn't like homosexuality." But you can just as easily look at it and read "God didn't like people not killing homosexuals."
.
.
.
It seems like cherry picking beliefs to me.

I think there is a lot of force to this argument. Can someone provide a real answer as to how the Christian is to decide that the mandate to kill homosexuals is no longer in force whereas the prohibition against homosexual behaviour still is.

And be careful please. To simply assert that the stuff about killing homosexuals is part of the Law whereas as the general admonition against homosexual behavious is "for all time" would be to beg the question. What specific criteria would you use to put one in the "that was for the Jews before Christ" category while the other goes in the "its for all time" category.

In any event, I will argue in the spirit of NRoof - even if the Bible did not exist, I suspect that we would come to believe that homosexual behaviour (as distinguished from desires) is not in the best interests of the people involved. I do not have time (now) to explain why I think this is so.

 

[antitox]

Can someone provide a real answer as to how the Christian is to decide that the mandate to kill homosexuals is no longer in force whereas the prohibition against homosexual behaviour still is.

What took place among Israel was based on law. God had the laws put in force because... for God to dwell among men where there has been no sacrifice that actually takes sins away, it leaves only law requiring adherence by those who have a corrupt nature. It is, in that scenario, checks and balances, that must be satisfied by those that are corrupt, to enter the presence of the perfect Deity.

God was to dwell among the people. And ten commandments were the basics that the people had to adhere to in order for God not to abhor them.(Lev 26:11-12)(Lev 26:43)

Today, now that the final sacrifice has taken away sins, God dwells within individuals by His Spirit and not in the manner He did before which required those in the manifest presence of God to pay immediate penalties according to the measures of eternal justice. This is something that a non-believer will never understand without coming to the personal realization that God is holy. This is a standard, I think, that even many Christians do not always understand either.

 

[Quath]

Quath, save It. Of course nonbelievers support Sin, because it alows them to continue in their own little worlds doing whatever they please.

Nonbelievers do not support murder, theft, or lies any more than Christians do. It is just sins based on dogma that nonbelievers disagree with, such as the sin of a woman wearing makeup or wearing jeans. (Not all Christians agree on what is a sin either.)

There is too a Christian Position, for those who are true to God's Word. You can find it in Leviticus 18:22. It is a Sin. That is the Christian Position. If a person who cliams to follow Jesus, can't follow what the Word(Jesus is the Word John 1:1) says, they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. At least where this issue is concerned.

A Christians can call it detestable and still think people should have the freewill to sin. A Christian can think that this law no longer applies just like the OT law against eating shrimp no longer apply. A Christian can think that Leviticus 20:13 applies and want them killed.

All you can say is what your belief is, not what all Christians beliefs are since I know many people claiming to be Christians that do not agree with you.

Quath, you like to live in gray areas, but the truth is, there is none if you hold to what scripture teaches for this issue. You either hold to the Word of God, or hold to your sin.

It seems you are holding to a grey area. Why say Leviticus 18:22 is more special than Leviticus 20:13? If killing homosexuals was good in God's eyes once, why not now?

Of course, because there's no moral absolute among atheists.

I tend to notice that is the same among religious people. Some simple examples:
1. Is it moral to kill a nonvirgin bride?
2. Is it moral to own a person as property and be allowed to beat them?
3. Is it moral to kill a person for God?
4. Is it moral to kill your enemy's children?
5. Is it moral to kill homosexuals?

What took place among Israel was based on law. God had the laws put in force because... for God to dwell among men where there has been no sacrifice that actually takes sins away, it leaves only law requiring adherence by those who have a corrupt nature. It is, in that scenario, checks and balances, that must be satisfied by those that are corrupt, to enter the presence of the perfect Deity.

You seem to be arguing against omnipresence.

Quath

 

[Blazin Bones]

There is still some picking and choosing. People look at the OT and say "God didn't like homosexuality." But you can just as easily look at it and read "God didn't like people not killing homosexuals."
.
.
.
It seems like cherry picking beliefs to me.

I think there is a lot of force to this argument. Can someone provide a real answer as to how the Christian is to decide that the mandate to kill homosexuals is no longer in force whereas the prohibition against homosexual behaviour still is.

And be careful please. To simply assert that the stuff about killing homosexuals is part of the Law whereas as the general admonition against homosexual behavious is "for all time" would be to beg the question. What specific criteria would you use to put one in the "that was for the Jews before Christ" category while the other goes in the "its for all time" category.

In any event, I will argue in the spirit of NRoof - even if the Bible did not exist, I suspect that we would come to believe that homosexual behaviour (as distinguished from desires) is not in the best interests of the people involved. I do not have time (now) to explain why I think this is so.

Christians are to live as Christ lived, correct? if that is so, then We are not to kill homosexuals because Jesus did not stone the adultress. Jesus said in John 8:7 "...He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone. at her."[NASB]

No one in that room threw a stone at her. However, Christians believe that Jesus never sinned. He said that the one who was without sin may cast the first stone, and yet he, sinless, forgave her and did not stone her. That is why we who claim to be Christians (little Christ ones) are to do like wise. He Forgave, therefore we must also forgive.

Jesus set a new standard. Not only that, He took this adultress's penalty and Died in her place. He bore the death penalty so many of us are guilty of.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Quath, save It. Of course nonbelievers support Sin, because it alows them to continue in their own little worlds doing whatever they please.

Nonbelievers do not support murder, theft, or lies any more than Christians do. It is just sins based on dogma that nonbelievers disagree with, such as the sin of a woman wearing makeup or wearing jeans. (Not all Christians agree on what is a sin either.)

Show me exactly where the Bible users the words Make up or jeans. If you can show me the passages, I'll respond to the rest of this point

There is too a Christian Position, for those who are true to God's Word. You can find it in Leviticus 18:22. It is a Sin. That is the Christian Position. If a person who cliams to follow Jesus, can't follow what the Word(Jesus is the Word John 1:1) says, they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. At least where this issue is concerned.

A Christians can call it detestable and still think people should have the freewill to sin. A Christian can think that this law no longer applies just like the OT law against eating shrimp no longer apply. A Christian can think that Leviticus 20:13 applies and want them killed.

All you can say is what your belief is, not what all Christians beliefs are since I know many people claiming to be Christians that do not agree with you.

1. Yes someone does have the choice to sin, but again scripture clearly teaches that if you allow you brother to sin, you are in error.

2. Eating or Shrimp is made able through Peter's vision. Acts 10

Quath, you like to live in gray areas, but the truth is, there is none if you hold to what scripture teaches for this issue. You either hold to the Word of God, or hold to your sin.

It seems you are holding to a grey area. Why say Leviticus 18:22 is more special than Leviticus 20:13? If killing homosexuals was good in God's eyes once, why not now?

My response to Drew counters, and explains this point.