2000 Year-old NEWSFLASH! Anti-homosexuality is Anti-Christianity; More Accurately Pro-Judaism.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


For all your 18 years of study, you are wrong. The NT as quoted by 547000 does not direct followers of Jesus to embrace people who wilfully indulge in sinful behavior, but rather encourages us all to strive for perfection even if we fall short at times.

The first commandment is to love God, in that He comes first, including his laws and teachings. Second you love man as you would love yourself, only after God. If God despises homosexuality or any sin, you don't embrace encourage people to continue to live in sin. Stoning them to death is not necessary, but you definitely woul not welcome outward and defiant sin in your church, home, or community.

It appears that all of your schooling has successully taught you how to isolate a few random verses and use them out of context in order to advance your own personal agenda and point of view. It's a shame you chose web design because you would have made an excellent false prophet, much like the rest of mainstream religion.

Originally posted by works4dhs
Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Your interpretation but it still lacks one significant point. Where did Jesus condemn gays? He doesn't.

either homosexuality is a sin, or 99% of the church has been wrong these last 2,000 years.

BINGO. That's MY point.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


To be honest I haven't even read the driible drabble of most the posts. I took a glance and about got sick. what ever is done in privacy is only ones business. Who some body loves or want to be with or spend time and money on etc, is nobodys business. All the debate of religious grounds proves to the outsider how easy it is to decide for others what a sin is and what isn't. There is no set of standards if there were there would be no debate. Religion is simply a legal way to gain power and money for a self proclaimed few. Keep everyone one divided and keep them busy with ignorant nothingness. Then nobody will realize what the actual purpose is. Does anyone who claims to believe in GOD and the powers he is professed to have. Really needs any of you to think for him? To act for him? To talk for him? To hate for him? To kill for him? If you think he needs you then you have refuted everything you claim about your alleged GOD.

Originally posted by works4dhs

Originally posted by intrepid
Not much of a shock there. Judaism is the most tolerant of the Abrahamic faiths. It should be, it's also the oldest. Jesus was a Jew too don't forget. From reading about him I would say that he wouldn't have a problem with gays. It's RELIGION that has a problem with it.

Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

An answer to a question about adultery. Nobody is "separating man from woman" by being homosexual. What does your excerpt have to do with anything, might I ask?

either homosexuality is a sin, or 99% of the church has been wrong these last 2,000 years.

Logic sides with the latter AND the former. For the past 2,000 years they have caused more arbitrary mass murders than any other religion. I'd say they've had it pretty wrong. For the past 2,000 years, birth control is also not allowed, along with homosexuality -- equally as sinful, as they are both sins... (Wow, the Church sure did play a big role in this population problem that we have now)... lets also not forget gluttony and lack of humility, two things most "holy" folk aren't exactly foreign to.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood

 

For all your 18 years of study, you are wrong. The NT as quoted by 547000 does not direct followers of Jesus to embrace people who wilfully indulge in sinful behavior, but rather encourages us all to strive for perfection even if we fall short at times.

The first commandment is to love God, in that He comes first, including his laws and teachings. Second you love man as you would love yourself, only after God. If God despises homosexuality or any sin, you don't embrace encourage people to continue to live in sin. Stoning them to death is not necessary, but you definitely woul not welcome outward and defiant sin in your church, home, or community.

I beg your pardon? Disallow access from your Church? The teachers are only for those who are already completely righteous? Is this really your argument?

It appears that all of your schooling has successully taught you how to isolate a few random verses and use them out of context in order to advance your own personal agenda and point of view. It's a shame you chose web design because you would have made an excellent false prophet, much like the rest of mainstream religion.

Says the person trying to say that Christianity is about excluding people from religious events

Matt 6:15

For if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matt 7:2

For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I also recall him saying something to the extent of "Are teachers only for those who do not need guidance?"

(I'm busy with a client ATM, I will look it up later when I get the chance)

Sorry, denied.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by Orion75

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
John 8:4,5

and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

Pray, does this not sound familiar to the kind of arguments that "Christians" come up with against homosexuality regarding harsh punishments for homosexuality in Levitican Law?

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Jesus then told the woman to go forth and sin no more, he never told her that her adultery was acceptable, or that she could continue on in adultery and be forgiven.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Orion75 because: (no reason given)

As the point flies right over your head, I'll reinstill what this thread is about: Humans persecuting humans for their behaviors.

edit on 4-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

This thread so far has been about quite a few things, using scripture to justify homosexuality (Even the title, "2000 Year-old NEWSFLASH! Anti-homosexuality is Anti-Christianity") being among them. Using that quote to say that homosexuality was acceptable and leaving off the end part was just bad form, because even according to Jesus forgiveness of sin is conditional. If all sex outside of man-woman marriage is adultery in the bible, then acting on homosexuality is adultery and only forgivable if they turn away from it. Christians today don't stone homosexuals to death, just critisize their chosen lifestyle. If you kill someone for being gay in the US, you will go to jail same as if you killed anyone else.

There are many different levels to the debate on homosexuality and prejudice - one is the straw man argument that disapproving of gays means you are going to kill them all, and then there is the reality that you can't even comment on homosexuality having any negative aspects without being villified, because - critisizing gays today = killing them to the reactionary sorts.

Originally posted by Orion75
...If all sex outside of man-woman marriage is adultery in the bible, then acting on homosexuality is adultery and only forgivable if they turn away from it.

Adultery is sex with someone that is married, but not to you. You may be thinking about fornication. Gays have been fighting for marriage rights for a long time. Is it their fault that society won't recognize that.... yet?

I have one basic point. Jesus said a lot. Don't you think that if he or Big Daddy had a problem with gays he would have said at least one little thing about it?

reply to post by 547000


Read about Naomi and Ruth, and David and Jonathan. Same sex relationships.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Christ saved all mankind when he died on that cross. He died for the sins of the whole world. God "wills", and "wishes" and "desires". His will and wishes and desires will be fulfilled. That means, all mankind will be saved, as He wills that no man perish.

reply to post by intrepid


No one in that day understood homosexuality. Nor did they understand that epilepsy is a disorder, not a demon.

reply to post by aero56


Yes they did. Homosexuality was alive and well back then. Sodom and Gomorrah(Genesis, WAY before Christ) are used by the religious to show that god wants nothing to do with gays. It wasn't being gay that condemned those cities though. It was their lack of righteousness. They were "godless".

reply to post by MaryStillToe


Then why does Jesus tell his followers they must "hate" their family in order to follow him? Pretty strong word if you ask me. He said he came to cause division. Does this sound like a man of love?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Orion75
...If all sex outside of man-woman marriage is adultery in the bible, then acting on homosexuality is adultery and only forgivable if they turn away from it.

Adultery is sex with someone that is married, but not to you. You may be thinking about fornication. Gays have been fighting for marriage rights for a long time. Is it their fault that society won't recognize that.... yet?

I have one basic point. Jesus said a lot. Don't you think that if he or Big Daddy had a problem with gays he would have said at least one little thing about it?

Technically you are right on there being a variation between the two words, the OP used the story of the adulterer as a comparisan to homosexuality to try and make their point. In the bible homosexuality was described as a detestable thing, the word Toevah and the punishment for it was death, so it's comparisan to adultery due to having the same punishment is more appropriate than fornication in some ways. There is never a mention of marriage ever being between two people of the same sex in the bible, only the opposite sexes marrying. If not mentioning being against homosexuality can be construed as acceptance, then the argument can also be made that by not mentioning "gay marriage" in the bible it simply means he meant for to not be any such thing. It goes both ways, the only things the bible does have to say about homosexuality isn't in line with considering it appropriate in any way.

reply to post by Orion75


That boils down to "religion" again. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." Referring to the Last Supper. He didn't say that about his "birthday" Christmas. But religion has put that out in front. If He said ONCE, "Being a man that lies with a man is bad" I'd be online with it, but he didn't. I won't read into scripture that which isn't there.

It goes both ways, the only things the bible does have to say about homosexuality isn't in line with considering it appropriate in any way.

Almost all places where the Bible mentions homosexuality at all was simply referred to as "sexual immorality" pre-1950s. It's very much a warping of the Word with respect to ignorant human interest. Most preachers are evidence of this, going on about Sodom and Gomorrah as if the worste thing that happened there was homosexuality, but they were RAPING AND KILLING EACHOTHER, GAY AND STRAIGHT.. nobody ever seems to touch on that one. It's sad, really. People hear what they want to, I suppose. That, or what they want other people to think based on very, very little (if any) evidence at all. It's amazing how the zealous can look into such issues and exclusively scrutinize the people who I personally perceive to be the lesser of the evils in the situation.

In respects to marriage, it is a civil union that provides federal benefits, and therefore none of religion's business. All the politically-controlling religious folk (who I can't correctly call Christians because they are so against the teachings of the gospels) really need to step off.

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood

 

To be honest I haven't even read the driible drabble of most the posts. I took a glance and about got sick. what ever is done in privacy is only ones business. Who some body loves or want to be with or spend time and money on etc, is nobodys business. All the debate of religious grounds proves to the outsider how easy it is to decide for others what a sin is and what isn't. There is no set of standards if there were there would be no debate. Religion is simply a legal way to gain power and money for a self proclaimed few. Keep everyone one divided and keep them busy with ignorant nothingness. Then nobody will realize what the actual purpose is. Does anyone who claims to believe in GOD and the powers he is professed to have. Really needs any of you to think for him? To act for him? To talk for him? To hate for him? To kill for him? If you think he needs you then you have refuted everything you claim about your alleged GOD.

No. He does not need us to hate or kill for him. Again I say "Hate the Sin", "Love the Sinner". How is that so hard to understand? Are you purposely trying to not understand it? It is not the "job" of Christians to punish your sin(whichever sins you commit), that is God's job. On the other hand, a practicing homosexual should no more be a priest than should an adulterer or a murderer or anyone else who continues to shame God by living in their sin.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
On the other hand, a practicing homosexual should no more be a priest than should an adulterer or a murderer or anyone else who continues to shame God by living in their sin.

And where did Jesus put gays into the same lot as adulterers and murderers? Chapter and verse please.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Christ saved all mankind when he died on that cross. He died for the sins of the whole world. God "wills", and "wishes" and "desires". His will and wishes and desires will be fulfilled. That means, all mankind will be saved, as He wills that no man perish.

Not always. You have freewill to reject the gift of salvation. If you choose sin over salvation, then you are not saved. God truly desires all mankind to be saved and the gift is there for the taking; BUT it is conditional. You cannot claim to be saved if you continually wallow in sin.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
On the other hand, a practicing homosexual should no more be a priest than should an adulterer or a murderer or anyone else who continues to shame God by living in their sin.

And where did Jesus put gays into the same lot as adulterers and murderers? Chapter and verse please.

The same place that he said that they can't be fat, divorced, uncircumsized, or pierced.

"All sins are equal is the eyes of God".

Again, we preach what we want people to hear about that distracts from the stuff that we don't want to be judged on ourselves.

I'm sure I don't have to explain how many tubby priests there are.... and that is a "deadly sin", so why can't they be gay?

Committing sins of the flesh does not make you demonic, it makes you human.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
so why can't they be gay?

Because RELIGION, not god, says so.