RE: On the subject of homosexuality...
January 20, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Since you believe your arguement is a unique and completely seperate from Esq's allow me to address it as such.
(January 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Boris Karloff Wrote: I'm new here, and I imagine this topic gets discussed a lot, so forgive me if I'm bringing up points that have already been brought up.
After being raised Christian until adulthood, I know that the Bible passages most often referred to by Christians condemning homosexuality are in Leviticus 20 and Romans 1. Oddly, it seems Christians ignore the fact that the most important individual of their religion never says a word on the subject, but when I often point this out they reply with "the Bible is inspired by God, so it doesn't matter if Jesus condemned homosexuality. Other men in the Bible did."
the focus of Christ's ministry was to complete the law of Moses As per mat 5:17-20. What does it mean to complete? To add to, to finish to make whole. So how did Christ complete the law? In the example given, he not only quoted passages from the law of Moses he added the even the thought or longing to break said law was now considered to be a sin or the same as physically breaking the law.
By doing this the focus of the law was expanded far above and beyond the orginal boarder Moses laid down to define sin. Moses said do not murder, Christ said to burn with hate is the same thing as murder, Moses said do not have sexual intercourse with anyone besides your wife, Christ said even the thought of sex with anyone besides your wife is now also the same as committing adultery.
That makes ALL sex or even the thought of sex with anyone other than your wife the same as committing adultery. That also means the only santified way to have sexual intercouse is with in the confines of a Sanctified marriage.
For you see it is not enough to have what you perceive to be silence on the matter. Why? Because we had a standing "Thou shalt not" concerning homosexuality this law was apart of the moral code or law of Moses. Therefore it transfers to Christianity. Even if you do not understand this division or will not except the division of the law, Jesus did indeed speak out against sex with anyone other than your spouse. Now couple that fact with there isn't a Sanctified context in which gay people can be seen as married before God then all sexual activity then becomes sin.
That said this is not an unforgivable sin, it is a sexual sin like any-other. Therefore it needs the same repentance/atonement as any other.
Quote:My main response in these cases that works well for me in my argument is to ask Christians if they make women go to the outskirts of their town and sit on a bucket during their menstruation period with no contact with anyone, because that is also a clear instruction in the book of Leviticus.
which is apart of the social laws of the Jews.
If no one has ever explained the division of the law of Moses it is as follows: the law of Moses can be divided into three parts. The moral law which includes the 10 commandments, and other laws that govern the moral aspects of human behavior. which as per the example of the New Testament transfers over to Christianity.
The social law. These laws defined what it means to be and live as a OT Jew. These laws included how to build your house, to what to do with mold found in your house, loans, trade, interest, what to eat, all the way to women's menstral cycles.. As per the NT non of these laws carry over to the new covenant.
Then there is the ceremonial law. This covers the worship of God. Again non of these laws carrier over. That is why we do not offer burn or blood offerings nor are we bound to the holy-day observances the Jews are. In short OT Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions. Therefore we have two separate doctrines that outline behavior.
So your next question should be what about what you said in mat 5: "non of the law shall pass away till "His kingdom come." There are two schools of thought in Christianity on this. One "His kingdom came" on the day of Pentecost with the out pouring of the Holy Spirit found in Act's 2. Or two (this is the one I favor because of what Paul says through out his works, and because of what Jesus said at the end of this passage found in mat 5; your righteousness has to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees." Which mean we have to look beyond trying to physically up hold the law, we need to seek the attonement Christ offers, because that way we become perfect before the Father as Christ was perfect.)
That means in the second option, we are just in sin, but because the Christian has the atonement offered by Christ we are seen to be as perfect as He is. That would mean we are no longer tied to the law to define our righteousness before God, freeing us from the law of Moses as our only means to find the righteousness we need for eternal life.
Quote:As for the Romans 1 reference, I point out that Paul was a man who even thought marriage between a man and woman was undesirable, as well as the fact that another of his instructions for the church was that women always cover their head when they pray or they will be dishonored. The point I make by bringing up these bits is that if Christians have a right to skim over the instructions they are not comfortable with in the book they say is divine, what gives them the right to determine what should be enforced and what shouldn't?
You guys kill me. It like none of you have read the bible. You all get your info from each other and 90% of it is just out and out wrong. The other 10% is based on myth, long forgotten Sunday school lessons and stereotypes.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV
Read verse 15
A woman's hair is the covering Paul was talking about. The only time she need to wear a hat is if her hair is cut short or shaved and is when she prays or preaches.
Even so if she did not have her hair and did those things it wasn't a sin. It was just a form of social disgrace in their community.
(Read the whole chapter.)
I love it 
