Jesus Never Said It!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tparsons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tparsons said:
Jesus never mentioned it, ever.
Click to expand...
John1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Click to expand...
Jesus may never have mentioned a lot of stuff in the 33 years between the first Christmas and the first Ascension… but that’s certainly not to say he “never mentioned it, ever”
 
heisenburg said:
The church and the bible are very clear…

Homosexual ACTIONS of any kind… (either by thought or doing) regardless of legal civil union status are sinful per scripture and the church…

In Christ
Click to expand...
Let’s talk about the ACTIONS that the bible condemns and the context in which it is being condemned within. Does that sound fair?
 
Actions in this context (i.e. Leviticus or Corinthians) appear to be discussing sexual… there is a long list of “Sexual” actions that would fall under this, more than just the Full Monty version.

IF you can have a purely platonic relationship, sorta a brother to brother type relationship, again no sin… It might make some people frown on you, but no actual sin is taking place…

This sort of requirement also applies to heterosexual couples… If you are not married, and your relationship is NOT platonic, or similar ot a brother/sister relationship, then it is a sin

The difference is that for Hetero. couples, there is a legitimate path that can lead to sinless “intimate” relations… no such path exists for Homo. couples in scripture… in fact, ALL forms of homosexual “intimate” relations are sin… just like all forms of “intimate” relations between NON-married hetero couples is sinful

Marriage in scripture, the only way one is suppose to be allowed to be intimate, is always only referred to as a Male/Female dynamic. No such allocation appears to be in scripture for Gay Couples

In Christ
 
truagape said:
I’m glad you asked! One thing’s for sure, it certainly dosen’t come from scripture! Would you agree?
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t agree. And I’m not going to agree with the likes of D.C. Toedt, Paul Cameron et al, who want to claim that associating sodomy with Sodom is a misreading of the Bible.

There are too many coincidences for their arguments to hold water. Their reasons and definitions are weak.

Sodom = city in biblical scripture.

Sodomy = anal sex usually between two men named for the city which was destroyed by God in the Bible.
 
Also, as stated earlier, let us not forget that homosexuality is an act. If you remove any physical, sexual contact out of the equation, then where is the homosexuality? It doesn’t exist.

Therefore, one can only participate in homosexual acts. One cannot “be gay”.
 
TemplarKnight said:
It’s also a very simple yes or no question. One that doesn’t require a long diatribe.

Where do you think the term “sodomy” comes from?? So was Sodom and Gomorra destroyed exclusively because of homosexuality, no, however it was one of the main reasons.

Genesis 19

4 But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:
Click to expand...
It says all the people. This means that both men and women were calling to out to Lot. So it is unlikely that sodomy was what was on everyone’s mind.

God destroyed Sodom because of the terrible things that were being done there–but what exactly were those things? Genesis doesn’t say. And remember, God was thinking of destroying Sodom BEFORE the strangers/angels go there. That’s why he sends them. To check things out.

Gen 13:13 says the men of Sodom are said to be “evil and very sinful”, and God observes that the Sodomites’ “sin is very grave” (Gen. 18:20). But that’s as much description as we get.

In Jerimiah, God equates adulturers in Jerusalem with the Sodomites. So perhaps the sin was adultry. (See Jerimiah 23:14).

There’s also a tradition that the sin of Sodom was unwillingness to help the stranger and the unfortunate. Scriptual support:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
–Ezek. 16:49-50
 
Now, about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

–Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

or, if you prefer to hear similar words from Jesus 🙂 :

And if anyone does not receive you *…truly I say to you it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

–Matt. 10:14-15*
 
heisenburg said:
Actions in this context (i.e. Leviticus or Corinthians) appear to be discussing sexual… there is a long list of “Sexual” actions that would fall under this, more than just the Full Monty version.

IF you can have a purely platonic relationship, sorta a brother to brother type relationship, again no sin… It might make some people frown on you, but no actual sin is taking place…

This sort of requirement also applies to heterosexual couples… If you are not married, and your relationship is NOT platonic, or similar ot a brother/sister relationship, then it is a sin

The difference is that for Hetero. couples, there is a legitimate path that can lead to sinless “intimate” relations… no such path exists for Homo. couples in scripture… in fact, ALL forms of homosexual “intimate” relations are sin… just like all forms of “intimate” relations between NON-married hetero couples is sinful

Marriage in scripture, the only way one is suppose to be allowed to be intimate, is always only referred to as a Male/Female dynamic. No such allocation appears to be in scripture for Gay Couples

In Christ
Click to expand...
What are the scriptures used to which you come to your conclusions?
 
which conclusion… that homosexual intimate acts are sinful? or over all…

the intimate… that has already been mentioned… it is hard to see 'lie with a man as you would a women to mean anything other than intimate acts…

but if you notice… many of the restriction placed on Gay couples are placed on strait couples as well

Platonic relations until marriage…

If gay couples can’t marry… then it is sinful to be intimate…

is it a sin for unmarried couples regardless to have sex?

Yup

how does it no longer become a sin…
Get married…

marriage in scripture always seems to be referring to male/female relations… many verses regarding marriage would no longer make sense (like husbands love your wives, wives be submissive)
Saying that gay marriage is ok by scripture introduces confusion to many places.

Who is the wife…
who is the husband…
Who is the son that starts his family…
who is the daughter the leaves her family for his…

wife/daughter husband/son are gender specific… no where does scripture indicate ‘wife’ can be a man… or ‘husband’ can be a women no where does it say “For strait couples… here is your duties” also, no where does it say something like husband obey husband…

I’m not trying to be crass… but simply using it to show a point

IN Christ
 
truagape said:
And the bible uses this word where?
Click to expand...
That’s called a “definition”. Would you like me to quote a dictionary source for that or are you going to argue that the definition I have written is incorrect?
 
heisenburg said:
which conclusion… that homosexual intimate acts are sinful? or over all…

the intimate… that has already been mentioned… it is hard to see 'lie with a man as you would a women to mean anything other than intimate acts…
Click to expand...
Here, I’m assuming you’re referring to Leveticus, right? Are you familiar with the context?
 
TemplarKnight said:
That’s called a “definition”. Would you like me to quote a dictionary source for that or are you going to argue that the definition I have written is incorrect?
Click to expand...
No, it’s clear that history has given a definition to this synthetic word. But where does history, biblical history, support this definition you provided?
 
Sure…

Context…
10
If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
11
If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father’s wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives.
12
If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives.
13
** If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.**
14
If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you.
15
If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain.
16
If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit.
17
If a man consummates marriage with his sister or his half-sister, they shall be publicly cut off from their people for this shameful deed; the man shall pay the penalty of having had intercourse with his own sister.
18
If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood.
19
You shall not have intercourse with your mother’s sister or your father’s sister; whoever does so shall pay the penalty of incest.
20
If a man disgraces his uncle by having intercourse with his uncle’s wife, the man and his aunt shall pay the penalty by dying childless.
Click to expand...
here we see all the different ways that sin can result from sex…
I see nothing wrong with contextually saying that scripture is saying it is a sin to have sexual relations same sex…

In Christ
 
heisenburg said:
which conclusion… that homosexual intimate acts are sinful? or over all…

the intimate… that has already been mentioned… it is hard to see 'lie with a man as you would a women to mean anything other than intimate acts…

but if you notice… many of the restriction placed on Gay couples are placed on strait couples as well
Click to expand...
You should know very well that the comparison you provided is no comparison at all. But it is noteworthy that you used the phrase “Gay couples”
 
heisenburg said:
Sure…

Context…

here we see all the different ways that sin can result from sex…
I see nothing wrong with contextually saying that scripture is saying it is a sin to have sexual relations same sex…

In Christ
Click to expand...
Same sex? Sounds a little broad don’t you think given the post you provided. Where’s the restriction for women, if in fact it’s referring to homosexuality, which encompasses both men and women?
 
Valke2 said:
It says all the people. This means that both men and women were calling to out to Lot. So it is unlikely that sodomy was what was on everyone’s mind.

It may not have been on “everyone’s” mind, but when the men want to “know” the visitors, it’s clear what they mean.

God destroyed Sodom because of the terrible things that were being done there–but what exactly were those things? Genesis doesn’t say. And remember, God was thinking of destroying Sodom BEFORE the strangers/angels go there. That’s why he sends them. To check things out.

No one claims that sodomy was the exclusive sin in S&G, but it was prominent.

In Jerimiah, God equates adulturers in Jerusalem with the Sodomites. So perhaps the sin was adultry. (See Jerimiah 23:14).

Perhaps not, perhaps the sin was sodomy. You’re speculation is not valid here.

There’s also a tradition that the sin of Sodom was unwillingness to help the stranger and the unfortunate. Scriptual support:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
–Ezek. 16:49-50

Again, we’re not talking exclusivity. Your vague attempts still do not address the issue of scripture where the attackers desire to “know” the strangers. There is not doubt as to what is implied there.
Click to expand...
Or, you can look at this too.

Fallen angels of Genesis 6 compared to Sodom and Gomorrah: men going after strange flesh
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Summary:
The angels which left their first estate [ref. Genesis 6, following] and then knew [sexually] the daughters of men are reserved unto the day of judgement. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah are compared to these same angels in that they too were guilty of fornication, and going after strange flesh. Just as God holds those angels guilty of going after strange flesh [namely Adam’s female descendants], so too will He hold the men of these two cities to account for their fornications and homosexuality [going after strange flesh] as expressed in their desire for the two men [angels] in Lot’s care.

Harden not your heart my brother, you cannot escape the truth.
 
TemplarKnight said:
Just as God holds those angels guilty of going after strange flesh [namely Adam’s female descendants], so too will He hold the men of these two cities to account for their fornications and homosexuality [going after strange flesh] as expressed in their desire for the two men [angels] in Lot’s care.

Harden not your heart my brother, you cannot escape the truth.
Click to expand...
Since when are angels and mortal men a “homo” sexual encounter?
 
truagape said:
No, it’s clear that history has given a definition to this synthetic word. But where does history, biblical history, support this definition you provided?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you explain the complexities of the coincidence in which the city of Sodom, known for sin, and the word sodomy which means anal sex. How do you explain the language differences? How do you explain where “sodomy” comes from? What is the base word? In what language? Who was the first to use the word sodomy? What is a sodomite? Where does that come from?

How do you continue to ignore the Bible? How do you question 2000+ years of learning?
 
is it wrong for a women to have sex with her sister?

hopefully, you would say yes… as this is implied. but by your logic, it is NOT a sin for two sisters to have sex…

Same thing applies here… man on man is considered sinful… by a very very simple extrapolation… women on women is as well…

not everything must be absolutely spelled out in scripture. an explicit only view of the bible leads to very very odd things…

for example…

John 6…
explicit only would mean i literally have to go find chunks of Jesus’s flesh, and eat it to be saved… Obviously this is not a proper view of scripture…

There is nothing wrong with extrapolation or an implicit infer.

Hope that helps

In Christ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top