New (Question on Faith and Homosexuality, the relationship between the two)

[marshlander]

(((marshlander)))

And I really not count it as tomato :-)

And yes... Namaste´

Thanks, fenris

This article in Tuesday's Guardian seems relevant.

[DtotheJtotheM]

The bible makes its opinion quite clear concerning the moral implications of homosexuality. People say that the old testament was nullified with the coming of Jesus, but if that were so, it would mean Jesus was not the messiah that the old testament prophesied, which would of course destroy Christianity. Seeing as we couldn't possibly have that -shifts eyes-, we must assume that one cannot be Christian and at the same time not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Given the nature of being born again through Jesus, we must also assume that the person who is allegedly born again is living for Jesus, Jesus in the context of being the messiah being the central part of their lives. This would mean they would have to denounce their homosexuality and truly work at not practicing it.

This of course is rationally mind-boggling on so many levels. In my opinion, you cannot claim to be a follower of the Christian Jesus and be homosexual without admitting that you are allegedly a sinner. The same way you cannot claim to be a follower of the Christian Jesus and not admit that wearing two different fabrics or eating shrimp is sin as outlined in the book of Leviticus.

I once was a Christian, but I soon discovered that the spiritual connection I had always amplified within myself did not match the Bible's teachings. I also learned that the Bible was historically inaccurate and that Jesus may not even have existed, at least certainly not in the way the Bible tell us. I now apply my "connection" with the Universe, and have since learned my own personal meaning of life - that of Beauty, and of Happiness. I guess you could call me a pantheist, though I fear that we set our ideals on that the pedestal of a "higher power", which I do not believe in. I believe according to what I see in the patterns of nature's beauty in all forces being on the same level, working for and against each other in perfect harmony.

I am not, by the way, denying anyone's affinity with the spiritual - merely suggesting that one may be forcing an improper image on top of that spirituality. I will remain open though.

[fredv3b]

The bible makes its opinion quite clear concerning the moral implications of homosexuality.

I disagree the Bible is distinctly less than clear.

People say that the old testament was nullified with the coming of Jesus, but if that were so, it would mean Jesus was not the messiah that the old testament prophesied, which would of course destroy Christianity.

I simply don't follow your logic. Why can't God give his children new laws to live by, if he sees fit. Also taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, Jesus' death and message was only for the Jews and not the Gentiles, therefore only those entitled to to regarded as Jewish (by other Jews) can be Christian, therefore the true Christian population of the world is very small indeed.

Also the meaning of the passages of the New Testament relating to homosexuality depend crucially on the correct translation of somewhat obscure Greek words and distinguishing references to various temple sex cults to homosexuality per se.

[DtotheJtotheM]

I disagree the Bible is distinctly less than clear.



I simply don't follow your logic. Why can't God give his children new laws to live by, if he sees fit. Also taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, Jesus' death and message was only for the Jews and not the Gentiles, therefore only those entitled to to regarded as Jewish (by other Jews) can be Christian, therefore the true Christian population of the world is very small indeed.

Also the meaning of the passages of the New Testament relating to homosexuality depend crucially on the correct translation of somewhat obscure Greek words and distinguishing references to various temple sex cults to homosexuality per se.

I never mentioned differentiation between gentiles and Jews, simply that the Christian Jesus would have come back upholding the original law concerning sin - even if it can be forgiven, it's still a sin, sin being outlined in both the new and old testament as x, y, z.

Plus, the act of God suddenly nullifying everything he said before simply because "he sees fit" is entirely insensitive and very wishy-washy. See here: Tumblrweeds

The bible is clear. I understand the whole mistranslation thing concerning the word arkensonite and Paul's usage of it, indeed I once believed that to be a case for Christians to accept homosexuality as not being sin - but that only relates to the new testament and not the old testament's clear denouncing of same-sex relations in Leviticus. And look! Here in the NEW testament as Paul also states without using the word arkensonite is this quote as well: "Even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." -Romans 1:26-28

What is clearly depicted here is that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, and that it can be cured.

I also do believe that the true Christian population of the world is small, as with most other religions.

[fredv3b]

My point was that the belief that everything in the Old Testament still holds true leads to some absurd conclusions for the great majority of people that regard themselves as Christian. They all believe that the coming of Jesus Christ really changed things, and that God gave them a new law to live by. There is certainly debate about what parts of the Old Testament still hold true and which do not.

Plus, the act of God suddenly nullifying everything he said before simply because "he sees fit" is entirely insensitive and very wishy-washy. See here: Tumblrweeds

I didn't say he nullified everything, but never mind. To whom is it insensitive? You may regard it as wishy-washy but as I said above Christians believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ really did change the rules.

I accept that in Romans there is the clearest statement within the Bible that homosexuality is sinful. However I do not recognise the final part of your quote. Here is what the online King James Bible gives for Romans 1:23-28

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

The question here is, is homosexuality the sin or the punishment?

For the sake of argument let us assume that Paul is saying homosexuality, both male and female, is a sin. The questions is how strongly should we weigh this single passage against the rest of the New Testament? We should remember that these are Paul's own words, he is not quoting Christ. It should also be weighed against other passages, for example Matthew 8:5-8

5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

In this passage 'servant' is the translation of the Greek word 'pais' (written in the Latin alphabet), a number of other translations have been offered including male-lover.

[DtotheJtotheM]

My point was that the belief that everything in the Old Testament still holds true leads to some absurd conclusions for the great majority of people that regard themselves as Christian. They all believe that the coming of Jesus Christ really changed things, and that God gave them a new law to live by. There is certainly debate about what parts of the Old Testament still hold true and which do not.



I didn't say he nullified everything, but never mind. To whom is it insensitive? You may regard it as wishy-washy but as I said above Christians believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ really did change the rules.

I accept that in Romans there is the clearest statement within the Bible that homosexuality is sinful. However I do not recognise the final part of your quote. Here is what the online King James Bible gives for Romans 1:23-28



The question here is, is homosexuality the sin or the punishment?

For the sake of argument let us assume that Paul is saying homosexuality, both male and female, is a sin. The questions is how strongly should we weigh this single passage against the rest of the New Testament? We should remember that these are Paul's own words, he is not quoting Christ. It should also be weighed against other passages, for example Matthew 8:5-8



In this passage 'servant' is the translation of the Greek word 'pais' (written in the Latin alphabet), a number of other translations have been offered including male-lover.

I suppose. I can certainly see it from your point of view, although admittedly I am not on great terms with the religion of Christianity having grown up with it and having it permeated through my mind. Based on my own interpretations and what I perceive as more stable food for the soul that I have come across, I cannot agree with the bible, and in some form my opinions may for a very long time be biased concerning its contents. The fact that there are many interpretations is interesting - like any great work of art - but it is due to this very fact I cannot then accept the "absoluteness" of some of its teachings as indeed absolution of spiritual context.

As always, respect. (Even if I can be heated ;P)

[scottymorg]

yeah he's happy about the way u are

[ian20090326]

wow...
it is cool to have so many different opinions to contrast and compare your own with...
i can not speak about what others believe in...
as always our faith makes us who we are and what we are...

believing in GOD or a higher being does not immune one from the EVILS of this world...
there is much as GOOD as there is EVIL...
we are most likely to choose GOOD and do GOOD...

[fenris]

wow...
it is cool to have so many different opinions to contrast and compare your own with...
i can not speak about what others believe in...
as always our faith makes us who we are and what we are...

believing in GOD or a higher being does not immune one from the EVILS of this world...
there is much as GOOD as there is EVIL...
we are most likely to choose GOOD and do GOOD...

yes, this different opinions i like, too. And Its alway a good way to learn about others... see how they live and find out other views of live.