• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is there no outcry from the Christian Right against divorce?

Spartan

Well-Known Member
False. Just ask any Jew (who are the recipients of Mosaic Law) if Jesus gave them to Moses. The bible doesn't even say that "Jesus gave them to Moses."

You mean I should ask the Jews who rebelled constantly against God and who killed their own prophets?

If you want scriptural evidence for Jesus as God, then here's a beginner course for you: Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin

Plus more here: The Sacred Mystery of the Trinity | Rapture Forums


But, when 2 Tim. was written, neither Romans nor 1 Cor. were considered to be "scripture" by the author of 2 Tim. So those "prohibitions" could not have been inspired by Jesus... according to 2 Tim.

Hey - you'd have a hard time documenting any Old Testament writer as confirming previous writings were "scripture".
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
All Christian people who identify as homosexual whom I know do confess their sin. But their sin doesn't include being who they are: homosexual women and men.

If they're engaging in homosexual sex, then yes - they do need to confess their sins. I've only encountered one homosexual debater in the last twenty years who has admitted confessing his homosexual liaisons as 'sin'.

There is no quote anywhere in the bible attributed to Jesus with regard to homosexuality. In fact, there is no bible quotation anywhere that mentions "homosexuality." None.

Strawman. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus 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.

Next, let's review the scriptures on gay sex sin:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom."


And to close:

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Thomas Jefferson
 

Mitty

Active Member
None of those scriptures say it's an unforgivable sin.
It's only forgivable if remarried divorcees remain celibate and/or cut off their members and throw them away (Mark 10:11-12 Matt 5:27-30 Lev 20:10). And it's your choice if you believe that Jesus and what he said is irrelevant.

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.
Baloney.
Jesus didn't claim to be a god, or to be without sin either (Mark 10:18), which is why he unsuccessfully appealed for help from his god when he was being executed for sedition by the Romans and mocked as the "King of the Jews" and not as the "God of the Jews" (Matt 27:46-49). Or don't you believe what the bible actually says?

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.
Which is why female homosexuality is not even mentioned in the bible either, and why he didn't explain why he loved one of his disciples instead of a wife..
 
Last edited:

Mitty

Active Member
If they're engaging in homosexual sex, then yes - they do need to confess their sins. I've only encountered one homosexual debater in the last twenty years who has admitted confessing his homosexual liaisons as 'sin'.
Do homosexual clergymen need to confess for being so born from their mothers' wombs?

Strawman. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus 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.

Next, let's review the scriptures on gay sex sin:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom."


And to close:

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Thomas Jefferson
In other words, the bible condemns anal sex of women and men (Romans 1:26-27 Lev 18:22 20:33), and condemns Lot when he mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and then sexually assaulted them after his sons-in-law wanted to know what the two strangers were up to in Lot's house (Gen 19).
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You mean I should ask the Jews who rebelled constantly against God and who killed their own prophets?
Don’t dismiss the Jews based on this; Christians have just as readily done the same things — just as has every human being. Not even legitimate Christian scholastics create such machinations as “Jesus gave Moses the Law.” Jesus did no such thing. When the Mosaic Law was invented, Jesus was was not yet part of the theological landscape.

If you want scriptural evidence for Jesus as God, then here's a beginner course for you: Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin
Pfft. Biased theological nonsense. We don’t need evangelical bias to “prove” the Trinity.

Hey - you'd have a hard time documenting any Old Testament writer as confirming previous writings were "scripture".
The point is that the writer of 2 Tim. Isn’t talking about Romans or Corinthians.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If they're engaging in homosexual sex, then yes - they do need to confess their sins
Only if those acts are carried out in non-consensual, exploitative relationships. Married folks and committed folks need not apply here.
Strawman. A rose by any other name is still a rose
Except we’re not talking about roses here. We’re talking about Hydrangia. Only those not well-informed with regard to the topic mistake a hydrangia for a rose. Ditto what the Bible says about homosexuality (nothing).

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus 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.
I thought we’d already covered this topic and debunked it.

Next, let's review the scriptures on gay sex sin:
Let’s not drag out the “clobber texts.” Not one of them says “homosexual.” Not one of them refers to loving, committed, consensual relationships.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Not even legitimate Christian scholastics create such machinations as “Jesus gave Moses the Law.” Jesus did no such thing. When the Mosaic Law was invented, Jesus was was not yet part of the theological landscape.

No way you've taken a poll, so I'm not buying that.

"TESTIMONIES FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

Justin Martyr declared

Our Christ conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses received great strength from Christ, who spake to him in the appearance of fire.

Irenaeus wrote

The Scripture is full of the Son of God’s appearing: sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct Noah about the measures of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to converse with Moses out of the bush.

Tertullian stated,

It was the Son who judged men from the beginning, destroying that lofty tower, and confounding their languages, punishing the whole world with a flood of waters, and raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down from the Lord: for he always descended to hold converse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in dark sentences, always preparing his way from the beginning: neither was it possible, that God who conversed with men upon earth, could be any other than that Word which was to be made flesh.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, the synod of Antioch, Cyprian, Hilary, St. Basil, and others are also reported as holding the same viewpoint regarding the reality of the theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament." https://www.preceptaustin.org/angel_of_the_lord


. Biased theological nonsense. We don’t need evangelical bias to “prove” the Trinity.

Another one of your superficial reads. Plenty of Jewish rabbis in that article wrote about a 'Trinity-like' God.


The point is that the writer of 2 Tim. Isn’t talking about Romans or Corinthians.

That's your opinion. God inspires scripture. Every true theologian understands that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Every one of them talks about a sinful, gay relationship or act
No. They talk about sinful relationships and acts. None of them deals with “gay.”
So, let's celebrate adultery too, right? Plenty of adulterers who believe they are in a 'loving, committed, consensual relationship.'
Immaterial. If they really believed they were in the right, they wouldn’t be sneaking around. Your argument fails.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No way you've taken a poll, so I'm not buying that.
No poll necessary.
Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, the synod of Antioch, Cyprian, Hilary, St. Basil, and others are also reported as holding the same viewpoint regarding the reality of the theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament." Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin
We’re not talking about “theophanies” of later theologians. We’re talking about what the texts actually say. Jesus does not appear in the texts. Since you’re using a literalistic approach to the texts, only literalistic arguments will support that approach.

Another one of your superficial reads. Plenty of Jewish rabbis in that article wrote about a 'Trinity-like' God.
Immaterial. It’s still a “resource” whose scholastic integrity is dubious.

That's your opinion.
Nope. That’s exegesis.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
No. They talk about sinful relationships and acts. None of them deals with “gay.”

Immaterial. If they really believed they were in the right, they wouldn’t be sneaking around. Your argument fails.

Nope, yours fails. Loving, committed, and consensual relationships are not always of God. Especially illicit homosexual sex relationships, which are an abomination. Anyone who thinks they are approved by God needs a lot of help with their theology.
 

Mitty

Active Member
So, let's celebrate adultery too, right? Plenty of adulterers who believe they are in a 'loving, committed, consensual relationship.'
That's why many divorcees remarry even though it is a sin as condemned in the ten commandments and punishable by death (Mark 10:11-12 Lev 20:10).
 

Mitty

Active Member
Nope, yours fails. Loving, committed, and consensual relationships are not always of God. Especially illicit homosexual sex relationships, which are an abomination. Anyone who thinks they are approved by God needs a lot of help with their theology.
The bible, however, doesn't say anything at all about female homosexual sex relationships, let alone that they are disgusting as you falsely claim.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope, yours fails. Loving, committed, and consensual relationships are not always of God
Of course they are, by definition. Love is of God because God is Love. Therefore, to be committed in love is also Godly. Consent is a dynamic of mutuality, which is also a trait of right relationship. As you say below, you need help with your theology, IMO.
Anyone who thinks they are approved by God needs a lot of help with their theology
Why? Because YOU think so? This isn’t about you. I don’t perceive in your posts a solid theological base steeped in a valid exegesis of texts, or a firm grasp of the processes of theological thought. I see knee-jerk.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Of course they are, by definition. Love is of God because God is Love. Therefore, to be committed in love is also Godly. Consent is a dynamic of mutuality, which is also a trait of right relationship. As you say below, you need help with your theology, IMO.

You need to upgrade your thinking and your theology on God's brand of love. For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful fornicating, adulterous, or homosexual relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

So, nice try but no cigar.

Why? Because YOU think so? This isn’t about you. I don’t perceive in your posts a solid theological base steeped in a valid exegesis of texts, or a firm grasp of the processes of theological thought. I see knee-jerk.

In case you missed it, you just got your theologically-stunted posterior handed to you above.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You need to upgrade your thinking and your theology on God's brand of love. For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity"
Yeah, and — just in case you missed it — I covered that in my post, to wit: “If they thought it was right, why are they sneaking around?” I acknowledge that adultery is a bad thing; it’s not a relationship of equity. But homosexual relationships, when born out of love, consent, and mutuality, are not sinful.

In case you missed it, you just got your theologically-stunted posterior handed to you above
Opinions vary. My final reply in post #235 stands unchallenged.
 

Mitty

Active Member
You need to upgrade your thinking and your theology on God's brand of love. For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful fornicating, adulterous, or homosexual relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

So, nice try but no cigar.

In case you missed it, you just got your theologically-stunted posterior handed to you above.
Is that why disobedient children should be executed (Romans 1:30-32)?
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Yeah, and — just in case you missed it — I covered that in my post, to wit: “If they thought it was right, why are they sneaking around?” I acknowledge that adultery is a bad thing; it’s not a relationship of equity. But homosexual relationships, when born out of love, consent, and mutuality, are not sinful.
Opinions vary. My final reply in post #235 stands unchallenged.

Your attempts to try to legitimize illicit homosexual liaisons were already demolished in my previous posts. I'll stick with what I posted.
 
Top