The Word Homosexual First Appeared In 1946 Translation of The Bible

9,384 Views | 154 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Patriot101
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The bible isn't really a list of do's and don't's. Even the Law isn't really a Law the way we think of laws today. In our legal tradition, you have this large framework of principles, and then you have a ton of specific laws that cover specific things, and if there isn't a law about something its not illegal. The systems of law in the ancient near east were different, and the Torah is like them. They're casuistic - they're like a series of case studies or principles from which you should reason the legal or moral imperative for whatever situation. It's more like what the supreme court does, less like criminal court.

So, I think looking to the bible for an answer in black and white to something like your question is not going to be helpful.

In my own opinion, I'd put this under "All things are lawful but not all things are profitable; All things are lawful, but not all edify. Let no one seek the good of himself, but that of the other." What is profitable for one person is not for someone else. What is edifying for one person may be harmful for the other. And no one can truly judge that but the people in the marriage, or perhaps those who they have some kind of very intimate advisory relationship with - like a close friend or parent, or something.

To really know whether these things are right or wrong would probably need the people involved to really inquire of themselves - why do I want to do this? Maybe 5 whys to really find out. Maybe the answer is good. Maybe it is not.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Law talks about two kinds of sins - sins of "wandering" and sins of defiance (literally "with the hand held high"). Aside, I think this is where our phrase "high-handed" comes from, but I'm not sure.

Sins of wandering may be unintentional or by omission or inaction or even intentional, but not defiant, if that makes sense.
Post removed:
by user
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

6th time's the charm.

Edit: 7th

Only about half of those should count as my fault, the first several were because Texags does not render numbered lists as expected. I'll take an image of the post editor so you can see what I saw and what was actually posted.

[ol]
  • Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or their color.
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • Be willing to renounce any god or any faith if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.
  • [/ol]
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Well, under the Law you could offer a sacrifice for a sin of wandering or going astray, but if you sinned in defiance you were cut off from the people.

    They do "count" differently for us, but only because a person who sins in defiance rejects forgiveness and grace. All sins are forgivable, to "seventy times seven" times. But a person who sins in defiance isn't looking for forgiveness any more. In that respect it's the same as the Law.

    (The scriptures say that blaspheming the spirit is the unforgivable sin. There are many interpretations of this, but I think it is consistent with the Law, and that blaspheming the Spirit is rejecting God and who He is, just as under the Law).
    Patriot101
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Leviticus 20:13
    "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

    We don't live in a theocracy. So the enforcement of such acts have changed. But the truth is that the New Testament moral law still stands. The Apostle Paul repeats the law in his own words.

    So we can just concede the word homosexuality then and just read the following words in the sentence.
    Makes no difference.
    Roger Metzger
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Y'all sure talk a lot and use big fancy words. So let me ask something simple. What did Jesus say about homosexuality? What did Jesus say about divorce? How does the Church justify its exclusion of gay people but twist itself into knots to accommodate divorced people who have the resources for an annulment? Or maybe even more simply. What would Jesus say to you for condemning one of his children that he made in his own image?
    Good night, Irene.
    dermdoc
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Roger Metzger said:

    Y'all sure talk a lot and use big fancy words. So let me ask something simple. What did Jesus say about homosexuality? What did Jesus say about divorce? How does the Church justify its exclusion of gay people but twist itself into knots to accommodate divorced people who have the resources for an annulment? Or maybe even more simply. What would Jesus say to you for condemning one of his children that he made in his own image?
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    The church doesn't exclude gay people or divorced people. Christians should never condemn anyone, ever.
    Frok
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Roger Metzger said:

    Y'all sure talk a lot and use big fancy words. So let me ask something simple. What did Jesus say about homosexuality? What did Jesus say about divorce? How does the Church justify its exclusion of gay people but twist itself into knots to accommodate divorced people who have the resources for an annulment? Or maybe even more simply. What would Jesus say to you for condemning one of his children that he made in his own image?


    I would say Jesus DOES cover homosexuality indirectly when he affirms marriage between a man and a woman. He also mentions only the man and the woman in his quotes regarding divorce.

    Calling a sin a sin is not condemning. We are all sinners in need of repentance. Refusing to call sin a sin in order to be "nice" creates massive confusion. Why repent if God made me that way?

    There are hard truths that we must discuss. Divorce certainly fits in that category as well and is often ignored or sugar-coated.


    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Now that we've said that, let's examine the problem with what you've said.

    The Law was given by God to Moses, whom he spoke to face to face. That Lawgiver was Jesus Christ. So Jesus says a man laying with another man is a sin.

    Further, Jesus Christ taught the Apostles and revealed the Gospel to St Paul. St Paul, and the Apostles to all the church, taught that laying with another man is a sin. So there is no disconnect here, and no wedge to try to suggest that we teach anything contrary to Jesus Christ.

    For what it's worth, even though it's a tu quoque/ ad hom, the hypocrisy of some a Christian groups with regard to divorce and extramarital sex is bad. And no divorce ever happens without sin. That doesn't change the issue of sin with homosexual sex, nor does it condemn sinners - we are all sinners, in need of grace, repentance, humility, and love.
    Aggrad08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Quote:

    The Law was given by God to Moses, whom he spoke to face to face. That Lawgiver was Jesus Christ. So Jesus says a man laying with another man is a sin.


    By this same reasoning Jesus says it's a sin to eat bacon, play Saturday football, own a house without a parapet or wear mixed fabrics.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    The Law was given by the Lord to Israel that said not to do some of those things, yes. I don't think they say it's a sin, though.
    ramblin_ag02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Aggrad08 said:

    Quote:

    The Law was given by God to Moses, whom he spoke to face to face. That Lawgiver was Jesus Christ. So Jesus says a man laying with another man is a sin.


    By this same reasoning Jesus says it's a sin to eat bacon, play Saturday football, own a house without a parapet or wear mixed fabrics.
    More specifically it's getting paid to play football on Saturday, building a house without a parapet, or wearing a cloth of interwoven linen and wool, but the bacon part was spot on
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
    Patriot101
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    The NT interprets the OT. The epistles interpret the gospels.

    Peter's vision in the book of acts allowed us to eat pork.

    Jesus healed on the Sabbath, which shows us that some of the laws of the Sabbath were reworked.

    Jews, who were Christians, went to the synagogue on Saturday and met house to house at other times.
    But they were kicked out of the synagogue once they vocalized their faith.



     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.