Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

[Syriusly]

TL;DR....

God doesn't change; both Old and New Testament are clear on God's view on Homosexuality. It's a sin, along with many other things. Just quit trying to pass off homosexuality as if God approves. He doesn't

God doesn't exist.

That's not the point I was making and that you are avoiding.

The Old and New Testament are clear on God's views on Witches and Slavery... yet today no one would accept them as valid or moral.

God didn't change. He didn't send down an addendum. People just stopped taking those parts of the bible seriously.

If you don't believe God exists not sure why you are even interested in discussing this. I would not be interested in a discussion about the Easter Bunny

If someone was telling me that we need to criminalize foxes because the Easter Bunny commands it- well then I would be interested in that discussion in the same way.

 

[Syriusly]

there is nothing in either the OT or the NT that suggests that eating shellfish will condemn anyone to some place called "hell"

There's nothing in the OT because the Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife. THat's something the modern religions made up.

But clearly, God called eating Shellfish an "abomination", so that must mean anyone eating at Joe's Crab Shack is in for it.

I'm tired of posting the reply to this. Levitial laws are in group and wll post this later when I have time.
Such a stupid and tried "excuse"

Are you still going on about Levitical Law? Bonzi, they don't apply to Christians. Christians are not bound to Torah. Paul was very clear on this point in Galatians. The Law is no longer applicable. If you are going to profess to be a Christian, try listening to what it says. If you want to insist that Leviticus still applies, then you should convert to Judaism. Sheesh.

There are some Levitical laws that are eternal Godly moral guidelines (how Christians should live in OBEDIENCE)

Which ones? And who defined which ones?

 

[Bonzi]

I'm tired of posting the reply to this. Levitial laws are in group and wll post this later when I have time.
Such a stupid and tried "excuse"

Well, no, guy, instead of wasting your time, let's just dispense with this excuse right now.

there are a shitload of laws in the Torah we don't follow today because they no longer make sense in our modern world. The God of the Hebrews was a tribal God with primitive tribal rules. Some of them even made sense. I suspect the "Shellfish' rule got put in there because someone plucked some Shrimp from the sea not knowing he had a shellfish allergy. His head blew up and everyone concluded that stuff makes Yahweh totally angry.

Which is what primitive people do. They associate everything they don't understand with "God".

They "Gay is Bad" rule got stuck in there because when you were a tribal people trying to keep your numbers up, you didn't want to waste any seed on someone's butthole. Not in a time where you had a 50% infant mortality rate. (The bible also says not to count babies in censuses until they are at least a year old. Take that, Abortion Nutters!!!)

Of course, when the New Roman Religion of Christianity needed a "backstory", they picked the Hebrew one, but they they inherited all this garbage about shrimp and gays and not boiling a kid in its mother's milk or some such shit. Rules they all tried to declare 'Well, that's the OLD testament" for things like the Shrimp, but keeping the homophobia and slavery rules because, hey, those things were important.

Here's the thing. God didn't change his mind on shrimp and pork, PEOPLE did. So unless you are an orthodox Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist, you are going to totally enjoy that shrimp/pork egg roll and your preacher ain't gonna say dick about it.

God didn't change his mind on Burning Witches. PEOPLE did. People figured out there aren't any real witches and never were. You aren't going to see a preacher tell you that girl who is going through a Wiccan phase in her late teens needs to be burned.

God didn't change his mind on Slavery. PEOPLE did. So you aren't going to go down to your local slave-mart and buy Kunta Kinte. and you aren't going to see any preacher tell you how slavery was a good thing that God totally approved of.

God isn't going to change him mind on homosexuality. PEOPLE did. People realize some folks are just gay, and if you don't like that, it's your problem. And in a few more decades, most of the churches will perform gay weddings and they are going to pretend those verses aren't in the bible... just like they do about the ones about Shrimp and Burning Witches and Slavery.

Maybe what we need is to just have Walt Disney rewrite the bible. Take out all the icky parts, just leave in the good parts and toss in a couple of catchy songs. I mean, it worked for literature, why not the Bible?

TL;DR....

God doesn't change; both Old and New Testament are clear on God's view on Homosexuality. It's a sin, along with many other things. Just quit trying to pass off homosexuality as if God approves. He doesn't

See I don't see any 'mildness or meekness' in that warning to your neighbors.

The New Testament is pretty clear that most of the commandments of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians- other than the 10 Commandments.

And as we all know Jesus never mentions homosexuals at all.

Really- from how some Christians go on- it would be easy to think that the New Testament is primarily concerned with homosexuality- rather than a brief mention by Paul.

Which part of "homosexuality is a sin along with many other things" didn't you understand? Jesus was not always meek and mild, Christians are not wimps. To allow people to believe wrongly is not loving, my telling you the truth is more loving. Enabling is not love

Which part of Jesus never mentions homosexuality as a sin don't you understand.

In the entire New Testament the only mention is by Paul speaking of men- and he doesn't use the term 'sin'.

The Old Testament- as in Leviticus does- but Leviticus among other things tells us it is a sin to cut your beard.

Jesus says the 10 Commandments must be followed- and again- nothing in the 10 Commandments about homosexuality.

Adultery yes. Homosexuality no.

Jesus says that Divorce and Remarriage is a sin- unless the wife(and only the wife) has committed adultery.

Where are your threads here at USMB decrying divorce? The New Testament is very clear about Jesus's position as Divorce.

Divorce, except in the instance of adultery and death is a sin also

 

[Bonzi]

Syriusly all good questions that deserve more than 1 liner answers, and, since I am on my POC phone, will wait til I'm on my PC to answer....

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly all good questions that deserve more than 1 liner answers, and, since I am on my POC phone, will wait til I'm on my PC to answer....

Fair enough.

Thanks

 

[JoeB131]

If you don't believe God exists not sure why you are even interested in discussing this. I would not be interested in a discussion about the Easter Bunny

People who believe in the Easter Bunny don't try to fuck over my friends.

If you are going to use Genesis 19 as an excuse to be homophobes, then I will happily point out that Lot was a guy who offered up his daughters for gang rape and then had drunken sex with them himself.

 

[Bonzi]

there is nothing in either the OT or the NT that suggests that eating shellfish will condemn anyone to some place called "hell"

There's nothing in the OT because the Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife. THat's something the modern religions made up.

But clearly, God called eating Shellfish an "abomination", so that must mean anyone eating at Joe's Crab Shack is in for it.

I'm tired of posting the reply to this. Levitial laws are in group and wll post this later when I have time.
Such a stupid and tried "excuse"

Are you still going on about Levitical Law? Bonzi, they don't apply to Christians. Christians are not bound to Torah. Paul was very clear on this point in Galatians. The Law is no longer applicable. If you are going to profess to be a Christian, try listening to what it says. If you want to insist that Leviticus still applies, then you should convert to Judaism. Sheesh.

There are some Levitical laws that are eternal Godly moral guidelines (how Christians should live in OBEDIENCE)

Which ones? And who defined which ones?

The Levitical laws are in 3 groups Civil, Ceremonial and Moral. Moral laws of God are eternal, of which, sexually immorality is one (which, in the Bible is clear, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and so on)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category. In addition, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites. Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial. Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said "speak to the sons of Israel saying..." These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply for us today.

 

[irosie91]

There's nothing in the OT because the Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife. THat's something the modern religions made up.

But clearly, God called eating Shellfish an "abomination", so that must mean anyone eating at Joe's Crab Shack is in for it.

I'm tired of posting the reply to this. Levitial laws are in group and wll post this later when I have time.
Such a stupid and tried "excuse"

Are you still going on about Levitical Law? Bonzi, they don't apply to Christians. Christians are not bound to Torah. Paul was very clear on this point in Galatians. The Law is no longer applicable. If you are going to profess to be a Christian, try listening to what it says. If you want to insist that Leviticus still applies, then you should convert to Judaism. Sheesh.

There are some Levitical laws that are eternal Godly moral guidelines (how Christians should live in OBEDIENCE)

Which ones? And who defined which ones?

The Levitical laws are in 3 groups Civil, Ceremonial and Moral. Moral laws of God are eternal, of which, sexually immorality is one (which, in the Bible is clear, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and so on)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category. In addition, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites. Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial. Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said "speak to the sons of Israel saying..." These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply for us today.

Biblical law is very much misinterpreted. In order to know law------take a look at the actual practice of jurisprudence by actual jews who adhere to it or adhered to it historically.----
Do not interpret it from the KJV or other translations. Some of the WORDS used in those translations are very misleading ------including such words and phrases as
"ABOMINATION" "UNCLEAN" and "SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH". A naïve
person gets the sense that fornication or masturbation is a CAPITAL CRIME. Actually it is not. One gets the impression that lighting a match on Saturday is a CAPITAL CRIME-----nope.
That "should die" thing is very often a cautionary statement ----being more like------"if you do that stuff lots-------you will probably die young". It does not mean a court ordered execution. One of the interesting phrases that sometimes does get
translated approximately correctly is "so that your days might be long" ----it actually does describe the concept that lots of acts called "sins" for which people "die" are not sins that demand execution----more like "you get yours in the end"

 

[Bonzi]

Either way, I've made my case as far as I'm going to. You can disagree, but, I will always believe that homosexuality (along with other sexual acts) is a sin in God's eyes. I've stated why I believe this.

If you wish to believe God thinks it is acceptable and not a sin, you have the right to believe that.
I'm not going to debate it any further. I've pretty much said all I have to say about the subject.

 

[irosie91]

Either way, I've made my case as far as I'm going to. You can disagree, but, I will always believe that homosexuality (along with other sexual acts) is a sin in God's eyes. I've stated why I believe this.

If you wish to believe God thinks it is acceptable and not a sin, you have the right to believe that.
I'm not going to debate it any further. I've pretty much said all I have to say about the subject.

I think the issue is "SIN" vs "CRIME"

 

[Bonzi]

Either way, I've made my case as far as I'm going to. You can disagree, but, I will always believe that homosexuality (along with other sexual acts) is a sin in God's eyes. I've stated why I believe this.

If you wish to believe God thinks it is acceptable and not a sin, you have the right to believe that.
I'm not going to debate it any further. I've pretty much said all I have to say about the subject.

I think the issue is "SIN" vs "CRIME"

Obviously it is legal now, so it's not a crime. I'm not debating that. If you are talking secular legalities, what is there to debate? Only at this point if you think it's wrong - that's all.

 

[BluePhantom]

there is nothing in either the OT or the NT that suggests that eating shellfish will condemn anyone to some place called "hell"

There's nothing in the OT because the Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife. THat's something the modern religions made up.

But clearly, God called eating Shellfish an "abomination", so that must mean anyone eating at Joe's Crab Shack is in for it.

I'm tired of posting the reply to this. Levitial laws are in group and wll post this later when I have time.
Such a stupid and tried "excuse"

Are you still going on about Levitical Law? Bonzi, they don't apply to Christians. Christians are not bound to Torah. Paul was very clear on this point in Galatians. The Law is no longer applicable. If you are going to profess to be a Christian, try listening to what it says. If you want to insist that Leviticus still applies, then you should convert to Judaism. Sheesh.

There are some Levitical laws that are eternal Godly moral guidelines (how Christians should live in OBEDIENCE)

And which would those be? The one's you happen to support? Because Christianity is based heavily on Paul's Doctrine of Justification Through Faith that renders The Law inapplicable....completely and in full. Every single part of it. In fact, Paul argued that if one follows The Law in an effort to become right with God, one is offending God because they are refusing to recognize that the sacrifice of Jesus ended the Old Covenant and created a new one. This is the entire point of Christianity and why there was a split between Jews and Christians. Christians argued The Law no longer applied because the Messiah had fulfilled the Old Covenant and Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, Jews are still bound to to Levitical Laws and Christians are not. So if you are going to identify yourself as a Christian you can't point to Levitical Laws to support your position. They don't apply to us. It would be like arguing a point of Constitutional Law and supporting it with the Articles of the Confederation.

 

[onefour1]

Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught:

Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I believe that Paul taught that salvation was not found by keeping the law but by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe he had respect for the law and that we should follow the law as fulfilled by Jesus Christ but that Salvation was found in the law but through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. I think what he was stressing was that works of the law without faith in Jesus Christ was dead.

 

[irosie91]

Paul said that jesus said-----"I HAVE COME TO FULFILL THE LAW" I have no idea what that
means

 

[BluePhantom]

Paul said that jesus said-----"I HAVE COME TO FULFILL THE LAW" I have no idea what that
means

Paul never quoted Jesus directly actually. There are a lot of different theories about why

 

[BluePhantom]

Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught:

Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I believe that Paul taught that salvation was not found by keeping the law but by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe he had respect for the law and that we should follow the law as fulfilled by Jesus Christ but that Salvation was found in the law but through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. I think what he was stressing was that works of the law without faith in Jesus Christ was dead.

Well, yes and no. Jesus and Paul taught two very different things about salvation. Jesus said salvation comes through following The Law...specifically His interpretation of The Law. That's one of the major themes in Matthew is that Jesus is depicted as being the authoritative interpreter of Torah. Paul disagreed with Jesus (or at least His depiction in Matthew) regarding salvation. He said salvation comes through accepting Grace. Now Paul did not advocate lawlessness...running around like a jack-ass and acting the fool (that was one of his main points in 1 Corinthians), but he was very clear that the Law is no longer applicable and that works has nothing to do with salvation. That was his main point in Galatians. This is one of the really curious things about Christianity is that it is based far more on Paul's teachings than those of Jesus in many ways. There are reasons why Christians do this....there is a specific argument as to why the Church endorses the Pauline view but that's a thread unto itself.

 

[irosie91]

Paul said that jesus said-----"I HAVE COME TO FULFILL THE LAW" I have no idea what that
means

Paul never quoted Jesus directly actually. There are a lot of different theories about why

yes----paul never met Jesus -----he was relying on---
what lawyers call "heresay" I still do not know what 'I have come not to change the law but to FULFILL it " means. It seems to mean to lots of people------the laws of the torah are null and void because the death of jesus somehow makes the situation of LAW moot ???????

 

[irosie91]

Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught:

Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I believe that Paul taught that salvation was not found by keeping the law but by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe he had respect for the law and that we should follow the law as fulfilled by Jesus Christ but that Salvation was found in the law but through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. I think what he was stressing was that works of the law without faith in Jesus Christ was dead.

Well, yes and no. Jesus and Paul taught two very different things about salvation. Jesus said salvation comes through following The Law...specifically His interpretation of The Law. That's one of the major themes in Matthew is that Jesus is depicted as being the authoritative interpreter of Torah. Paul disagreed with Jesus (or at least His depiction in Matthew) regarding salvation. He said salvation comes through accepting Grace. Now Paul did not advocate lawlessness...running around like a jack-ass and acting the fool (that was one of his main points in 1 Corinthians), but he was very clear that the Law is no longer applicable and that works has nothing to do with salvation. That was his main point in Galatians. This is one of the really curious things about Christianity is that it is based far more on Paul's teachings than those of Jesus in many ways. There are reasons why Christians do this....there is a specific argument as to why the Church endorses the Pauline view but that's a thread unto itself.

thanks-----that which you posted is my impression---PAUL kinda invented a new religion which, I believe was something like "Jewish ethics for goyim"

 

[BluePhantom]

Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught:

Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I believe that Paul taught that salvation was not found by keeping the law but by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe he had respect for the law and that we should follow the law as fulfilled by Jesus Christ but that Salvation was found in the law but through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. I think what he was stressing was that works of the law without faith in Jesus Christ was dead.

Well, yes and no. Jesus and Paul taught two very different things about salvation. Jesus said salvation comes through following The Law...specifically His interpretation of The Law. That's one of the major themes in Matthew is that Jesus is depicted as being the authoritative interpreter of Torah. Paul disagreed with Jesus (or at least His depiction in Matthew) regarding salvation. He said salvation comes through accepting Grace. Now Paul did not advocate lawlessness...running around like a jack-ass and acting the fool (that was one of his main points in 1 Corinthians), but he was very clear that the Law is no longer applicable and that works has nothing to do with salvation. That was his main point in Galatians. This is one of the really curious things about Christianity is that it is based far more on Paul's teachings than those of Jesus in many ways. There are reasons why Christians do this....there is a specific argument as to why the Church endorses the Pauline view but that's a thread unto itself.

thanks-----that which you posted is my impression---PAUL kinda invented a new religion which, I believe was something like "Jewish ethics for goyim"

Well that wasn't the way Paul viewed it. None of the Apostles thought they were starting a new religion. They believed that Judaism was entering a new and final phase. Paul believed that by the death and resurrection of Jesus The Law was fulfilled and the time had come where God's good kingdom was at hand. Whether this is what the other Apostles believed is unknown, but it's what Paul taught. Paul was teaching people that the end had come. He was preparing them for the ascension into heaven. He thought that since Jesus had ascended physically, all His followers were about to go with Him. He was an apocalypticist.

We don't know if that's what the other Apostles believed of if that is what Jesus believed. Most scholarship is of the opinion that they were apocalypticists as well. I am still on the fence about that one.There are some very embarrassing quotes attributed to Jesus that indicate an apocalyptic viewpoint, but whether He really said them or they were just things attributed to Him by later authors is a subject of debate. I will concede that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was an apocalypticist but I am not sure that the Jesus of history was.

So anyhow, to answer your last two posts, The argument is that He fulfilled The Law by interpreting it properly and by fulfilling the prophecies through His death and resurrection. Therefore, again so the argument goes, The Law has been fulfilled so after His death none of it applies anymore because it ushers in the New Covenant nullifying the Old Covenant.

 

[irosie91]

Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught:

Romans 2:12-13
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 13:10
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I believe that Paul taught that salvation was not found by keeping the law but by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe he had respect for the law and that we should follow the law as fulfilled by Jesus Christ but that Salvation was found in the law but through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. I think what he was stressing was that works of the law without faith in Jesus Christ was dead.

Well, yes and no. Jesus and Paul taught two very different things about salvation. Jesus said salvation comes through following The Law...specifically His interpretation of The Law. That's one of the major themes in Matthew is that Jesus is depicted as being the authoritative interpreter of Torah. Paul disagreed with Jesus (or at least His depiction in Matthew) regarding salvation. He said salvation comes through accepting Grace. Now Paul did not advocate lawlessness...running around like a jack-ass and acting the fool (that was one of his main points in 1 Corinthians), but he was very clear that the Law is no longer applicable and that works has nothing to do with salvation. That was his main point in Galatians. This is one of the really curious things about Christianity is that it is based far more on Paul's teachings than those of Jesus in many ways. There are reasons why Christians do this....there is a specific argument as to why the Church endorses the Pauline view but that's a thread unto itself.

thanks-----that which you posted is my impression---PAUL kinda invented a new religion which, I believe was something like "Jewish ethics for goyim"

Well that wasn't the way Paul viewed it. None of the Apostles thought they were starting a new religion. They believed that Judaism was entering a new and final phase. Paul believed that by the death and resurrection of Jesus The Law was fulfilled and the time had come where God's good kingdom was about to come to Earth. Whether this is what the other Apostles believed is unknown, but it's what Paul taught. Paul was teaching people that the end had come. He was preparing them for the ascension into heaven. He thought that since Jesus has ascended physically, all His followers were about to go with Him. He was an apocalypticist.

We don't know if that's what the other Apostles believed of if that is what Jesus believed. Most scholarship is of the opinion that they were apocalypticists as well. I am still on the fence about that one.There are some very embarrassing quotes attributed to Jesus that indicate an apocalyptic viewpoint, but whether He really said them or they were just things attributed to Him by later authors is a subject of debate. I will concede that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was an apocalypticist but I am not sure that the Jesus of history was.

So anyhow, to answer your last two posts, The argument is that He fulfilled The Law by interpreting it properly and by fulfilling the prophecies through His death and resurrection. Therefore, again so the argument goes, The Law has been fulfilled so after His death none of it applies anymore because it ushers in the New Covenant nullifying the Old Covenant.

Still does not make sense and there are no words reliably attributed to Jesus suggesting that ------THE WHOLE THING
HAS COME TO AN END. I absolutely agree that PAUL was desperately hoping for such an event---but to be honest to me he seems as nuts as JIM JONES. That "fulfilling"
word----makes no sense. The word "fulfill" if used in translation from Hebrew generally means "settle it up"----as in PAY THE CHECK or ----MAKE ALL THE PAYMENTS ON THE MORTGAGE