Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality

[logical4u]

I'm glad your church is growing, the majority of gays are christian. Gay christians for the most part are doing the same thing straight christians are, trying to be as christ-like as they can and follow his teachings.

And as we've said, none of those teachings even hint at the idea of having any marginal issue with being gay.

You cannot be "Christ-like" if you choose to live a lifestyle of perversity/lewdness/immoral sex. Either you are being deceived or you are deceiving.

Who determines what is "perverse", "lewd", or immoral when it comes to sex? Are you talking the puritanical values of the Christian right, or are you talking about the values that Hindus share in the Karma Sutra?

Or would you prefer Puritan values?

Yeshua (Jesus to you Christians) was asked once what was the greatest Commandment? Know what His reply was? "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God".

Incidentally, gender wasn't specified.

Additionally, there is NO WHERE AT ALL in the NT where it specifically quotes Yeshua as condemning homosexuals.

Your heart must be hardened, along with your rationale. Are homosexual acts covered under "lewdness, perversity, or immoral sex"?

The Lord did not condemn people in His time on earth. That will come the Day of Judgement. He told us what was sinful. He told us to avoid sinning. He told us to pray for grace to overcome sin. If you are telling people what they are doing is not sinful, then you are encouraging them to sin, and possibly making them vulnerable to other evils.
Homosexual acts are sinful. It is possible to be forgiven for your sins. It is possible to stop sinning. There is no condemnation there, only what has been taught in the Bible.

Teaching falsehoods helps no one, except Satan. Why would you want your fellow man to sin, without even knowing that he should be asking for forgiveness (not from man, but from the Lord)?

 

[koshergrl]

My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You cannot be "Christ-like" if you choose to live a lifestyle of perversity/lewdness/immoral sex. Either you are being deceived or you are deceiving.

Christ never mentions homosexuality, so your idea of christ-like has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

If we're going by Old Testament rules for what immoral sex is, than anyone who has oral sex, and any man who has sex with his hand, is having immoral sex and is not "Christ-like" in your view if your views are consistent.

But of course your views aren't consistent, in your view gays have to live by crazy Old Testament laws, and straights don't.

Excuse me?????? Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity??????? Grow up, the Savior lived as an absolute model of the Lord's love, not a depraved, sinful "man". Since the Savior didn't speak English, there are a LOT of things that He never said ...... (read DIPSHIT here).
Since you are perfectly comfortable listing immoral sexual techniques, it is obvious that it is clear to you that homosexual sex IS immoral sex.

Please, try to keep up, I am really tired of repeating this: homosexual acts are sinful.

NOTICE: I did not condemn homosexuals, not even those that practice homosexual acts. I did not state that adultery was not a sin. I did not state that living together (having immoral sex) was not a sin. I did not say that casual sex (having immoral sex) was not a sin.

I simply pointed out that homosexual acts are sinful. Just as I have my faults and commit sins, if a person does homosexual acts, they also, commit sin.

I am not saying their sin is any worse than the sins I commit. I am not saying that I am any better than a person that commits homosexual acts. I am just saying that they are sinning.

The Lord gave them the ability to reason. If they choose to reason that the Lord will forgive them for their acts, that is up to them. I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with people bearing false witness against what the Lord has declared sinful, with no authority. They are deliberately leading people astray, where they will be vulnerable to other evils. They know it and they are doing it on purpose.

Right but you're not equating sins, you're saying sins of ppl different than you means they can't be christ-like. I haven't seen you say your sins lead you to incapable of being christ-like.

Again, diff standards for those with diff lifestyles.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.

Why though?

I'm not a Christian, yet I have no desire to see Christians suffer or be punished. Most of my friends (such as my wife) ARE Christians, and while I don't share their faith, I find them to be good people.

The fact that so many Atheists seek to destroy Christianity demonstrates that Atheism is just another religion, a very INTOLERANT one, at that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.

Why though?

I'm not a Christian, yet I have no desire to see Christians suffer or be punished. Most of my friends (such as my wife) ARE Christians, and while I don't share their faith, I find them to be good people.

The fact that so many Atheists seek to destroy Christianity demonstrates that Atheism is just another religion, a very INTOLERANT one, at that.

It'd be nice if you didn't judge atheists all based on a what a couple lawyers do, but it sounds like you're at an age where new information won't lead to change.

What can ya do

 

[Dragon]

Excuse me?????? Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity???????

Why yes, there's every sign that he did. Why else would he hang out with prostitutes and loose women? Why else was he unmarried (if he was in fact) -- most unusual for a Jewish man in his 30s at that time. And then there was the apparent homosexual affair with the Apostle John, don't forget that.

Why did he wax wrathful and condemn things that most people didn't even find sinful at all, such as the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the Pharisees (I shall leave it to others to point out who, in modern society, the Pharisees most closely resemble) and the lawful business activity of the money-changers in the Temple, while making excuses and essentially invalidating the whole law in the case of the woman being stoned for adultery? (Note: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," if universally applied, would make all law unenforceable.)

Jesus was, it would seem, quite the hot dude with a soft spot for the babes and a disciple whom he "loved." The evidence that he, himself, lived a lewd and lascivious lifestyle is admittedly circumstantial, but what is plain enough is that he did not share the anti-sexual killjoy attitudes expressed by some of his followers on this thread.

 

[logical4u]

Christ never mentions homosexuality, so your idea of christ-like has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

If we're going by Old Testament rules for what immoral sex is, than anyone who has oral sex, and any man who has sex with his hand, is having immoral sex and is not "Christ-like" in your view if your views are consistent.

But of course your views aren't consistent, in your view gays have to live by crazy Old Testament laws, and straights don't.

Excuse me?????? Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity??????? Grow up, the Savior lived as an absolute model of the Lord's love, not a depraved, sinful "man". Since the Savior didn't speak English, there are a LOT of things that He never said ...... (read DIPSHIT here).
Since you are perfectly comfortable listing immoral sexual techniques, it is obvious that it is clear to you that homosexual sex IS immoral sex.

Please, try to keep up, I am really tired of repeating this: homosexual acts are sinful.

NOTICE: I did not condemn homosexuals, not even those that practice homosexual acts. I did not state that adultery was not a sin. I did not state that living together (having immoral sex) was not a sin. I did not say that casual sex (having immoral sex) was not a sin.

I simply pointed out that homosexual acts are sinful. Just as I have my faults and commit sins, if a person does homosexual acts, they also, commit sin.

I am not saying their sin is any worse than the sins I commit. I am not saying that I am any better than a person that commits homosexual acts. I am just saying that they are sinning.

The Lord gave them the ability to reason. If they choose to reason that the Lord will forgive them for their acts, that is up to them. I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with people bearing false witness against what the Lord has declared sinful, with no authority. They are deliberately leading people astray, where they will be vulnerable to other evils. They know it and they are doing it on purpose.

Right but you're not equating sins, you're saying sins of ppl different than you means they can't be christ-like. I haven't seen you say your sins lead you to incapable of being christ-like.

Again, diff standards for those with diff lifestyles.

If "I" am openly sinning, and then saying to those that point out my sins: those are not sins, because I am enjoying doing them, then I have nothing in common with Christ. If I acknowledge my sins, and repent, I can be forgiven, as anyone can (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS). If I scoff at the Lord, and declare my own salvation without His authority, I am acting like one of the fallen angels, not Christ.

 

[logical4u]

Excuse me?????? Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity???????

Why yes, there's every sign that he did. Why else would he hang out with prostitutes and loose women? Why else was he unmarried (if he was in fact) -- most unusual for a Jewish man in his 30s at that time. And then there was the apparent homosexual affair with the Apostle John, don't forget that.

Why did he wax wrathful and condemn things that most people didn't even find sinful at all, such as the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the Pharisees (I shall leave it to others to point out who, in modern society, the Pharisees most closely resemble) and the lawful business activity of the money-changers in the Temple, while making excuses and essentially invalidating the whole law in the case of the woman being stoned for adultery? (Note: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," if universally applied, would make all law unenforceable.)

Jesus was, it would seem, quite the hot dude with a soft spot for the babes and a disciple whom he "loved." The evidence that he, himself, lived a lewd and lascivious lifestyle is admittedly circumstantial, but what is plain enough is that he did not share the anti-sexual killjoy attitudes expressed by some of his followers on this thread.

Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels. Yeshua spoke of the special relationship between one man and one woman in matrimony, hardly "anti-sexual".
Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are both against the Commandment of NOT bearing false witness (lying, deceiving for you). They are characteristics that will harm the person committing them and the community. They are "gateway" sins.
The whole point of the adulterous woman was that those that have similar sins are condemning others for doing similar acts. A very new (unheard of in that day) part of this lesson, was that Yeshua charged the woman with her own behavior (made her equal in the eyes of heaven for her own actions). In fact: if people would obey the Lord's laws, there would be no need for "man's laws"; there would finally be "world peace".
This was also in reference to the "New Covenant": men would no longer pass their sins onto the following generations, but could be forgiven their sins in their lifetime.

Yeshua was married. He mentions His spouse, frequently. His "love" is the "church" the human congregation, and any that have a possibility of joining Him.
There is nothing, nothing that remotely indicates the Savior lived less than a "perfectly behaved" life. If you want to site chapter and verse, bring it. Your insults to the Lord are an example that you, like our "lecturer" President, still have no class.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

My guess would be because he's not a Christian, and it is his fondest wish to see Christians suffer and be punished for being Christian.

wow, you're a paranoid nutjob!

but i knew that already.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Excuse me?????? Are you saying that our Savior chose to live a life of immoral sex, lewdness, and perversity??????? Grow up, the Savior lived as an absolute model of the Lord's love, not a depraved, sinful "man". Since the Savior didn't speak English, there are a LOT of things that He never said ...... (read DIPSHIT here).
Since you are perfectly comfortable listing immoral sexual techniques, it is obvious that it is clear to you that homosexual sex IS immoral sex.

Please, try to keep up, I am really tired of repeating this: homosexual acts are sinful.

NOTICE: I did not condemn homosexuals, not even those that practice homosexual acts. I did not state that adultery was not a sin. I did not state that living together (having immoral sex) was not a sin. I did not say that casual sex (having immoral sex) was not a sin.

I simply pointed out that homosexual acts are sinful. Just as I have my faults and commit sins, if a person does homosexual acts, they also, commit sin.

I am not saying their sin is any worse than the sins I commit. I am not saying that I am any better than a person that commits homosexual acts. I am just saying that they are sinning.

The Lord gave them the ability to reason. If they choose to reason that the Lord will forgive them for their acts, that is up to them. I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with people bearing false witness against what the Lord has declared sinful, with no authority. They are deliberately leading people astray, where they will be vulnerable to other evils. They know it and they are doing it on purpose.

Right but you're not equating sins, you're saying sins of ppl different than you means they can't be christ-like. I haven't seen you say your sins lead you to incapable of being christ-like.

Again, diff standards for those with diff lifestyles.

If "I" am openly sinning, and then saying to those that point out my sins: those are not sins, because I am enjoying doing them, then I have nothing in common with Christ. If I acknowledge my sins, and repent, I can be forgiven, as anyone can (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS). If I scoff at the Lord, and declare my own salvation without His authority, I am acting like one of the fallen angels, not Christ.

You also understand the many diff interpretations of the Bible, correct?

I'll bet most christians who are ABOUT to remarry don't think they're about to commit a sin, but Jesus clearly said it was, but it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have are about to have sex before marriage don't think they're sinning, despite what the Bible says, and it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have oral sex, married couples included, don't view it as sinning despite what the Bible says, and they do it anyways.

I'm not sure why knowing what a part of the Bible says or not determines how bad of a sin it is to you. Or are you saying that playing the ignorance card makes it ok since they're not "knowingly openly" sinning?

 

[Dragon]

Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels.

LOL no, spoken like someone who HAS read them, without having the words of someone else with a preconceived idea of what they say ringing in my ears and drowning out all thought.

Yeshua spoke of the special relationship between one man and one woman in matrimony, hardly "anti-sexual".

I'm not saying he was anti-sexual, I'm saying you are. And that he was not.

Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are both against the Commandment of NOT bearing false witness (lying, deceiving for you).

Nonsense. That's a ridiculous stretch of logic. "False witness" specifically applies to courts. And the fact remains that the Pharisees were highly honored men in Jewish society of the time; Jesus' condemnation of them was right out of left field.

I'll add that a whole lot of Jesus' followers today resemble the Pharisees strongly, being out of tune with what Jesus really valued, emphasizing a lot of killjoy arbitrary rules instead of the love of God and of one another, washing the outside of the cup carefully and leaving the inside filthy.

You are a Pharisee.

The whole point of the adulterous woman was that those that have similar sins are condemning others for doing similar acts.

No, that's not what he said. He said, "whoever is without sin, throw the first stone." Not, "whoever is not guilty of adultery" -- odds are there were quite a few of those people who had never committed adultery, and would have thrown the first stone, giving the tale a different outcome.

The point here is that Jesus, who was so forgiving and non-judgmental when it came to sexual sins like adultery, was completely hard-nosed when it came to greed, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption. Those who are self-righteous, and from that are quick to condemn sexual transgressions, are the antithesis of what Jesus stood for.

 

[logical4u]

Right but you're not equating sins, you're saying sins of ppl different than you means they can't be christ-like. I haven't seen you say your sins lead you to incapable of being christ-like.

Again, diff standards for those with diff lifestyles.

If "I" am openly sinning, and then saying to those that point out my sins: those are not sins, because I am enjoying doing them, then I have nothing in common with Christ. If I acknowledge my sins, and repent, I can be forgiven, as anyone can (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS). If I scoff at the Lord, and declare my own salvation without His authority, I am acting like one of the fallen angels, not Christ.

You also understand the many diff interpretations of the Bible, correct?

I'll bet most christians who are ABOUT to remarry don't think they're about to commit a sin, but Jesus clearly said it was, but it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have are about to have sex before marriage don't think they're sinning, despite what the Bible says, and it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have oral sex, married couples included, don't view it as sinning despite what the Bible says, and they do it anyways.

I'm not sure why knowing what a part of the Bible says or not determines how bad of a sin it is to you. Or are you saying that playing the ignorance card makes it ok since they're not "knowingly openly" sinning?

Please do keep up! Lewdness, perversity and immoral sex were included among other sins that Yeshua mentioned. If any of the above can be included in that, then they are sins. Please focus! Homosexual acts are "sinful", it does not matter that "other" people are sinning. It does not matter that those sins are comparable. What matters is: those other people are not declaring "their sins" as NOT SINFUL; they do not have the authority to do so. Just as homosexual activists have no spiritual authority to declare the sins they are committing NOT SINFUL.
If you want to find the Lord, you must accept that you are a sinner, and that you can only improve (sin less) with grace from the Holy Spirit. By homosexual activists telling people that what they are doing is NOT SINFUL, is setting them up for eternal punishment, compared to them sinning and repenting, improving with the help of the Lord. The Lord is just. We will all be punished for our sins, appropriately (hopefully with lots of mercy). Why encourage a whole segment of the population to sin and then to continue to sin when you know they will face punishment for their actions?

Do try to stay on topic.

 

[logical4u]

Spoken like someone that has never read the Gospels.

LOL no, spoken like someone who HAS read them, without having the words of someone else with a preconceived idea of what they say ringing in my ears and drowning out all thought.

Yeshua spoke of the special relationship between one man and one woman in matrimony, hardly "anti-sexual".

I'm not saying he was anti-sexual, I'm saying you are. And that he was not.

Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are both against the Commandment of NOT bearing false witness (lying, deceiving for you).

Nonsense. That's a ridiculous stretch of logic. "False witness" specifically applies to courts. And the fact remains that the Pharisees were highly honored men in Jewish society of the time; Jesus' condemnation of them was right out of left field.

I'll add that a whole lot of Jesus' followers today resemble the Pharisees strongly, being out of tune with what Jesus really valued, emphasizing a lot of killjoy arbitrary rules instead of the love of God and of one another, washing the outside of the cup carefully and leaving the inside filthy.

You are a Pharisee.

The whole point of the adulterous woman was that those that have similar sins are condemning others for doing similar acts.

No, that's not what he said. He said, "whoever is without sin, throw the first stone." Not, "whoever is not guilty of adultery" -- odds are there were quite a few of those people who had never committed adultery, and would have thrown the first stone, giving the tale a different outcome.

The point here is that Jesus, who was so forgiving and non-judgmental when it came to sexual sins like adultery, was completely hard-nosed when it came to greed, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption. Those who are self-righteous, and from that are quick to condemn sexual transgressions, are the antithesis of what Jesus stood for.

Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption. Those are pretty much the root of all sins. You are not loving your Lord, and you are definitely not loving your neighbor, but "using" them.

The reason Yeshua came down so hard on the Pharisees was because they were men of "appearances", not heartfelt actions. He called them on their deception, and He loathed deception in all forms. He would forgive anyone that truly repented (that would include the sexually immoral).

Calling me a Pharisee makes no sense. I have no authority to judge, or condemn. I can only tell you what I have read and what I understand of the Bible. Personally, I think your statements are muslim-like: deceptive and destructive. I guess it is harder to encourage people to improve themselves and easier to try to tear a person down to your level.

 

[Dragon]

Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption.

Nonsense. They start with sexual desire. Sometimes they even start with love. (I'm setting aside things that I would consider sexual sins, such as rape -- which certainly doesn't start with love.)

It is absolutely untrue that an adulterer is necessarily "using" his/her illicit partner. Sometimes that's the case, but often it is not. An extramarital affair can be a thing of great passion and deep love. The rules restricting sex to a single partner are arbitrary and artificial, and it's inevitable that on occasion natural desire will run counter to them. If one believes in and is committed to monogamy within a relationship, one will experience internal conflict when smitten with desire for -- more so, with love for -- someone who is not one's partner. That doesn't make acting upon the desire right necessarily. But to say that it arises from hypocrisy is plain nonsense.

One can sense in Jesus' attitude an awareness that sexual sins arose always from natural desire and often from love, making them less serious than non-carnal sins arising from greed or self-righteousness. I find his attitude completely comprehensible. I also find it one hundred and eighty degrees removed from the attitudes commonly found among his followers today.

The reason Yeshua came down so hard on the Pharisees was because they were men of "appearances", not heartfelt actions.

I realize this is a traditional Christian interpretation, but like many traditional Christian interpretations it is twisted from the plain, straightforward, and obvious meaning, which Christians would often find uncomfortable.

Look at what he actually said about the Pharisees. One thing he said about them was that they strained at a gnat but swallowed a camel. Does that have anything to do with appearances as opposed to heartfelt actions? No. But it has everything to do with placing excessive importance on the trivial while neglecting the really important things.

What were the really important things? He said it simply enough: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Therein lie all the Law and the Prophets. The Pharisees' errors were, first, to focus on the minutiae of the Law and the nitpicking details of religious and personal behavior, neglecting love; and, second, to puff themselves up with self-righteous arrogance for their strict observance of the Law's tenets. For this he called them whitewashed tombs and a generation of vipers.

Calling me a Pharisee makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Like the Pharisees (who, incidentally, also had no authority to judge or condemn; they were a philosophical Jewish sect, distinct from the Scribes or lawyers who did have that authority), you focus on the minutiae of the Law -- as altered somewhat for Christian purposes -- and neglect love. It's for this reason that you are so caught up in worries about sexual transgressions, the very area that Jesus considered no big deal, and so outraged at the suggestion that he lived a sexually sinful life himself, when there is every indication that he may have, and certainly that he condoned it or at least didn't take it very seriously in others.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If "I" am openly sinning, and then saying to those that point out my sins: those are not sins, because I am enjoying doing them, then I have nothing in common with Christ. If I acknowledge my sins, and repent, I can be forgiven, as anyone can (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS). If I scoff at the Lord, and declare my own salvation without His authority, I am acting like one of the fallen angels, not Christ.

You also understand the many diff interpretations of the Bible, correct?

I'll bet most christians who are ABOUT to remarry don't think they're about to commit a sin, but Jesus clearly said it was, but it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have are about to have sex before marriage don't think they're sinning, despite what the Bible says, and it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have oral sex, married couples included, don't view it as sinning despite what the Bible says, and they do it anyways.

I'm not sure why knowing what a part of the Bible says or not determines how bad of a sin it is to you. Or are you saying that playing the ignorance card makes it ok since they're not "knowingly openly" sinning?

Please do keep up! Lewdness, perversity and immoral sex were included among other sins that Yeshua mentioned. If any of the above can be included in that, then they are sins. Please focus! Homosexual acts are "sinful", it does not matter that "other" people are sinning. It does not matter that those sins are comparable. What matters is: those other people are not declaring "their sins" as NOT SINFUL; they do not have the authority to do so. Just as homosexual activists have no spiritual authority to declare the sins they are committing NOT SINFUL.
If you want to find the Lord, you must accept that you are a sinner, and that you can only improve (sin less) with grace from the Holy Spirit. By homosexual activists telling people that what they are doing is NOT SINFUL, is setting them up for eternal punishment, compared to them sinning and repenting, improving with the help of the Lord. The Lord is just. We will all be punished for our sins, appropriately (hopefully with lots of mercy). Why encourage a whole segment of the population to sin and then to continue to sin when you know they will face punishment for their actions?

Do try to stay on topic.

Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry? When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right? All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights. Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?

 

[logical4u]

Sexual sins like adultery start with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and religious corruption.

Nonsense. They start with sexual desire. Sometimes they even start with love. (I'm setting aside things that I would consider sexual sins, such as rape -- which certainly doesn't start with love.)

It is absolutely untrue that an adulterer is necessarily "using" his/her illicit partner. Sometimes that's the case, but often it is not. An extramarital affair can be a thing of great passion and deep love. The rules restricting sex to a single partner are arbitrary and artificial, and it's inevitable that on occasion natural desire will run counter to them. If one believes in and is committed to monogamy within a relationship, one will experience internal conflict when smitten with desire for -- more so, with love for -- someone who is not one's partner. That doesn't make acting upon the desire right necessarily. But to say that it arises from hypocrisy is plain nonsense.

One can sense in Jesus' attitude an awareness that sexual sins arose always from natural desire and often from love, making them less serious than non-carnal sins arising from greed or self-righteousness. I find his attitude completely comprehensible. I also find it one hundred and eighty degrees removed from the attitudes commonly found among his followers today.

The reason Yeshua came down so hard on the Pharisees was because they were men of "appearances", not heartfelt actions.

I realize this is a traditional Christian interpretation, but like many traditional Christian interpretations it is twisted from the plain, straightforward, and obvious meaning, which Christians would often find uncomfortable.

Look at what he actually said about the Pharisees. One thing he said about them was that they strained at a gnat but swallowed a camel. Does that have anything to do with appearances as opposed to heartfelt actions? No. But it has everything to do with placing excessive importance on the trivial while neglecting the really important things.

What were the really important things? He said it simply enough: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Therein lie all the Law and the Prophets. The Pharisees' errors were, first, to focus on the minutiae of the Law and the nitpicking details of religious and personal behavior, neglecting love; and, second, to puff themselves up with self-righteous arrogance for their strict observance of the Law's tenets. For this he called them whitewashed tombs and a generation of vipers.

Calling me a Pharisee makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Like the Pharisees (who, incidentally, also had no authority to judge or condemn; they were a philosophical Jewish sect, distinct from the Scribes or lawyers who did have that authority), you focus on the minutiae of the Law -- as altered somewhat for Christian purposes -- and neglect love. It's for this reason that you are so caught up in worries about sexual transgressions, the very area that Jesus considered no big deal, and so outraged at the suggestion that he lived a sexually sinful life himself, when there is every indication that he may have, and certainly that he condoned it or at least didn't take it very seriously in others.

If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse? Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows? The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows. Yes, say it with me .... deception.

The Pharisee thing, it looks like we are saying the same thing in different ways. Now please explain to me how you can "love your neighbor" when you are dishonoring their child and their family. That is not love. That is selfish.

I am not "caught up in worries about sexual transgressions". I do not like deception. To say that homosexual acts are not sinful is deception. If people are privately having sex, there is no way that I can know about it (I do not want to know about it). If homosexual activists want to declare "legitimacy" of their sinful acts by legislating faux marriage, I have the right to speak against it. Say it with me.... it is deceit. Because you choose to accept forms of deceit is your choice. My choice: call it by name and bring it into the light of day (reason).

 

[logical4u]

You also understand the many diff interpretations of the Bible, correct?

I'll bet most christians who are ABOUT to remarry don't think they're about to commit a sin, but Jesus clearly said it was, but it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have are about to have sex before marriage don't think they're sinning, despite what the Bible says, and it happens anyways.

I'll bet most christians who have oral sex, married couples included, don't view it as sinning despite what the Bible says, and they do it anyways.

I'm not sure why knowing what a part of the Bible says or not determines how bad of a sin it is to you. Or are you saying that playing the ignorance card makes it ok since they're not "knowingly openly" sinning?

Please do keep up! Lewdness, perversity and immoral sex were included among other sins that Yeshua mentioned. If any of the above can be included in that, then they are sins. Please focus! Homosexual acts are "sinful", it does not matter that "other" people are sinning. It does not matter that those sins are comparable. What matters is: those other people are not declaring "their sins" as NOT SINFUL; they do not have the authority to do so. Just as homosexual activists have no spiritual authority to declare the sins they are committing NOT SINFUL.
If you want to find the Lord, you must accept that you are a sinner, and that you can only improve (sin less) with grace from the Holy Spirit. By homosexual activists telling people that what they are doing is NOT SINFUL, is setting them up for eternal punishment, compared to them sinning and repenting, improving with the help of the Lord. The Lord is just. We will all be punished for our sins, appropriately (hopefully with lots of mercy). Why encourage a whole segment of the population to sin and then to continue to sin when you know they will face punishment for their actions?

Do try to stay on topic.

Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry? When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right? All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights. Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

 

[Dragon]

If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse? Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows? The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows. Yes, say it with me .... deception.

So you're saying that as long as the adulterer is perfectly honest and up-front about his affair, that makes it all right?

Regardless of that, nobody has an extramarital affair out of a motivation to lie or deceive. It's always from sexual desire and sometimes from love. Deception is merely an accompaniment.

Now please explain to me how you can "love your neighbor" when you are dishonoring their child and their family. That is not love. That is selfish.

You're making my point for me here: focusing on nitpicks, insisting that any gnat of minor disobedience to a rule and regulation be strained out, and swallowing the camel that focusing on those nits itself represents.

I am not "caught up in worries about sexual transgressions".

Of course you are. It couldn't be more obvious.

 

[logical4u]

If you are in an adulterous affair, have you been honest with your spouse? Have you committed yourself to the marriage vows? The hypocrisy is: you vowed one thing and you are now going against "your" vows. Yes, say it with me .... deception.

So you're saying that as long as the adulterer is perfectly honest and up-front about his affair, that makes it all right?

Regardless of that, nobody has an extramarital affair out of a motivation to lie or deceive. It's always from sexual desire and sometimes from love. Deception is merely an accompaniment.

Now please explain to me how you can "love your neighbor" when you are dishonoring their child and their family. That is not love. That is selfish.

You're making my point for me here: focusing on nitpicks, insisting that any gnat of minor disobedience to a rule and regulation be strained out, and swallowing the camel that focusing on those nits itself represents.

I am not "caught up in worries about sexual transgressions".

Of course you are. It couldn't be more obvious.

I said that an adulterer is a deceiver. I did not mention what the motivation "was".
How is breaking 3 of the 10 Commandments, trivial or nonconsequential?
Obvious to you, in your own private world?

 

[Againsheila]

For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales. It is in Leviticus. I can't quote chapter and verse though.
the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
And a sin is a sin.

According to the Catholics, there are "mortal" sins and "venial" sins. The former being one that makes you go to hell and the later being one you can be forgiven for, maybe serve time in purgatory?