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.
When it comes to religion, i prefer to let people have their own personal beliefs. Personally I'm a christian and i believe any kind of sexual immorality is considered sinful. Whether it's homosexuality, adultery or even fornication. And after all, we all are sinner before God's eyes so why count another person's sins simply because they are gay and you are not? Let's just learn to let people be.
It appears to me Jesus was defining marriage, plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Edward
When it comes to religion, i prefer to let people have their own personal beliefs. Personally I'm a christian and i believe any kind of sexual immorality is considered sinful. Whether it's homosexuality, adultery or even fornication. And after all, we all are sinner before God's eyes so why count another person's sins simply because they are gay and you are not? Let's just learn to let people be.
You don't (and can't) show that a committed homosexual relationship IS in the same category as adultry or fornication.
You don't (and can't) show that a committed homosexual relationship IS in the same category as adultry or fornication.
Then go ahead and categorize it differently. It's all about personal view, i personally categorize all of them as sexual immoralities.But if you don't think they belong together I also respect your view.
Then go ahead and categorize it differently. It's all about personal view, i personally categorize all of them as sexual immoralities.But if you don't think they belong together I also respect your view.
The church seems to conveniently forget one thing. People are allowed to have what ever personal view they like--what they cannot do is ACT in those personal views to prevent others from having OPPOSING personal views.
I stated that fact to get someone to step into a pile of doo--unfortunately you fill the bill. That word was NEVER used in the Bible--NEVER. Faulty, biased translators of "modern" editions picked up on the bigotry of a majority of the bible buying public.
To enlighten you--in all of history, the first time the word "homosexuality" used in English was:
This is what people do when trying to discredit the Bible. They put the spotlight on what they want, and neglect to find the intent of the passage. In this case, you want to focus on what's not there, and make your case using no substance. But what does the passage say?
I used 1 Corinthians 6:9, which mentions the word homosexuals. The Greek origin is malakos.
malakos - of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:--effeminate, soft.
See that word catamite? Since you reference Wikipedia, here is the reference. If you want to pretend that bigots just dreamed up the term "homosexuals" to put in here, I can't stop you. But it clear that the translators used the proper term for today's use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
But prejudiced people are able to backtrack their terminology into the past as easily as they project 2000+ year old writings as applicable in the 21st century. That's the nature of prejudice. It wants to believe it isn't prejudice at all.
So your prejudice is preserved with your dollars. No one even understood homosexual until psychologists coined the phrase. In fact, men having sex with men was believed in ancient times to be by those who were so consumed by sexual passion that women were not enough for them.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_.../Homosexuality
Frankly, male/male sexual relations at the very least bordered on pedophilia--as only the older male partner (the penetrator) was supposed to receive pleasure. Sex itself had no emotional attachment and was completely unlike how Americans in the 21st century view sexual relations.
So even in modern communities, let alone in ancient, less populated ones, some have no concept whatsoever of homosexuality.
Yet you just described the activity - even though they supposedly had no concept. You can call it whatever you want, in whatever language you want. The ACTION of homosexuality is sin.
Christ's death covers the sin of homosexuality. Not so that people can call themselves gay Christians, and hold on to their identity of sin... but so people can call themselves a Christian, and be identified with Jesus Christ.
And you really don't believe your own message of about "original sin," unless you are like the Catholic Church of 500 years ago that believed young children died as "lost" unless they were baptized. Instead you've created a fictionalized story, not found in the Word of God, about "age of accountability." Age of accountability is not just sheer fiction it is an outright LIE to protect the god you have created in your own mind from looking like a monster.
Straight from the adversary.
You know original sin references Adam and Eve. You know this. Yet you spew out the above paragraph.
When it comes to religion, i prefer to let people have their own personal beliefs. Personally I'm a christian and i believe any kind of sexual immorality is considered sinful. Whether it's homosexuality, adultery or even fornication. And after all, we all are sinner before God's eyes so why count another person's sins simply because they are gay and you are not? Let's just learn to let people be.
Such as what? Where do you draw the line? What constitutes "immorality" to you? Masturbation? Using toys? Threesomes? What about remarriage after the spouse dies? Or how about remarriage if one spouse abandons the other? Are those acts immoral? Because remarriage may be thought of as infidelity. And I can't figure out what God considers sinful. No one can, because he doesn't tell us, so it's all a matter of personal opinion, and not what God supposedly wants.
It appears to me that He was defining divorce, plain and simple.
On the other hand, if you wish to define "marriage" as a religious institution, I have no objection. When you try to impose that definition on a society that views it as a civil institution, I do.
It has nothing to do with civil vs. religious. You're changing the subject. It has to do with what God deems appropriate, as far as marriage and sexuality. Jesus was reminding the listeners of what God intended from the beginning, but mankind has distorted.
Such as what? Where do you draw the line? What constitutes "immorality" to you? Masturbation? Using toys? Threesomes? What about remarriage after the spouse dies? Or how about remarriage if one spouse abandons the other? Are those acts immoral? Because remarriage may be thought of as infidelity. And I can't figure out what God considers sinful. No one can, because he doesn't tell us, so it's all a matter of personal opinion, and not what God supposedly wants.
Nonsense! Read Matthew 19:4-6 for a clear defintion of marriage. That will answer your first three questions.
The Bible gives two clear grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and (2) abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15)
As far as remarriage after spousal death, read 1 Corinthians 7:8-9; 1 Timothy 5:14.
You know original sin references Adam and Eve. You know this. Yet you spew out the above paragraph.
This is actually your understanding of the Doctrine of Original Sin? Seriously?
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.
