[Dorothy]

"If there is a heaven, and it is not of this earth, I would theorise that the souls 'living' there would not have a definite sex, and would rather just exist happily." -J m HofMarN,

I agree.

"I've very often displayed that Leviticus was a complete nut job..." - J m HofMarN,

Leviticus wasn't a person. Leviticus refers to the fact that the book was written by Moses to serve as a set of rules and standards for the Priests who would care for the temple, and see to the "spiritual health" of the people. The book was for the tribe of Levite, hense the name.

"and I've also shown that Paul's sermons in Rome were likely more on the subject of Roman orgies than on loving homosexual relationships," - J m HofMarN,

Forgive me, what were the passages for these sermons?

"but a 2000 year old book isn't always the best moral compass regardless" - J m HofMarN,


It displays the standard by which we would have to live to ensure that our etenal souls would go to heaven. Sure our culture has changed a lot, and there were things in the Old Testament that no longer apply to Christians today (i.e. having no dealings with gentiles [non-jews]; not eating pork etc) but the basic standard still is that we cannot be perfect and holy of our own volition. By the standards laid out in the Bible, whether or not homosexuality is a sin, there are still plenty of other sins that a person commits (even homosexuals) that keeps them from being pure enough to spend eternity with God.

"The bible excuse seems kind of nonsensical since it's essentially just passing the blame to Jesus." - J m HofMarN,

How so?

"You're dodging the question, Dorothy, but really, why is it such a big deal?" - Slade

I don't believe that I was dodging the question, but let me respond to this, just in case . Homosexuality is not a "go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200" card. Every person has the option of going to heaven, EVERY person.

"And I really don't see why it would matter to God if people of the same gender get it on here on earth." - J m HofMarN,


God created sex. God created sex to be enjoyed within the confines of a marriage between a man and woman who love each other. Anything outside of that is considered a problem.

J m HofMarN and Slade, thanks for this interesting conversation! If I misunderstood anything that you said, or if anything I said is unclear, let me know.

Edit: Sorry, couldn't get those little quote doodahs to work, so I went through and added ("). Not that it's a problem. I ". And

This post has been edited by Dorothy: 10 August 2005 - 09:36 AM

[Jordan]

What if they want to go to heaven, but live a gay life style, then die? Heaven or hell?

[Dorothy]

I believe that it depends on their relationship with Jesus. If they have accepted him into their lives, then they go to heaven. You see, I believe the point isn't whether or not their gay, the point is whether or not they sin, and all people do. If you die, and you haven't accepted Jesus' gift of forgiveness for your sin, then you go to hell, whether gay or straight.

[Jordan]

But if homosexuality is a sin and you don't repent it, then how can you be forgiven? Christians are suppose to avoid sin and if they do sin they feel guilty. A gay person does not feel guilt or try avoid his life style, he embraces it. So how can he/she go to heaven if they don't repent. Confessing faith and living faith or two different things.

Either it's a sin or it isn't. If it is a sin then they could go to hell, if not then no problem. Is it a sin or not?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2005 - 11:18 AM

[Dorothy]

"Either it's a sin or it isn't. If it is a sin then they could go to hell, if not then no problem. Is it a sin or not?"

I believe that it is, but the important thing is that you have accepted Jesus. He accepts people where they are. There is no verse in the Bible that says that you have to clean up your life before you can become a Christian. And even after you are a Christian you may still have similar "sin problems" to what you had before.

"A gay person does not feel guilt or try avoid his life style, he embraces it. So how can he/she go to heaven if they don't repent."

A gay person MAY feel guilt, as may anyone, and everyone that is not ready to give their life to Jesus is basically embracing their own lifestyles.

"But if homosexuality is a sin and you don't repent it, then how can you be forgiven?"

You are correct, that repentance is a key point in becoming a Christian, BUT if that person does not SEE it as a sin, then how can they repent from it? We can only honestly be sorry for what we KNOW is wrong. Then, once you have given your life to Jesus, your perspective on what is wrong changes and you notice that things that you thought were ok don't make you feel good anymore. THAT is when the change comes. Not before.

"Christians are suppose to avoid sin and if they do sin they feel guilty. A gay person does not feel guilt or try avoid his life style, he embraces it. . . Confessing faith and living faith or two different things."

At first I though that you were asking about homosexuals that want to become Christians, but now it appears to me that you are asking about Christians that are Homosexuals...is that correct? For Christians, sin is still a struggle, as it is for anyone else. But I believe that once you are a Christian, you cannot go back. If you truely make that commitment, then nothing can take that away from you. So even if you sin, you still will go to heaven, BUT it will hinder your ability to share your experience and tell others about Jesus while still alive.

Is this clear at all? I just found my glasses again, and they are giving me a major headache...

[civilian_number_two]

"but a 2000 year old book isn't always the best moral compass regardless" - J m HofMarN,
It displays the standard by which we would have to live to ensure that our etenal souls would go to heaven. Sure our culture has changed a lot, and there were things in the Old Testament that no longer apply to Christians today (i.e. having no dealings with gentiles [non-jews]; not eating pork etc) but the basic standard still is that we cannot be perfect and holy of our own volition. By the standards laid out in the Bible, whether or not homosexuality is a sin, there are still plenty of other sins that a person commits (even homosexuals) that keeps them from being pure enough to spend eternity with God. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God bless you for the distinction you're trying to make, but what has changed so that it's ok for Christians not to be Jewish? Wasn't that just an immediate about-face made when Paul the non-Jew took the religion over and made the declaration that God had told Peter, secretly, that the Jewish diet was no longer necessary? You can read all about it it in ACTS, the book written by Paul's travelling partner and drinking buddy, Luke. Where do you see the slow evolution from Jewish Jesus teaqching within a Jewish world to a Gentile religion that actually excludes and has frequently persecuted Jews?

And, yeah: if we're allowing for our culture to evolve, and for pork no longer to be "unclean" (I say don't eat any animal that can do math and play video games, for reasons beyond the Jewish diet), then why can't we evolve our culture to allow for homosexuality? If we can decide what to follow and what not to follow, shouldn't only the really obvious (don't kill; dont steal; love God; love your neighbour) be sacrosanct?

Haven't we "changed a lot;" don't we recognize that the idea of sex for "procreation, never for recreation" is the most hypocritical bit of nonsense we've ever tried to believe?

[Dorothy]

"God bless you for the distinction you're trying to make, but what has changed so that it's ok for Christians not to be Jewish? Wasn't that just an immediate about-face made when Paul the non-Jew took the religion over and made the declaration that God had told Peter, secretly, that the Jewish diet was no longer necessary...?"

Christians were never expected to be Jewish, in fact the early church dealt with "Judaizers" that said that in order for your commitment to Christ to be real, you had to be circumcised and follow the regulations set out in the Old Testament. But when Jesus came, he fulfilled the requirements of the Old Law for us, so that we are no longer limited to that. Oh, and on a side note, Paul was a Jew and a Roman citizen, and Jesus was the first to speak to a gentile about his teachings.

"Where do you see the slow evolution from Jewish Jesus teaqching within a Jewish world to a Gentile religion that actually excludes and has frequently persecuted Jews?"

Do you have some examples of what you are thinking of when you talk about Christianity persecuting Jews? Because of Jesus' gift of his life to take our punishment for sins, everyone must accept that gift in order to go to heaven.

"And, yeah: if we're allowing for our culture to evolve, and for pork no longer to be 'unclean', then why can't we evolve our culture to allow for homosexuality? If we can decide what to follow and what not to follow, shouldn't only the really obvious (don't kill; dont steal; love God; love your neighbour) be sacrosanct?"

You are working from the understanding that it was the early church or mankind that made the changes as far a diet regulations and sharing their faith with the gentiles. If our culture were the standard for perfection, then yeah, we could make it acceptable to do lots of stuff... But as far as what is sin, and what isn't based on the standards that God has laid out in the Bible, we can't control that.

"(I say don't eat any animal that can do math and play video games, for reasons beyond the Jewish diet)"

I agree, there are some things that I just won't eat. Like anything that MAY have had the opportunity to eat a human.

"Haven't we 'changed a lot;' don't we recognize that the idea of sex for 'procreation, never for recreation' is the most hypocritical bit of nonsense we've ever tried to believe?"

First of all, I NEVER tried to believe that, because it IS nonsense. If God had wanted that, he wouldn't have made it enjoyable. BUT it is still meant to be within the confines of marriage.

[J m HofMarN]

Dorothy- I'm definately enjoying the conversation as well, I donm't think I've welcomed you to the forums yet, so welcome.

I hadnt realized about Leviticus, I'll now say that Moses was a nut job, correction accepted. As for the passages about homosexuality by Paul they come early in Romans, 1:27 I think. I pointed out in another thread that the Roman aristocracy (who were violently anti-Christian and eventually killed Paul) very much enjoyed orgies, where homosexual acts were done not out of love, but just for fun. The plebeians Paul was speaking to probably never participated in such things and might have enjoyed Paul poking at their rulers, which was a way for him to attack an opponent and gain allies all at once. If you read Romans 20-27 you'll see that the sermon seems to be more against lust and the people in Rome who practice it among other sins than against those who are having loving relationships.

What I meant about the bible excuse seeming nonsensical is that the mentions in Leviticus and Romans were removed or changed to say something such as 'homosexuality is dandy, let's have some candy" than people would simply ignore it and go right on hating gays. The bible is just being used as a convenient excuse by some people with hatred in their hearts. And when you try to deny other people the right to get married for absolutely no good reason, it's pretty clear that person has hatred in their hearts. I'm not addressing you of course.

I think I touched on what you're mentioning here in another thread. Sin seems to depend more on mindset than anything, and I think that's what Paul was describing in R1:27 You've stated that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but within marriage it's ok. I don't necessarily agree with that but it does make sense. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family wouldn't be a sin, but stealing one just for the heck of it is.

In Paul's time homosexuality was largely just a weird thing that happened once in a while and its practitioners were burned (except in the Roman orgies of course) so it makes sense that it would be considered a sin, being done largely in secret and not even remotely in the consideration of marriage. But now that gay marriage is a possibility, as it never was in Paul's time, isn't it possible that the idea of homosexuality has changed and allowed it to cease to be a sin?

[Jordan]

edited, this bores me.

The bible has always had a firm stance against gay practice. The conversation is stupid because Dorthy and I (i think she does) believes the bible is inspired by God, who wrote it through man. Civ and JM think that the bible is a bunch of books reflecting peoples view points from different ages and that Paul hated fags and Christ didnt', even though the old testament God hated fags and Christ said he was God so ya.

IN Paul's time homosexual orgies, and orgies PERIOD were not permitted. Augustus banned them. He banished his own daughter from Rome for being a whore slut who disgraced his house hold. Devaint sexual acts came back later with Tiberius and Caligula and Nero. But that was more of a private emprial party.

I think Paul was preaching around the time of Augustus, I know he was on the throne when Jesus was teaching or born. I'm to lazy right now to look it up.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2005 - 01:52 PM

[Dorothy]

"I donm't think I've welcomed you to the forums yet, so welcome."

Thanks! I've been hanging around and reading old posts for a while now, and yours are some of my favorites to read.

"As for the passages about homosexuality by Paul they come early in Romans, 1:27 I think. I pointed out in another thread that the Roman aristocracy (who were violently anti-Christian and eventually killed Paul) very much enjoyed orgies, where homosexual acts were done not out of love, but just for fun. The plebeians Paul was speaking to probably never participated in such things and might have enjoyed Paul poking at their rulers, which was a way for him to attack an opponent and gain allies all at once. If you read Romans 20-27 you'll see that the sermon seems to be more against lust and the people in Rome who practice it among other sins than against those who are having loving relationships."

I am familiar with this passage, but let me look it over again tonight, ok? I'll make notes, and let you know tommorow what pops up at me.

"What I meant about the bible excuse seeming nonsensical is that the mentions in Leviticus and Romans were removed or changed to say something such as 'homosexuality is dandy, let's have some candy" than people would simply ignore it and go right on hating gays. The bible is just being used as a convenient excuse by some people with hatred in their hearts. And when you try to deny other people the right to get married for absolutely no good reason, it's pretty clear that person has hatred in their hearts."

It's true that a lot of people are terribly judgmental, and don't really need a reason, and don't have the wherewithal to do a little research to see if what they believe is even in the Bible. It is just intellectual laziness (which on occaision I suppose everyone is guilty of) not to know WHY you believe what you believe.

"I think I touched on what you're mentioning here in another thread. Sin seems to depend more on mindset than anything, and I think that's what Paul was describing in R1:27 You've stated that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but within marriage it's ok. I don't necessarily agree with that but it does make sense. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family wouldn't be a sin, but stealing one just for the heck of it is."

I think that stealing would still be sin, no matter what the reasons. But the fact that you HAD to steal would be a rather condemning look at the fact that those who are supposed to be telling you about God's love, and demonstrating that love through helping you in your time of need (i.e. Christians) are falling down on the job.

"In Paul's time homosexuality was largely just a weird thing that happened once in a while and its practitioners were burned (except in the Roman orgies of course) so it makes sense that it would be considered a sin, being done largely in secret and not even remotely in the consideration of marriage."

Actually, homosexuality was quite prevalent in Paul's day, and even before.

"But now that gay marriage is a possibility, as it never was in Paul's time, isn't it possible that the idea of homosexuality has changed and allowed it to cease to be a sin?"

The Bible has set the standard for what is sin, and what isn't. I love people, and would like nothing better than to see everyone forgiven of their sins. But I can't FORCE people to accept Jesus, I can only tell them about what he did for them. If they accept, I can't make them change their lives and be better people...that's not my job. Christianity works from the understanding that it is Jesus that convicts people of sin, and he works in your life, once you are a Christian to change you so that you can be the most effective presenter of his love that you can be. Unfortunately, many people focus so much on the passages that say "this is sin," or "that is sin" and not enough on the passages that tell them to love those around them.

[Dorothy]

"edited, this bores me."

Sorry. *proceeds to take personally, *

"The bible has always had a firm stance against gay practice."

The Bible has always had a firm stance against SIN. Homosexuality is considered a sin.

" The conversation is stupid because Dorthy and I (i think she does) believes the bible is inspired by God, who wrote it through man. Civ and JM think that the bible is a bunch of books reflecting peoples view points from different ages"

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, handed down through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to men. But I don't consider any opportunity I have to talk about what I believe, and Jesus and what he has done for me to be stupid.

"and that Paul hated fags and Christ didnt', even though the old testament God hated fags and Christ said he was God so ya."

God does not hate ANY person. God cannot tolerate sin.

[Jordan]

Man you're a stickler. He hates sin. Therefore he hates gay sex. How's that?

Civillian here will argue that Paul went off on a personal tangent and ripped in on gay marriage, since he is the only person who explicitly stated that gay's are evil. Jesus did not talk about it. All you can say is Paul is inspired by God, who is Jesus, so Jesus would obviously agree. THis is the big mozza ball. Christ never said homosexuality is bad. He never mentioned the topic once. The old testament did, but according to Civillian it's like washing hands, it's passe. SO what do you say to that? I don't know what to say.

I said this thing bores me because ultimatley it leads to the above two things I talked about- connection to OT and Paul being inspired by God or himself.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2005 - 02:06 PM

[Dorothy]

"Man you're a stickler. He hates sin. Therefore he hates gay sex. How's that?"

Better! Sorry, I just think that it's really important to be absolutely clear on the terminology we use, and the way we use it.

"Christ never said homosexuality is bad. He never mentioned the topic once. The old testament did, but according to Civillian it's like washing hands, it's passe. SO what do you say to that? I don't know what to say."

I'm sorry if it sounds like I am trying to make the same point again, but EVEN IF homosexuality wasn't a sin, there would still be others that are keeping people from going to heaven. That's all. Until people repent, and accept Jesus' gift, there is no hope.

Thanks for joining this conversation, Jordan. I'm sorry that it frustrates you...it's not easy to deal with these issues.

[civilian_number_two]

I am going to sit back for a while. Jordan has been in enough of these conversations that he can act as the "Civ 2 emulator" for a while.

Dotty did raise some questions that Jordan hasn't second-guessed just yet, but I'll get to those later.

PS: repeat of earlier apology to Revan-47, who started this thread to share feelings about Jesus, not to start up a debate about the legitimacy of gays in society.

[Slade]

It happens... I suppose I could stick a rock so heavy only a mod could lift it in the way, but that would be an ass of me, since for once the discussion on the subject is intelligent and not turned into guitars :-P.