Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God's morality is not derived by decree, but flows naturally from His perfect nature. All sin follows this constant. If God arbitrarily decided that a specific sin was now moral, He would be acting against His nature and would cease to be God.
Is killing sin?
God said it was ok to kill at first (Old Testament) (in certain situations)
and as far as I know most Christians believe that the rules have changed in the New Testament and now it's NOT ok to kill under any circumstances.
So "killing" or "not killing" must not be something that just flows naturally from His nature...
Might as well ask "What if Jesus returned and said adultery was ok?"
He has already spoken. It's sinful. God doesn't change. What was immoral and sinful 2000 years ago is sinful today.
God didn't say that. Paul did. And people simply ASSUME that God speaks ANY time Paul speaks.
But Paul never claimed that God spoke through him ANY time Paul spoke. There is one verse where Paul pointed out: this is not me saying this, but God himself...
If Paul believed that ALL his words were the words of God he would not have made that remark in that verse.
Paul, like any other person, had his opinions about life. And Paul believed (like many of the people in his day) that homosexuality was something abnormal and distasteful. So he wrote his opinion in his letter (and by the way, Paul had no idea that his ideas will become "THE WORD OF GOD" to people.)
If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, would you change your mind?
Just curious.
There is no way that Jesus could prove to people that it's HIM. (Just like he couldn't convince some of the Jews the first time he came).
So what proof would Christians look for? The fact that Jesus is preaching THE SAME things that they believe. If he doesn't, then he is the Anti-Christ. Because the Anti-Christ is also able to do miracles and to deceive the people into believing that he is God. And he will even be raised from the dead.
So it would be hard for Christians to recognize Jesus UNLESS he only taught things they already believe.
Therefore, if Jesus taught that gay marriage is ok, they would just assume it's the Anti-Christ (not Jesus).
Therefore, if Jesus taught that gay marriage is ok, they would just assume it's the Anti-Christ (not Jesus).
There are a lot of Christians who don't believe any of that guff about an anti-Christ. In fact, the Bible doesn't say anything at all about a singular person arising to assume the position of "anti-Christ."
The word was only used a handful of times in the Bible and each time it was referenced it was talking about unbelievers ... NOT some sinister fellow with supernatural powers.
That type of question is simply inconceivable to a Christian, though. Our faith is built off of the Bible -- including the Old Testament, and the NT -- comprised of the Gospels and the letters of the apostles. We believe the Bible to be inspired of God. The Bible explicitly states that marriage was created with the idea of 1 man and 1 woman in mind. It also explicitly states that ANY sex outside of the bond of marriage is sinful. Even more so, it explicitly states that homosexual sex is sinful, along with incest, and other perversions of God's original design of sex.
We believe the Bible to be inspired of God, and God doesn't make mistakes. To suggest that God would show up and say "oh...I'm sorry..I mean this...." after 2000 years is simply inconceivable.
Actually, that appears to be untrue.
Three university level religion professors wrote an op-ed a couple of years ago that dispute your statement. I can't find the original writing, but here are two articles describing their writings:
… we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.
Since there is also a Biblical order for a rapist to marry his victim, the claim that "ANY sex outside the bond of marriage is sinful" is also cast in doubt.
Don't blame me. I'm just citing what it actually says in The Bible.
… we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.
Since there is also a Biblical order for a rapist to marry his victim, the claim that "ANY sex outside the bond of marriage is sinful" is also cast in doubt.
Don't blame me. I'm just citing what it actually says in The Bible.
That is not fair to fundamentalists, mensaguy. They don't really want to know what the Bible actually says. It is too inconsistent and contradictory to support their beliefs about it as the inerrant and infallible word of God.
Might as well ask "What if Jesus returned and said adultery was ok?"
He has already spoken. It's sinful. God doesn't change. What was immoral and sinful 2000 years ago is sinful today.
Perhaps your god has already spoken, but few take heed. Why is it that when adulterers remarry, they are not turned away by bakeries, bridal shops, and most churches? See the double standard?
Three university level religion professors wrote an op-ed a couple of years ago that dispute your statement. I can't find the original writing, but here are two articles describing their writings:
… we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.
Since there is also a Biblical order for a rapist to marry his victim, the claim that "ANY sex outside the bond of marriage is sinful" is also cast in doubt.
Don't blame me. I'm just citing what it actually says in The Bible.
Why because they so say? Their arguments are poor. Basically comes down to "well look here, the Bible talks about other kind of marriages so that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union!"
But we can look at the story of Adam and Eve as the model. God didn't give Adam multiple mates. He didn't create a male mate either. He created one woman to bond with one man. The cases in the OT of God permitting unions like polygamy must be viewed in cultural context. It was most likely a case of cultural necessity since women back then outnumbered men and they needed a husband for survival.
Why because they so say? Their arguments are poor. Basically comes down to "well look here, the Bible talks about other kind of marriages so that means God accepts and blesses any kind of union!"
But we can look at the story of Adam and Eve as the model. God didn't give Adam multiple mates. He didn't create a male mate either. He created one woman to bond with one man. The cases in the OT of God permitting unions like polygamy must be viewed in cultural context. It was most likely a case of cultural necessity since women back then outnumbered men and they needed a husband for survival.
Using Adam and Eve as examples....doesn't that indicate that adultery and incest is acceptable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
