• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

So What's Wrong with the Christian View of Homosexuality?

SCWrath said:
So then, are you saying that the laws I referenced in my previous post were made to benefit his children? How do you justify stoning disobedient children? Do you think that women should be obedient and servile? Or that non-believers should be shunned?

I'm guessing not. If God only has laws that benefit his children then how exactly did you come to follow the laws against homosexuality but not in favor of stoning disobedient children? It's inconsistent. If you think that these laws are nonsensical and you don't abide them, then God did not create all laws in order to benefit his children. That throws your entire story about mothers and fathers in heaven into question.
Click to expand...

I don't interpret them as you do. I see the OT theme as justice and why we need a Savior, and the NT as the theme of mercy. Those laws in the OT were meant to show that breaking eternal laws lead to spiritual death. They were to make a point, and they designed the enforcement in such a way where very few people if any would ever suffer death for such offences.
 
laska said:
I don't interpret them as you do. I see the OT theme as justice and why we need a Savior, and the NT as the theme of mercy. Those laws in the OT were meant to show that breaking eternal laws lead to spiritual death. They were to make a point, and they designed the enforcement in such a way where very few people if any would ever suffer death for such offences.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I am fully aware of this current interpretation of the laws of the Old Testament. That's why three of the laws that I cited are directly from the New Testament. Jesus reaffirms the killing of disobedient children in the New Testament. The New Testament states frequently that women must be "in subjection" to their husbands, obedient, home-makers. The law I referenced about shunning non-believers was also from the New Testament.

In short, the last three laws that I referenced were all from the New Testament. Regardless of such broad (and perhaps baseless) judgments as the NT being the "theme of mercy", these three laws are laws that you cannot justify, and don't try to justify. This exception that you give to these three laws is not extended to homosexuality, which is the core of my argument.

But again, read the post again - I labeled each law [OT] or [NT] for Old Testament and New Testament.
 
Lying, not honoring your parents, etc will result in a person not achieving eternal life. Our spirits are made up of light matter and if the laws that organize this eternal living light,call it truth, are broken, then we inherit death. Our Heavenly Parents look at the eternal perspective and not this split second of life on earth. The laws in the Bible are for a covenant people who are the elect of God who were desiring eternal life. Those laws warn of this. And the enforcement was designed where very few actually received the death penalty in Israel.
 
Take the dietary laws. At the time tons of people would get sick or die from eating pork and shell fish so God put that into Israel's dietary laws. The Mormons received through revelation in in the 1800's a dietary code where the Lord stated evil men where behind the tobacco industry and to avoid tobacco and alcohol, hot drinks(coffee and tea) and eat a diet rich in grains, fruits, and veggies, with meat sparingly with promised blessings of health.
 
laska said:
Lying, not honoring your parents, etc will result in a person not achieving eternal life. Our spirits are made up of light matter and if the laws that organize this eternal living light,call it truth, are broken, then we inherit death. Our Heavenly Parents look at the eternal perspective and not this split second of life on earth. The laws in the Bible are for a covenant people who are the elect of God who were desiring eternal life. Those laws warn of this. And the enforcement was designed where very few actually received the death penalty in Israel.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that the only law you are referring to here is the law regarding killing disobedient children. Do you not have an argument regarding women and their obedience? According to your argument, women must be obedient and servile in order to achieve eternal life. Please, address the law that says that women must be obedient.

Futhermore, your argument here that the importance is whether or not you achieve eternal life, rather than the actual punishment of the law, is irrelevant -- because not achieving eternal life is itself considered a punishment, here.

Also, I disagree that there is any indication in the Bible that the laws were little more than a warning. Jesus does not just advocate the stoning of disobedient children, he condemns those who do not do so. Here is the relevant quote:


[NT] Jesus on Stoning Children
"But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites..."


And finally, I think you are basing the statement that "very few actually received the death penalty" on nothing. You are, at the least, providing no evidence of it. In fact, in Romans, there is a laundry list of things that people should be executed for. It seems to me that people should be executed for just about anything, according to this verse:


Romans - List of Death-Worthy Sins
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."



But above all else, you are not answering my question of how you can justify not following these laws, but following the laws on homosexuality -- even attempting to force others to follow them.
 
SCWrath said:
I can't help but notice that the only law you are referring to here is the law regarding killing disobedient children. Do you not have an argument regarding women and their obedience? According to your argument, women must be obedient and servile in order to achieve eternal life. Please, address the law that says that women must be obedient.

Futhermore, your argument here that the importance is whether or not you achieve eternal life, rather than the actual punishment of the law, is irrelevant -- because not achieving eternal life is itself considered a punishment, here.

Also, I disagree that there is any indication in the Bible that the laws were little more than a warning. Jesus does not just advocate the stoning of disobedient children, he condemns those who do not do so. Here is the relevant quote:


[NT] Jesus on Stoning Children
"But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites..."


And finally, I think you are basing the statement that "very few actually received the death penalty" on nothing. You are, at the least, providing no evidence of it. In fact, in Romans, there is a laundry list of things that people should be executed for. It seems to me that people should be executed for just about anything, according to this verse:


Romans - List of Death-Worthy Sins
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."



But above all else, you are not answering my question of how you can justify not following these laws, but following the laws on homosexuality -- even attempting to force others to follow them.
Click to expand...

Why don't you quote the scripture where Jesus tells the Pharicees who were about to stone the woman for adultery that he who was without sin cast the first stone? Obviously your interpretation do not fit.
 
laska said:
Take the dietary laws. At the time tons of people would get sick or die from eating pork and shell fish so God put that into Israel's dietary laws.
Click to expand...

This statement is about laws from the Old Testament, which according to your own interpretation is invalid. However, the Bible did not merely say not to eat these things -- it said to eat them is an abomination.

Furthermore, you are missing the point. Let me provide an isolated example. The bible says that women must obedient and servile, in subjection to their husbands. According to your own previous statements, unless they follow this commandment, they will not achieve eternal life. Do you follow this law, and how do you justify following it?
 
laska said:
Why don't you quote the scripture where Jesus tells the Pharicees who were about to stone the woman for adultery that he who was without sin cast the first stone? Obviously your interpretation do not fit.
Click to expand...

The fact that the Bible contradicts itself does not prove a flaw in my interpretation. Jesus both advocates putting the disobedient to death, and condemns the same sort of judgement. In either case, you hardly responded to the entirety of my post.

I think it would be best if you respond specifically to the law that states women should be obedient, homemakers, in subjection to their husbands. You have entirely ignored this one. Do you follow it? How do you justify following it?
 
SCWrath said:
The fact that the Bible contradicts itself does not prove a flaw in my interpretation. Jesus both advocates putting the disobedient to death, and condemns the same sort of judgement. In either case, you hardly responded to the entirety of my post.

I think it would be best if you respond specifically to the law that states women should be obedient, homemakers, in subjection to their husbands. You have entirely ignored this one. Do you follow it? How do you justify following it?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to respond to your post. I have enough experience to know it is useless responding. I only wanted to make my point to the OP. You can believe whatever you want. I disagree, and do not want to take an hour writing up responses.
 
laska said:
I didn't want to respond to your post. I have enough experience to know it is useless responding. I only wanted to make my point to the OP. You can believe whatever you want. I disagree, and do not want to take an hour writing up responses.
Click to expand...

I notice that you still have no response to the law that women should be obedient to their husbands.

I will take this to mean that you can't defend your point of view. If you don't want to debate it, then don't come here and debate it.
 
The moment a contradiction is identified in any divine law, you have to throw out the literal argument. Better to focus on the Bible as a interpretive moral/philosophical guide, if you swing that way.
 
I'll add a few more comments. As stated above it is my belief the intentions of the law were to warn a covenant people who were striving for eternal life that sin of any kind results in spiritual death. The laws were not out of hate but out of love. The enforcement of these laws were designed so a righteous people would never actually say stone a person because they also would have the same spirit, that the laws were done to warn and out of love. That is why the enforcement of the death penalty was done by the accusers. It is one thing to say look he lied and another to actually stone a person, especially since most likely that person has lied before sometime in his or her life. And if they were truly righteous and actually loved the person and understood the spirit of the law, no way they would stone the person, they would be the one wanting to die for the person like Christ, who took upon the world's sins and offered His life. That is why Jesus stated to the Pharicees he without sin cast the first stone. These people did not have love in their hearts, knew not the spirit behind the laws, but just wanted to punish. In regards to the verses you gave where it appears Jesus is saying they are not stoning people like they should be, I think he's talking about traditions that undermined the message, that sin is bad and will result in spiritual death and no eternal life. Jesus did not accept the adulterous behavior of the woman in the "those without sin cast the first stone". He told her not to sin anymore.

Also, you mention the dietary codes and that is was not simply a warning for health but that it is stated as an abomination. The body is considered a gift and the temple of the spirit. Abusing it is considered a sin.

I realize we'll disagree over interpretations so feel free to bash it, I choose not to. So we can just agree to disagree.
 
laska said:
I realize we'll disagree over interpretations so feel free to bash it, I choose not to. So we can just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I have not bashed anything.

I did refute your interpretation of Biblical law as being a warning only. Jesus did condemn those who judged one another, but he also condemned those who did not obey Biblical law and punish/execute their disobedient children, saying that they made the commandment of God "of none effect by your tradition". Whether or not you accept this, I cannot change, but it is the case.

What I consider more important, though, is that you have ignored other laws that you cannot justify, regardless of whether or not they are interpreted as literal commandments or just warnings.

I directly quoted the Bible as saying that women must be obedient, "in subjection" to their husbands, homemakers, etc. The meaning here is pretty clear. Whether or not it implies punishment or just warning, this sexism is not accepted in today's society. Do you support these lines in the Bible? Do you think that women must be obedient and servile to their husbands? Or do you choose to ignore this part of the Bible?

And finally, if you ignore this part of the Bible, how do you justify choosing to ignore that and not the other laws, regarding homosexuality?
 
SCWrath said:
I have not bashed anything.

I did refute your interpretation of Biblical law as being a warning only. Jesus did condemn those who judged one another, but he also condemned those who did not obey Biblical law and punish/execute their disobedient children, saying that they made the commandment of God "of none effect by your tradition". Whether or not you accept this, I cannot change, but it is the case.

What I consider more important, though, is that you have ignored other laws that you cannot justify, regardless of whether or not they are interpreted as literal commandments or just warnings.

I directly quoted the Bible as saying that women must be obedient, "in subjection" to their husbands, homemakers, etc. The meaning here is pretty clear. Whether or not it implies punishment or just warning, this sexism is not accepted in today's society. Do you support these lines in the Bible? Do you think that women must be obedient and servile to their husbands? Or do you choose to ignore this part of the Bible?

And finally, if you ignore this part of the Bible, how do you justify choosing to ignore that and not the other laws, regarding homosexuality?
Click to expand...

You assume I cannot justify just because I choose not spend a ton of time responding to each of your accusations. I've responded way more than I wanted to. Believe what you want. i would advise reading the scriptures prayerfully, with a humble heart.
 
laska said:
You assume I cannot justify just because I choose not spend a ton of time responding to each of your accusations. I've responded way more than I wanted to. Believe what you want. i would advise reading the scriptures prayerfully, with a humble heart.
Click to expand...

I didn't assume anything. I asked if you follow the commandment that women be obedient, and if so how you justify it. You have continuously chosen not to answer, as is your prerogative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom