• 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.

Ok... change my mind. It would be a relief.

Opposing Sin and Religious Error: Judge Not vs. Rebuke Evil

This is what it means to "hate the sin, but love the sinner." We love the soul of the one who did wrong so much that we want him to repent and do right, so we must oppose his sin. When we do this, there will always be people who object. But the reason they object is that sinners want to continue their sins without the embarrassment of being reproved. They are the ones who do not have a proper concept of Bible love.
 
I guess what I would say on this matter is that you should learn to read Hebrew and Greek. There aren't very good English cognates for the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. Some are much more egregious than others. For example, the word usually translated as "abomination," thuobe, really means something more like "against our custom" or "against the thread of our identity."

Perhaps more importantly, notion that the Bible was written by God, rather than mostly by fallible human beings who are closer to God than others but who still may make errors, is relatively recent. The Jews only came to think this about Torah (and not the rest of the Tanakh) in roughly the fifth century A.D., and Christians only came to think this way much later. I think the most reasonable reading of such passages is that they describe civil laws of that particular time and place, written by people who were divinely inspired, though not necessarily at the time of writing.
 
Paul and Timothy were Christians and accepted as canon, but never actually met Jesus, the central figure of the New Testament and Christianity. I don't know if all canon matters more to you as a Christian or specifically the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Paul did meet Christ, which formed the basis for his claim to Apostleship.
 
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

I think we have to also exclude the OT, since basically no one follows OT behavioral rules

Thus, I think the OPer should clarify he means the Bible - excluding Jesus and the OT.

Is that correct? Or is he also condemning Red Lobster's shrimp special and every BBQ restaurant's pork ribs? The marriage laws of the OT are rather odd too.
 
Also it needs to be clarified between male and female same-sex, as for how the Bible defined sex it is not possible for 2 women to have sex and specific verses about same sex is exclusively about men.
 
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

I think we have to also exclude the OT, since basically no one follows OT behavioral rules

Thus, I think the OPer should clarify he means the Bible - excluding Jesus and the OT.

Is that correct? Or is he also condemning Red Lobster's shrimp special and every BBQ restaurant's pork ribs? The marriage laws of the OT are rather odd too.



I know it is a long thread joko, but we already covered that on like page 1 and page 2.
 
I guess what I would say on this matter is that you should learn to read Hebrew and Greek. There aren't very good English cognates for the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. Some are much more egregious than others. For example, the word usually translated as "abomination," thuobe, really means something more like "against our custom" or "against the thread of our identity."

Perhaps more importantly, notion that the Bible was written by God, rather than mostly by fallible human beings who are closer to God than others but who still may make errors, is relatively recent. The Jews only came to think this about Torah (and not the rest of the Tanakh) in roughly the fifth century A.D., and Christians only came to think this way much later. I think the most reasonable reading of such passages is that they describe civil laws of that particular time and place, written by people who were divinely inspired, though not necessarily at the time of writing.

The Hebrew word is Toe'vah which is more along the lines of 'ritualistically unclean'. Everyone reaches that state in their life. You have to clean yourself in the Mikvah bath, according to orthodox and some conservatives. You had to be 'clean' to enter the temple. A lot of that doesn't matter anymore, since there is no temple.
 
RAMOSS said:
The Hebrew word is Toe'vah which is more along the lines of 'ritualistically unclean'. Everyone reaches that state in their life. You have to clean yourself in the Mikvah bath, according to orthodox and some conservatives. You had to be 'clean' to enter the temple. A lot of that doesn't matter anymore, since there is no temple.

Same word (Tau Vau Ayin Beth Heh), different transliteration. I'm not sure how to use diacritical marks on boards like these, so I typically put "Th" for Teth, and use "u" for Vau as it sounds slightly closer to the right sound to my ears.

Anyway, as you say, it doesn't matter so much any more, but not just because there is no temple. The point of that end of ritual in those days was to divide members of the in-group from those of the out-group. Others do these kinds of things, we don't. My point was that the word "abomination," which is the most commonly bandied word in translation, signifies something that is wrong in some absolute sense, not simply against convention. That's not the meaning conveyed in Leviticus 20:13.
 
Paul did meet Christ, which formed the basis for his claim to Apostleship.
Let me be more specific with my wording: Paul never met Jesus in his earthly form.
 
I am Jewish, so the NT is not relevant to me. I have posted the theological reasoning of why there is nothing sinful about CONSENSUAL homosexual behavior and about homosexuality as an orientation many times. I will repost it here:

I would say what this post did for me way back was to induce some doubt about my opinion on homosexuality. Consequently I don't necessarily condone it, but I'm rather neutral on the matter now.
 
Yeah, actually it is a big leap. Sexual sins are like one of the biggest no-no's there is, probably because once people start committing them habitually, they usually don't want to stop.

I see it as 'things are written a lot differently, and taken out of cultural context'. For example, like I said, the passage in Romans, the homosexuality is a punishment due to practicing various pagan practices.. not a prohibition. ..according to Paul. the 1 Corintian one the translation has changed, and the concept of 'effeminate' changed over time... so what Paul was writing about and how it is interpreted today most likely two different things... and third makes up a word that people are aligning to their preconceptions, but could very well mean many other things.
 
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

Some argue that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

As for eating seafood, I don't know of any seafood restaurants that God destroyed unless there was one in Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
Back
Top Bottom