Ain't Religion Great

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by binz

homosexuality isn't a sexual perversion to a homosexual. You are presuming that homosexuality is a sin. That presumption must come from somewhere. I assume it comes from the bible although you refuse to give actual scriptual support.Let me help you.

The most often cited passage to support the notion that homosexuality is a sin and to support prejudice against homosexuals is Leviticus 18:22. "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".

So is Leviticus the guide on sin? But what about other passages in Leviticus? How about Leviticus 20:

Why do you insist on copying and pasting others arguments? You can readily find many rebuttals to your own findings. You don't really need me.

I don't believe it is right to support prejudice against homosexuals. They are in the same sin boat I'm in as far as I'm concerned. It's what our focus is on that matters.

Leviticus is the guide on sin if you are Jewish I suppose.
If you are trying to argue that the Levitical code has become obsolete to Christians then what about beastiality? Is that something you are willing to accept and teach your children that it's alright to have relations with an animal?

Both beastiality and homosexual acts were a part of Baal worship so the context of your examples in Leviticus were addressing the Hebrews specifically. Nevertheless, it is still an example of how we, even today, should put God first inspite of our humanistic desires.

1Cor. 6:9-10 lists specific acts that are sinful. Do a word search on each word to find out it's origin. Especially as it is defined in Greek. Then you can search the other places in the NT where those words are used.

Romans 1:26-27 speaks of vile affections. So I ask you binz, what were they doing that was contrary to nature? What were the "natural relations" do you suppose Paul was referring to? He was clearly saying that the natural relations were given up for vile affections. What were the "unseemly" acts that Paul was referring to?

Few Christians believe that the other sins listed in 1Cor 6:9-10 will be excused without repenting. With practicing homosexuals, however, this is not the case.

[binz]

So who determines which part of the Leviticus code is or is not obsolete? Is the part about killing kids who curse their parents still applicable? Or the part about killing both the man and woman who cheat on their spouses? You tried to compare Beastiality with homosexuality. But you should also add cursing your parents. They are each apparently in the same sin category.

So hard to keep up on which passages are to be followed and which ones are to be dismissed. Apparently, you can pick and choose within the same chapter.

And who was Paul? Was he God? Did he ever meet Jesus? Why do the words in his letters rise to the word of god? Didn't he say things like women should always be veiled and keep their mouth shut in church?

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

Romans 1:26-27 speaks of vile affections. So I ask you binz, what were they doing that was contrary to nature? What were the "natural relations" do you suppose Paul was referring to? He was clearly saying that the natural relations were given up for vile affections. What were the "unseemly" acts that Paul was referring to?
.

What about Romans 1:31-32? What is the penalty for engaging in homosexual behavior in those verses? Death. That seem reasonable to you?

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by binz

So who determines which part of the Leviticus code is or is not obsolete? Is the part about killing kids who curse their parents still applicable? Or the part about killing both the man and woman who cheat on their spouses? You tried to compare Beastiality with homosexuality. But you should also add cursing your parents. They are each apparently in the same sin category.

So hard to keep up on which passages are to be followed and which ones are to be dismissed. Apparently, you can pick and choose within the same chapter.

And who was Paul? Was he God? Did he ever meet Jesus? Why do the words in his letters rise to the word of god? Didn't he say things like women should always be veiled and keep their mouth shut in church?

You would have to ask a practicing Jew about observing the Levitical codes. I was once told but I wouldn't want to butcher the explanation. From a Christians perspective, the Levitical laws were given specifically to the Hebrews who worshipped God. When Jesus came he fullfilled the law.

This didn't make all those laws obsolete however. Jesus gave two commands, love God and love your neighbor. In essence, that alone covers just about every law regarding God. Kids still need to respect their parents, man and woman must not cheat on their spouses, beastiality and homosexual acts are still an abomination to God just like cursing your parents. The penalty for these sins is death. Unless you are Catholic, there is no classification of sin. Sin is sin and the penalty is the same so there is no "picking and choosing" passages to follow and passages not to follow. God is perfect and Holy, we are not which is why we are now seperated from Him. Regarding the Levitical codes, you must understand the context that those passages were given in and apply the essence of the meaning for modern days.

Paul was not God. Whether he physically met Jesus or not is debatable. He did however receive the Gospel from the Lord. He also later included himself as one who had seen Him. Pauls words "rose to the word of God" as you put it, because of the testimony it brings concerning the Son of God.

Paul did say women should be veiled and that they should keep quiet in church. Again you must seek to understand the context that he was speaking. Paul was writing to the young church in Corinth about how women should carry themselves during assemblies of the church. This was to maintain order. I can only assume there was an issue that was going on at the time. The veiled part is also a first century custom that may have something to do with how pagan women met together with their heads uncovered.

Knowing this... do we now take this literally? It is not our custom to keep women veiled and mouths shut during church services. The essence however or the application to modern day is simply a lesson of showing respect for your spouse, reverence and being mindful of your behavior during times of worship. Petty issues can divide a church just the same as it can in our secular lives.

Originally Posted by binz

What about Romans 1:31-32? What is the penalty for engaging in homosexual behavior in those verses? Death. That seem reasonable to you?

Don't forget about the other sins that were mentioned. That is why I keep telling you that we all are guilty of sin. The only difference is having faith in Christ who died for our sins and to turn away from our sins as a natural response to the grace and mercy shown to us.

So is it "reasonable"? Yes, it is if you believe in the essence of God and His plan of salvation.

[ThisCharmingMan]

Originally Posted by binz

you can't get much more negative than believing that non-believers will spend eternity burning in hell...right?

That's some demented thinking right there.

Late again, but I will join in with those who never stop arguing for just one post.

Quote my post where I said non-believers will spend ANY TIME in hell. You can't. You made that S up yourself you love to argue so much.

Let's see if you will address this directly and admit you have the time to argue incessantly on a silly internet posting forum.

[binz]

Originally Posted by ThisCharmingMan

Late again, but I will join in with those who never stop arguing for just one post.

Quote my post where I said non-believers will spend ANY TIME in hell. You can't. You made that S up yourself you love to argue so much.

Let's see if you will address this directly and admit you have the time to argue incessantly on a silly internet posting forum.

Say what? You speak for Christianity? Your views on hell are inconsistent with Christian teachings and the NT.

I'm addressing my issues with religions.

But congrats for your views on hell. I wish more believers would ignore that part of the bible. Not sure how you dismiss certain parts of bible but embrace others, but just do what you need to do to keep believing in the god delusion. Lol

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

So is it "reasonable"? Yes, it is if you believe in the essence of God and His plan of salvation.

So who is supposed to do the killing of the homosexuals and bad kids? And how are you supposed to do it? Public hanging in the town square?

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by binz

So who is supposed to do the killing of the homosexuals and bad kids? And how are you supposed to do it? Public hanging in the town square?

It is talking about spiritual death. It's certainly not some sort of decree to carry out or justify killing or hating. It's not something we are supposed to do. God is simply saying this is what happens when those sins (all of them) are ignored as sins and accepted as a lifestyle.

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

It is talking about spiritual death. It's certainly not some sort of decree to carry out or justify killing or hating. It's not something we are supposed to do. God is simply saying this is what happens when those sins (all of them) are ignored as sins and accepted as a lifestyle.

Lol. Interesting interpretation.

When it says very clearly that certain sinners should be stoned to death or put to death, I'm not sure how one can construe that to mean non-physical death. Not sure how you achieve spiritual death by hitting someone with big rocks.

It is entertaining to watch folks try to rationalize the offensive / absurd / scientifically impossible / illogical / culturally unacceptable parts of the bible. It's not easy Lucas. I do appreciate the effort.