Christians, Im confused!

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] Ok now define homosexual.

Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Same sex attraction. :|THE_DRUGGIE

A few stiff drinks and the right lighting.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Basically you said that since Jesus died for us we are saved. That eliminates ANY and ALL personal consequences. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]Ok but how does that equate to not helping others? Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Same sex attraction. :|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] Ok now define attraction. Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Define works...

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] hahaha works are basically actions or deeds. Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I think you want Oxford or Miriam Webster. An attraction is not choice if that is what you are getting at.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So if works are not necessary then helping people would not be necessary....but we did see that Jesus felt it was. Bit of a conundrum....no?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]Not interested in what Oxford or Miriam says. I want to know what you think attraction is. Silenthps

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] Ok now define attraction. LJS9502_basic

A few stiff drinks and the right lighting.

You said you were attracted to me at the Christmas party, don't deny it!

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

A few stiff drinks and the right lighting.

THE_DRUGGIE

You said you were attracted to me at the Christmas party, don't deny it!

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The traditional definition....which doesn't explain where you are going with this...LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]The Bible doesn't use the words "attraction" or "orientation" So I'm simply waiting for you to break down the words far enough for me to be able to compare it to what the Bible says.

Silenthps

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

What do you mean by that? I talk to him about what he believes in all the time. He's some kind of christian. No one in my family is sure what. He calls himself a spiritual warrior and he thinks he knows everything.

Capitan_Kid

Do fundamentalists believe black isrealites were the chosen people of God? If they do then yeah I guess he is but I gotta try and show him that gay people arent doomed to hell.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] You're missing the point. If you make up certain concepts after the Bible was written, you have to go to the root meanings of those concepts for you to compare it to the Bible. The Bible doesn't mention Muslims either yet according to the Bible they are condemned since there is something about Islam that you can compare to the Bible which is their belief in Christ as God. So if you can't say what attraction means then you cannot make the statement that the Bible doesn't condemn them. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] You're missing the point. If you make up certain concepts after the Bible was written, you have to go to the root meanings of those concepts for you to compare it to the Bible. The Bible doesn't mention Muslims either yet according to the Bible they are condemned since there is something about Islam that you can compare to the Bible which is their belief in Christ as God. So if you can't say what attraction means then you cannot make the statement that the Bible doesn't condemn them. Silenthps

And I defined orientation....and I'd assume it's common knowledge what those words mean. I think there is not scripture because none of it fits....

i dont think the bible has anything on STD's.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,18168,26637,26992,27095,27154,27178&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=std's+in+the+bible&cp=18&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=std's+in+the+bible&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=499faa430ac3503f

what???? :o

God hates all sins alike. If you rob or go homo you're sinning just as much. There is however the verse that says(something like this): If you offend any of My people(My creation), it's better that you drown yourself so you won't offend them no more. Sins are all sins. God LOVES the sinner but HATES the sin. The worst sins that God hates and really abominates: * A proud look * A lying tongue * Hands that shed innocent blood * A heart that devises wicked plots * Feet that are swift to run into mischief * A deceitful witness that uttereth lies * Him that soweth discord among brethren Non of them include soddomy. So Homosexuality is a sin, but not as bad as the ones up there..been_1990

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You are assuming meaning not in the NT...yes. Homosexuality...ie homosexuals...are not condemned. Promiscuity is no matter the orientation...and I noticed you haven't used any NT scripture to back up your stance. While Jesus was alive....Islam didn't exist...of course it wouldn't be mentioned. Nor would any other religion or denomination coming after.

LJS9502_basic

And I defined orientation....and I'd assume it's common knowledge what those words mean. I think there is not scripture because none of it fits....

Oh and one more thing. The Bible actually does condemn homosexuals.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Could have shown this a while back but I just felt like going at it through a different angle.

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

GabuEx

Oh and one more thing. The Bible actually does condemn homosexuals.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Could have shown this a while back but I just felt like going at it through a different angle.

Silenthps

The Greek word Paul uses there in his letter to the Corinthians is arsenokoitai, a word that Paul apparently more or less made up, and what it really means is far from certain. One should not use an English translation of the Bible if one's doctrine is effectively defined by a single word in a sentence.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

Silenthps

Please point out for me the portion of the text that says, "This part is universal; this part no longer applies." Is there a footnote, perhaps? A marginal note? How does one make such a determination? I might be crazy here, but I'm pretty darn sure that those are all of two chapters apart in the exact same book.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Oh and one more thing. The Bible actually does condemn homosexuals.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Could have shown this a while back but I just felt like going at it through a different angle.

GabuEx

The Greek word Paul uses there in his letter to the Corinthians is arsenokoitai, a word that Paul apparently more or less made up, and what it really means is far from certain. One should not use an English translation of the Bible if one's doctrine is effectively defined by a single word in a sentence.

Wow.I haven't seen CWU here in awhile.

I remember debating someone on this subject recently. It was the first time I had ever seen someone present scripture with the actual word "homosexual" in it. I really couldn't retort because that was a first for me.

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

GabuEx

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Oh and one more thing. The Bible actually does condemn homosexuals.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Could have shown this a while back but I just felt like going at it through a different angle.

GabuEx

The Greek word Paul uses there in his letter to the Corinthians is arsenokoitai, a word that Paul apparently more or less made up, and what it really means is far from certain. One should not use an English translation of the Bible if one's doctrine is effectively defined by a single word in a sentence.

Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda.Silenthps

An agenda? Gabu's posts on religion are genuine and insightful. I've seen him defend Christians before on this board due to ignorant scrutiny on Christianity. You're obviously mistaken.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

GabuEx

Please point out for me the portion of the text that says, "This part is universal; this part no longer applies." Is there a footnote, perhaps? A marginal note? How does one make such a determination? I might be crazy here, but I'm pretty darn sure that those are all of two chapters apart in the exact same book.

What is laughable is the arrogance of "religious folk" assuming that they know what "God" thinks about anything. I am totally sure gay sex", gay rights" and gay marriage" are totally causing him to lose sleep. :roll:

That being said your cousin is an idiot and would be nice to see natural selection in his favor some day.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda.LikeHaterade

An agenda? Gabu's posts on religion are genuine and insightful. I've seen him defend Christians before on this board due to ignorant scrutiny on Christianity. You're obviously mistaken.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Oh and one more thing. The Bible actually does condemn homosexuals.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Could have shown this a while back but I just felt like going at it through a different angle.

LikeHaterade

The Greek word Paul uses there in his letter to the Corinthians is arsenokoitai, a word that Paul apparently more or less made up, and what it really means is far from certain. One should not use an English translation of the Bible if one's doctrine is effectively defined by a single word in a sentence.

Wow.I haven't seen CWU here in awhile.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda.Silenthps

An agenda? Gabu's posts on religion are genuine and insightful. I've seen him defend Christians before on this board due to ignorant scrutiny on Christianity. You're obviously mistaken.

I see, and I apologize.

Most of us were banned. I'm one suspension away from being banned myself :PSilenthps

Yea, I remember watching you guys get knocked off one by one.

Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda. Silenthps

That seems like an awfully lazy way to form one's religious doctrines. :?

I mean around the time of Martin Luther, the word was commonly rendered as "masturbators". It's only recently that people have suddenly decided that it means "homosexuals". And the word arsenokoitai literally means "man-beds"; even if one accepts the most anti-homosexual interpretation of the word, it clearly cannot possibly include female homosexuals, making "homosexual" even under this interpretation an obviously erroneous translation.

Well it's called logic really. When God says that a man lying with another man is an abomination to him... its an abomination to him... And since the Bible says He never changes, I'm sure it's still an abomination to him today. The part about the law no longer applying is in the New Testament which is what Christians believe. But even if it isn't. You can clearly see that stoning Homosexuals was only part of Jewish law. Silenthps

Again, we're using an English translation here. The Hebrew word in question is tow'ebah. It is a word that refers to ritualistic uncleanliness. Unless you're suggesting that we ought still to be concerned about ritual cleanliness within ancient Judaism, I don't see how that is any more applicable than the rest. There's a reason why the word "abomination" is not seen terribly frequently in the New Testament.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda. GabuEx

That seems like an awfully lazy way to form one's religious doctrines. :?

I mean around the time of Martin Luther, the word was commonly rendered as "masturbators". It's only recently that people have suddenly decided that it means "homosexuals". And the word arsenokoitai literally means "man-beds"; even if one accepts the most anti-homosexual interpretation of the word, it clearly cannot possibly include female homosexuals, making "homosexual" even under this interpretation an obviously erroneous translation.

Well it's called logic really. When God says that a man lying with another man is an abomination to him... its an abomination to him... And since the Bible says He never changes, I'm sure it's still an abomination to him today. The part about the law no longer applying is in the New Testament which is what Christians believe. But even if it isn't. You can clearly see that stoning Homosexuals was only part of Jewish law. Silenthps

Again, we're using an English translation here. The Hebrew word in question is tow'ebah. It is a word that refers to ritualistic uncleanliness. Unless you're suggesting that we ought still to be concerned about ritual cleanliness within ancient Judaism, I don't see how that is any more applicable than the rest. There's a reason why the word "abomination" is not seen terribly frequently in the New Testament.

Leviticus contains tons of rules, and fundamentalist Christians tend to rather nonsensically decide that only the ones they say are universal rules are in fact universal rules. Those rules were for a different time in a different place. The next time someone brings up that Leviticus verse, point out that Leviticus 20:13 states quite clearly that the punishment for the offense in question is death. Ask him if he supports the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual sex. If not, then he's basically admitted that he's not taking the commandments therein as seriously as he thinks. And if yes, then, um, get far, far away from him. :P

GabuEx

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]Sorry but if multiple translations of the Bible all conclude that the word means homosexuals, I'm going to trust the hundreds of trained professionals who get paid to translate the word as accurately as possible as opposed to one random person on the internet who clearly has an agenda. GabuEx

That seems like an awfully lazy way to form one's religious doctrines. :?

I mean around the time of Martin Luther, the word was commonly rendered as "masturbators". It's only recently that people have suddenly decided that it means "homosexuals". And the word arsenokoitai literally means "man-beds"; even if one accepts the most anti-homosexual interpretation of the word, it clearly cannot possibly include female homosexuals, making "homosexual" even under this interpretation an obviously erroneous translation.

Well it's called logic really. When God says that a man lying with another man is an abomination to him... its an abomination to him... And since the Bible says He never changes, I'm sure it's still an abomination to him today. The part about the law no longer applying is in the New Testament which is what Christians believe. But even if it isn't. You can clearly see that stoning Homosexuals was only part of Jewish law. Silenthps

Again, we're using an English translation here. The Hebrew word in question is tow'ebah. It is a word that refers to ritualistic uncleanliness. Unless you're suggesting that we ought still to be concerned about ritual cleanliness within ancient Judaism, I don't see how that is any more applicable than the rest. There's a reason why the word "abomination" is not seen terribly frequently in the New Testament.

I think it is important when interpreting Leviticus to make sense in today's world to distinguish between the principle behind the laws given and the laws themselves. There are different kinds of laws and rituals given in Leviticus. However, this one seems cut and dry enough to at least say that the christian god does not like homosexuality. Doe that mean they should be killed today? Absolutely not, we are not obligated to follow jewish law, but that does not mean we cannot use it to learn about god himself. I find it hard to argue from a biblical perspective that god could have detested homosexuality back then and then just change his mind today. Also, Paul's letters make it clear that he is not a fan of it either: Romans 1 being an example. quetzalcoatI

Other things called abomination in Leviticus and Deuteronomy include shellfish, flying insects that walk on all fours, camels, rabbits, pigs, and any animal sacrifice to God that has a defect. Do you believe that God also finds such things abominable today? If not, then what makes Leviticus 18:22 different? I don't see fundamentalist Christians declaring pork-eaters to be vile sinners.

[QUOTE="quetzalcoatI"]I think it is important when interpreting Leviticus to make sense in today's world to distinguish between the principle behind the laws given and the laws themselves. There are different kinds of laws and rituals given in Leviticus. However, this one seems cut and dry enough to at least say that the christian god does not like homosexuality. Doe that mean they should be killed today? Absolutely not, we are not obligated to follow jewish law, but that does not mean we cannot use it to learn about god himself. I find it hard to argue from a biblical perspective that god could have detested homosexuality back then and then just change his mind today. Also, Paul's letters make it clear that he is not a fan of it either: Romans 1 being an example. GabuEx

Other things called abomination in Leviticus and Deuteronomy include shellfish, flying insects that walk on all fours, camels, rabbits, pigs, and any animal sacrifice to God that has a defect. Do you believe that God also finds such things abominable today? If not, then what makes Leviticus 18:22 different? I don't see fundamentalist Christians declaring pork-eaters to be vile sinners.

Until you show me your PhD in ancient linguistics or the greek and hebrew languages I don't care what your interpretations of certain words mean and I'm definitely not going to esteem it higher than the hundreds of Scholars who say otherwise.

Silenthps

Well if we're going down that route, then I could point out that there is no significant scholarship left that believes that the Bible even comments on homosexuality as we understand it today, as well as that almost all scholarship disagrees with traditional views on authorship of books of the Bible, but I suppose that could be a little detrimental to your case, so... :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="quetzalcoatI"]I think it is important when interpreting Leviticus to make sense in today's world to distinguish between the principle behind the laws given and the laws themselves. There are different kinds of laws and rituals given in Leviticus. However, this one seems cut and dry enough to at least say that the christian god does not like homosexuality. Doe that mean they should be killed today? Absolutely not, we are not obligated to follow jewish law, but that does not mean we cannot use it to learn about god himself. I find it hard to argue from a biblical perspective that god could have detested homosexuality back then and then just change his mind today. Also, Paul's letters make it clear that he is not a fan of it either: Romans 1 being an example. Silenthps

Other things called abomination in Leviticus and Deuteronomy include shellfish, flying insects that walk on all fours, camels, rabbits, pigs, and any animal sacrifice to God that has a defect. Do you believe that God also finds such things abominable today? If not, then what makes Leviticus 18:22 different? I don't see fundamentalist Christians declaring pork-eaters to be vile sinners.

In neither Leviticus 18:22 nor Leviticus 20:13 does it say "abomination to me". It simply says "abomination", same as the other verses.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

[QUOTE="quetzalcoatI"]I think it is important when interpreting Leviticus to make sense in today's world to distinguish between the principle behind the laws given and the laws themselves. There are different kinds of laws and rituals given in Leviticus. However, this one seems cut and dry enough to at least say that the christian god does not like homosexuality. Doe that mean they should be killed today? Absolutely not, we are not obligated to follow jewish law, but that does not mean we cannot use it to learn about god himself. I find it hard to argue from a biblical perspective that god could have detested homosexuality back then and then just change his mind today. Also, Paul's letters make it clear that he is not a fan of it either: Romans 1 being an example. GabuEx

Other things called abomination in Leviticus and Deuteronomy include shellfish, flying insects that walk on all fours, camels, rabbits, pigs, and any animal sacrifice to God that has a defect. Do you believe that God also finds such things abominable today? If not, then what makes Leviticus 18:22 different? I don't see fundamentalist Christians declaring pork-eaters to be vile sinners.

Until you show me your PhD in ancient linguistics or the greek and hebrew languages I don't care what your interpretations of certain words mean and I'm definitely not going to esteem it higher than the hundreds of Scholars who say otherwise.

Silenthps

Just their number alone is not enough.