Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Among Christians I know the Old/New testament argument is circumvented by passages in the New Testament that decry homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27

Those passages were also used to claim that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexual activity.

Regardless of the merit of the Old/New testament the New testament clearly speaks against homosexual sex and many Christians use the New (not Old) Testament to back up their discriminatory attitudes about homosexuals. It was a quite common belief taht AIDS was an example of God's punishment.

This is commonly based on NEW TESTAMENT passages such as this:

"Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

lab rat, Those subjective interpretations of the bible just does not work. There are too many conflicts that require "subjective" reasoning to overtime the literal translations of the bible. After all, god wouldn't make such 'mistakes,' because he is all powerful and knows what the world will look like 2000 years into the future. c.i.

[/quote] ="lab rat" It is hypocritical now for Christians to discriminate against gays (although I would make an exception for positions of leadership in the church--I'll save that for a different post); we all do things that are wrong and all need forgiveness from the same Source. [/QUOTE]


Those that have heard and don't believe are going to have a long way to pony-up to the forgiveness plate. You might also want to define "discriminate", I'm not going to hate or kill a gay person, now there might a been a time when I could of killed someone but gayness or religion would have had nothing to do with it (another topic), then again I'm not letting them into a place of responsability in my church, and I'm not going to enable a person with anti-bibilical theology to cause harm.

AIDS is an unfortunate thing - no matter the cause.
Shameless acts occur everyday .

Good post, Lab Rat. No bullsey on your head as far as I am concerned. Welcome to A2K. Hope you stick with us. We're a fun group.

I agree with much of what you said about the Old Testament -- but disagree with where you ended up.

If a person is basing his/her objections or considerations about homosexuality on the teachings of the Bible -- it seems extraordiarily hypocritical to say that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin and that we cannot ignore the instructions of the god of the Bible that it is sinful conduct -- but that the prescribed punishment the god demanded can be ignored.

Any protestations that "Jesus died for our sins" -- and therefore the punishments required by the Old Testament are no longer in force, is more rationalization than actual reasoning.

And as Craven pointed out -- the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament had to say about homosexuality -- just as the New Testament confirms the teachings of the Old Testament on the acceptability of slavery.

In order to be logical and consistent -- a Christian who has determined that the penalty of death for homosexual behavior is something that can be ignored -- should really be of the opinion that the notion that homosexual behavior is an abomination -- also should be ignored.

That, of course, would open the door to so many other things that should be ignored -- and would, ultimately, lead to the conclusion (rightly so, in my opinon) that the Bible is not the inerrent word of any god.


Comments???

Cicerone Imposter,
Here's a condensation of my post, minus my subjective interpretations (i.e., based directly on Biblical passages):
1) God declares homosexuality a sin (passages cited above)
2) The penalty for sin is death (Genesis, "the day that you eat of that tree, you shall surely die"; also, Romans 6:23)
3) Jesus' death fulfilled God's death sentence on mankind (John 3:16 among others)--therefore, the stonings and sacrifices commanded in the OT are no longer required. I'll get a few more Biblical references to support this and post them if you like (I'm not at home right now and I don't have the passages memorized).

husker,

If you would not accept a homosexual spiritual leader would you accept a female one?

I ask because some take the scriptures and infer that females are not suitable leaders either.

Intereting that you brought this particular passage up in this discussion.

You are right -- the god of the Bible did tell Eve that "...the day that you eat of that tree, you shall surely die." (Minor wording variations among the various Bibles -- but the jist is that during the day in which they eat the fruit of the tree they will die.)

The serpent, widely accepted as Satan, told Eve, "...no, on the day you eat of that tree, you shall not die."

They ate of the fruit of the tree -- and they did not die.

The god of the Bible either lied -- or was mistaken.

The Satan figure told the truth and got it correct.

They eventually died Frank. Christians usually interpret that passage as being the beginning of mortality for humans. That the original sin caused us to be mortal.

Under that explanation (that Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate the fruit) God did not lie.

But I have always wondered how they understood "die".

Craven and Frank, Here's the problem I have with the immortality of Adam and Eve. Was their sex made for pleasure only? If not, they were mortal from the very beginning, because earth cannot maintain increasing populations for ever. Did their sin also include all animals? c.i.

Dunno, CI. I am just defending the christian belief a bit. Most of them do not take Frank's example as a lie by God for the reasons I mentioned.

Please don't ask me to defend all of it.

lab_rat, Jesus didn't make a sacrifice, he was a criminal, the sacrifice thing was all an invention of who I like to call the ancient top salesman, aka as Paul.

Discriminating aganst homosexual is WRONG, actually I support homosexual rights, & I am what you can consider an activist for their rights, though I'm not homosexual, it's horrible to discriminate them, I only support the discrimination of Jehova Witnesses, they are the worst kind of people(in my opinion), how dare they not pay respects to our beloved flag?, to our beloved country, that makes me so angry.

The bible is clearly a work by humans. & why do people still believe in Genesis, haven't they had enough proofs of evolution, or are they just too old & stubborn to accept how false it is or do they want to keep their lives simple?

Craven

I realize the kinds of defenses Christians put up with regard to the "you will surely die" comment -- and like you, I have at times defended that position (for various reasons.)

In any case, even if you eliminate the "the god of the Bible lied or was mistaken" argument -- you are left with one rather disquieting fact.

The god of the Bible inflicted an enormous punishment on Adam and Eve (especially if they originally were to be immortal and now were to die) -- and even inflicted great punishment on all the remainder of humanity for their transgression.

But how unfair can a god be?

Until they actually ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -- they did not even know what right from wrong was.

In effect -- the god of the Bible punished them because of his (the god's) mistake. He neglected to give them the knowledge of good and evil.

Really poorly constructed myth under any circumstance.

In the Bible God made many mistakes. He regretted some of his more drastic punishments.

I'm not defending the God, just playing the devil's advocate for him.

The myth of Pandora is a much better myth of the first woman than the one of the bible :wink:

Frank,
Regarding the problem you point out with "ignoring God's punishment". I would argue that the punishment for sin (homosexuality included) is not really ignored--the death sentence is still carried out (Romans 3:21 - 26). Christians still have a very real perception of right/wrong, life/death, heaven/hell. Sin is still punished--for the unbeliever who fails to accept Jesus' sacrifice, that punishment is eternal separation from God (the "Sunday School definition" of death). For the believer, that punishment may be lost opportunities, failure to achieve God's plan for your life, failure to obtain the peace He promises to those who trust in Him (Philippians 4:7), etc.
I realize it still sounds simplistic--stoning is certainly more dramatic than just a guilty conscience and other less tangible penalties. But, anyways, back to the question, it explains why I & Christians who share my beliefs don't feel called to run around killing sinners.

"Jesus sacrifice", damn why don't you call Jesus's genocide, thanx to the followers of his "sacrifice" many of our best poets, the greatest poems of us, aztecs, our culture, our cities, our way of life was destroyed because of his "sacrifice", he is probably one of the biggest cause of so many genocides, like the Crusades, the so called evangelizations
of us, the colonization. They destroy of our pyramids to make churches out of their rocks, to made us slaves, & all of that was made in the name of "Jesus sacrifice", for a jew he turned out to be the greatest criminal in history, he managed to do his criminal actions through most of the world, cause he was the first godfather of the greatest mafia of all time.

Believers, huh, they don't have proofs yet they still believe in that criminal & in their false god, & why, mainly because it's a tradition, how pathetic.

No, it doesn't sound simplistic, Lab Rat. I would say (with all the respect in the world) that it sounds like rationalization run amok.

The god doesn't say -- either punish the homosexual by putting them to death...

...or pick out someone, identify him as my son, and kill him instead.

The god specifically says that anyone who engages in homosexual acts commits an abomination -- and should be put to death.

This whole "Jesus died for my sins" stuff is so off-the-wall, that many of us wonder how you folks buy into it. I get that you do -- and I am not questioning the sincerity of your "beliefs" in this regard, but I am saying that if you just step back from it and look at it objectively, you will start snickering. It is absurd, honestly, to the point of absurdity.

I have got to add this: (And this, despite the wording, is meant with all the respect possible)...

The John 3:16 thing describes one of the most barbaric, disgusting scenarios ever dreamed up by the human mind.

Essentially what is being said is:

A sin is a human thought, word, or deed that offends the god of the Bible.

The god of the Bible is willing to make a deal with humans. He will forgive them their many sins -- but in order for him to do so, he requires first that the humans torture and kill his son.

Mind you, the god could just as easily simply say -- Okay, I am being too demanding. You humans are forgiven your sins.

But no...he requires that a sacrifice be made -- and in one of the most bizarre bits of reasoning imaginable, the sacrifice must be the torturing and killing of his son.


What would you think if a human were to make a similar deal with other human? If a human were to say to other humans: You have offended me, but I am willing to forgive you your offenses -- but in order for me to feel comfortable doing that, you must first torture and kill my son.

Surely, you would think that to be disgusting and barbaric -- and probably indicative of a human with very, very serious mental problems. You would, in all probability, expect the human to be institutionalized.

Yet you folks are able to rationalize this thing in the way you do.

Amazing! Simply amazing.

Frank, I have another take on their ability to rationalize many things in their religious beliefs. It goes beyond "amazing," but the correct word escapes me - like the many things I view as "unbelievable." c.i.

Adam and Eve did NOT die on the day that they ate of the tree (God lied to them, but the serpent told them the truth). Adam lived for 930 more years. They were created mortal and could only become immortal by eathing from the tree of life. But God did not want any competition:

Genesis 3
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


The notion that one man should die for someone else's sins, or that God had imposed a "death sentence on mankind" is contrary to the OT. The Christian notion that God required his son to be sacrificed before he could forgive anyone's sin is contrary to the OT:

Deut. 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (see also 2 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 25:4)


Ezekiel 18:1-4 The word of the Lord came to me: 'What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: `The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son - both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

18:19-23 'Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?'; Since the son has does what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The souls who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will be charged against him.

But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?