Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ingledsva]

The ENTIRE NT, even the parts you don't like, take it or leave it, your choice, your soul

Many of the texts have been shown to be in contention.

We have shown many errors.

Especially when Christians grabbed Hebrew texts to boost their God man Jesus. (Such as so-called Virgin birth prophecies from Isaiah.)

*

 

[shmogie]

Many of the texts have been shown to be in contention.

We have shown many errors.

Especially when Christians grabbed Hebrew texts to boost their God man Jesus. (Such as so-called Virgin birth prophecies from Isaiah.)

*

You have shown nothing but perverted texts from rouge and minimally accepted alleged scholars

 

[shmogie]

That is exactly what I meant with you ignoring the OT, which means you are ignoring a part of the Bible. Not even Muslims are supposed to do that.
And if you discard the OT the entire NT becomes worthless, because without the OT there is no sin, there are no prophecies, and no need for a messiah.

So simple. It is not "discarded", it exists. The Torah is focused and refined in the NT. A different dispensation. History is history. Historical things are historical.

 

[shmogie]

That is exactly what I meant with you ignoring the OT, which means you are ignoring a part of the Bible. Not even Muslims are supposed to do that.
And if you discard the OT the entire NT becomes worthless, because without the OT there is no sin, there are no prophecies, and no need for a messiah.

You can neither find Grace or salvation in the OT, You cannot find the way you are to relate to God or live your life in the OT. The foundation of a bridge is out of sight in the water. The foundation doesn't carry people across, the roadway laid across the foundation does.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Torah is focused and refined in the NT.

How so?

History is history. Historical things are historical.

Except there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history. No evidence of a global flood, we know our different languages did not originate from a single point or time, no Sodom or Gomorrah, we can't even find evidence that the Exodus happened.

You can neither find Grace or salvation in the OT, You cannot find the way you are to relate to God or live your life in the OT.

And a whole bunch of Jews disagree. Even Muslims are instructed to take in the word of the prophets from both the OT and NT.

The foundation doesn't carry people across, the roadway laid across the foundation does.

The foundation may not carry the people, but it carries their weight, and a poor foundation won't get anyone across.

 

[sojourner]

So simple. It is not "discarded", it exists. The Torah is focused and refined in the NT. A different dispensation. History is history. Historical things are historical.

The bible ain't history -- not in the modern sense you mean it here.

 

[sojourner]

You can neither find Grace or salvation in the OT, You cannot find the way you are to relate to God or live your life in the OT. The foundation of a bridge is out of sight in the water. The foundation doesn't carry people across, the roadway laid across the foundation does.

When a bridge is inspected, however, great attention is paid to both the pilings and the span. Yes, once can find grace in the OT -- and salvation. Just ask a Jew. Or someone who's even moderately schooled in theology and exegesis.

 

[PreacherToTheChoir]

Sexual immorality is against Christian law. Acts 15:22-29:

Acts 15:22-29
English Standard Version (ESV)
(22)Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, (23)with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. (24)Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, (25)it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26)men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (27)We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. (28)For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: (29)that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

 

[shmogie]

How so?

Except there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history. No evidence of a global flood, we know our different languages did not originate from a single point or time, no Sodom or Gomorrah, we can't even find evidence that the Exodus happened.

And a whole bunch of Jews disagree. Even Muslims are instructed to take in the word of the prophets from both the OT and NT.

The foundation may not carry the people, but it carries their weight, and a poor foundation won't get anyone across.

Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. There is evidence of a global flood, many Christian and Jewish geologists make very detailed, rational and reasonable hypotheses on the matter. It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman, clear genetic proof, that until it is declared in error, if ever, is true., Consider that re languages. Of course the Jews disagree as is their right

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found.

And those findings were criticized because they made faulty assumptions and essentially predetermined what they found before they found out or could figure what they found. And it wasn't either of those cities.

There is evidence of a global flood,

None. There is evidence of severe flooding in many places around the time of Noah, but zero evidence of a global flood. And of course it didn't happen, because there is no way all the extra water needed to flood the entire earth can just appear and then vanish and not leave evidence behind.

It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman,

Nope. Our lineage has been traced back to Africa, but even if there were confirmed to be this "one man and one woman," it isn't inherent proof of the Bible.

 

[johnhanks]

It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman...

There certainly was a "mitochondrial Eve" from whom everyone alive today can trace matrilineal descent, and we can also trace patrilineal descent from a "Y-chromosomal Adam". There is, however, no reason to believe that these particular ancestors were contemporaries, let alone partners, and certainly not that they were the sole human inhabitants of the earth in their lifetimes. "Y-chromosomal Adam" is simply the most recent common ancestor of all present-day humans in the patrilineal line, as "mitochondrial Eve" is in the matrilineal line. Contemporaries of both of them have descendants alive today, though not with solely patrilineal or matrilineal descent.

 

[shmogie]

There certainly was a "mitochondrial Eve" from whom everyone alive today can trace matrilineal descent, and we can also trace patrilineal descent from a "Y-chromosomal Adam". There is, however, no reason to believe that these particular ancestors were contemporaries, let alone partners, and certainly not that they were the sole human inhabitants of the earth in their lifetimes. "Y-chromosomal Adam" is simply the most recent common ancestor of all present-day humans in the patrilineal line, as "mitochondrial Eve" is in the matrilineal line. Contemporaries of both of them have descendants alive today, though not with solely patrilineal or matrilineal descent.

Thank you. What I stated is factually correct. "no reason to believe" can be changed to "no reason not to believe" and each would have equal validity. My understanding is that humanity itself shares ancestry with this male and female, is that correct, or no ?

 

[shmogie]

And those findings were criticized because they made faulty assumptions and essentially predetermined what they found before they found out or could figure what they found. And it wasn't either of those cities.

None. There is evidence of severe flooding in many places around the time of Noah, but zero evidence of a global flood. And of course it didn't happen, because there is no way all the extra water needed to flood the entire earth can just appear and then vanish and not leave evidence behind.

Nope. Our lineage has been traced back to Africa, but even if there were confirmed to be this "one man and one woman," it isn't inherent proof of the Bible.

Findings can be criticized, and usually are that doesn't mean they are in error. If you are interested in some specific geology books that refute your assertion that there is no evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to give you a reading list. One man, one woman has been proven., It doesn;'t inherently disprove the Bible, either., Evidence here, evidence there, this discipline, that discipline, leads to a reasonable conclusion. Chronic denial leads to conclusions too, especially when you have programmed yourself that it must always be employed

 

[johnhanks]

Thank you. What I stated is factually correct. "no reason to believe" can be changed to "no reason not to believe" and each would have equal validity. My understanding is that humanity itself shares ancestry with this male and female, is that correct, or no ?

Humanity shares ancestry from many common ancestors: "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are just the most recent common male and female ancestors (MRCAs). To save time, I'll quote from Wiki:

"Due to the definition via the "currently living" population, the identity of a MRCA, and by extension of the human Y-MRCA, is time-dependent (it depends on the moment in time intended by the term "currently"). The MRCA of a population may move forward in time as archaic lineages within the population go extinct: once a lineage has died out, it is irretrievably lost. This mechanism can thus only shift the title of Y-MRCA forward in time. ... The same holds for the concepts of matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs: it follows from the definition of Y-MRCA that he had at least two sons who both have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. If the lineages of all but one of those sons die out, then the title of Y-MRCA shifts forward from the remaining son through his patrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two sons who both have living, patrilineal descendants. The title of Y-MRCA is not permanently fixed to a single individual, and the Y-MRCA for any given population would himself have been part of a population which had its own, more remote, Y-MRCA." (My emphasis).

In other words, neither mitochondrial Eve nor Y-chromosomal Adam was a single, forever-fixed individual; they are just the most recent common ancestors of everyone alive today. A thousand years ago, the MRCAs would have been different individuals (probably further back in time); a thousand years from now, they will be different again (probably more recent).

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. There is evidence of a global flood, many Christian and Jewish geologists make very detailed, rational and reasonable hypotheses on the matter. It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman, clear genetic proof, that until it is declared in error, if ever, is true., Consider that re languages. Of course the Jews disagree as is their right

You are confused about the facts. This should help:

Adam and Eve?
These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.
The rest of the human genome contains tiny snippets of DNA from many other ancestors — they just don't show up in mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA, Hammer said. (For instance, if an ancient woman had only sons, then her mitochondrial DNA would disappear, even though the son would pass on a quarter of her DNA via the rest of his genome.)
As a follow-up, Bustamante's lab is sequencing Y chromosomes from nearly 2,000 other men. Those data could help pinpoint precisely where in Africa these ancient humans lived.
"It's very exciting," Wilson Sayres told LiveScience. "As we get more populations across the world, we can start to understand exactly where we came from physically."

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. There is evidence of a global flood, many Christian and Jewish geologists make very detailed, rational and reasonable hypotheses on the matter. It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman, clear genetic proof, that until it is declared in error, if ever, is true., Consider that re languages. Of course the Jews disagree as is their right

The two modern humans were merely two in thousands. They seem to be the only ones who we still see in our genetic code, but they were in NO WAY the first human beings. Nice try though.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you. What I stated is factually correct. "no reason to believe" can be changed to "no reason not to believe" and each would have equal validity. My understanding is that humanity itself shares ancestry with this male and female, is that correct, or no ?

Not in a scientific sense they aren't equally valid. Science is based on evidence, not belief.

 

[sojourner]

Sexual immorality is against Christian law. Acts 15:22-29:

Acts 15:22-29
English Standard Version (ESV)
(22)Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, (23)with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. (24)Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, (25)it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26)men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (27)We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. (28)For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: (29)that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Problem is, homosexuality isn't immoral.

 

[sojourner]

Findings can be criticized, and usually are that doesn't mean they are in error. If you are interested in some specific geology books that refute your assertion that there is no evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to give you a reading list. One man, one woman has been proven., It doesn;'t inherently disprove the Bible, either., Evidence here, evidence there, this discipline, that discipline, leads to a reasonable conclusion. Chronic denial leads to conclusions too, especially when you have programmed yourself that it must always be employed

The problem is that Genesis isn't science. It's mythology and metaphor. The nature of its literary genre discounts the text as being scientifically untenable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are interested in some specific geology books that refute your assertion that there is no evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to give you a reading list.

There is no evidence of a global flood. There is evidence of severe flooding in that area, but it doesn't prove the Bible because there were recorded flood stories before Noah (such as Gilgamesh, which contains the oldest known flood story).

Findings can be criticized, and usually are that doesn't mean they are in error

That something has been criticized is irrelevant. It's why something is criticized that is important. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, even Christian archaeologists have criticized the "finding" of those two cities over some methodological issues, including labeling what they found and assuming to know what it was they found before doing any actual work.
Or, there are others who think they found them somewhere else, but what they found was abandoned, not destroyed.

One man, one woman has been proven.

No, it hasn't. We have traced our lineage back a long ways, but as far back as we can does not lead us to the Tigris and Euphrates, it was well over 100,000 years ago (far outside the frame of Creationism), and we find that we came from Africa, not the Middle East.

Chronic denial leads to conclusions too, especially when you have programmed yourself that it must always be employed

If there is no evidence, nothing factual to support a claim, I deny it.