Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sojourner]

That which GOD says does matter---to those who accept and Believe HIM.

What does God say (as opposed to what the writers say)? I think love speaks louder than judgment.

Where is the hospitality of that town to demand that the stranger satisfy their sexual desires.

Well, that was the point of the story! Not that "sex is bad," but that "unconsentual sex was demanded by those who should have been protecting the stranger."

Those initial languages isn't the one I need to understand the message.

Then you have a poor chance of fully understanding the message.

There can be no communication between/by languages without the "meaning" and the "translation" being the same/equal thoughts.

Right! And when you simply assume that all aspects of the translation (including your interpretation) is "the same" as what the writer meant, you more often than not miss the message. You have to get out of your own head and into the head of the writer.

your posts reveal it is very prominent it those who are determined to negate/void/cast doubt upon the "Thus saith the Lord GOD."

It's not to "cast doubt," it's to "read critically." To take something purely at face value tends to twist meaning more than critical reading.

There were at least three writers in those sites/books I posted---all validating the same "thy shall not"---and from different times

Uh huh. But what, precisely, did the writers mean by the terms they used? Did they mean the exact same thing we mean when we use those terms? What were the translators thinking when they translated the terms? The same thing the writers were thinking? Or did their own biases enter the equation?

Jesus, Who was the Rock leading Israel during the entering into the promised land and, therefore, aware of Moses' teaching, is the one who Created all things. HE gave the Command to go and teach.Those teachings went back to Gen.1:1 I have shown the Scriptural truth in the case/thread. Same sex sexual gratification is not condoned by GOD.

Not even worth responding to. Jesus is never present in the OT.

 

[sincerly]

What does God say (as opposed to what the writers say)? I think love speaks louder than judgment.

There was no opposition between what GOD said(say unto the children of Israel) and that which was written by Moses in response----"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev.20:13)
The Lord GOD is just in HIS judgment.
There is no love in disobedience.

Well, that was the point of the story! Not that "sex is bad," but that "unconsentual sex was demanded by those who should have been protecting the stranger."

The point of the story was that sodomy was/is an abomination to GOD and worthy of death.
"Consent" wasn't and issue---that group of men had come to gang rape the "stranger". It was "lust" that was the driving force---not LOVE.

There can be no communication between/by languages without the "meaning" and the "translation" being the same/equal thoughts.

Then you have a poor chance of fully understanding the message.

Your false opinion. When the language being given is translated into words of a different meaning, the original meaning/message is NOT received as the message in the original language.

Right! And when you simply assume that all aspects of the translation (including your interpretation) is "the same" as what the writer meant, you more often than not miss the message. You have to get out of your own head and into the head of the writer.

GOD says what HE means---man's thoughts/sayings are such that one has to check them against the "Thus saith the Lord GOD".

It's not to "cast doubt," it's to "read critically." To take something purely at face value tends to twist meaning more than critical reading.

When one's "critical reading" is an attempt to distort the "Thus saith the Lord GOD", that is attempting to "cast doubt".
And the "critical reading" is placing man's puny understanding in opposition to the Creator of all things.
There is nothing vague or hard to understand concerning man is not to lie(have sex)with man as with woman."

Uh huh. But what, precisely, did the writers mean by the terms they used? Did they mean the exact same thing we mean when we use those terms? What were the translators thinking when they translated the terms? The same thing the writers were thinking? Or did their own biases enter the equation?

Sojourner, GOD is not the author of confusion---that comes from mankind in trying to circumvent the messages for a right relationship to GOD or Mankind.
What men think isn't to be believed in greater degree than the "Thus saith the LORD GOD."
What was recorded in the Bible was what GOD inspired holy men to write. What was written and bound as the Bible was overseen by the Holy Spirit.

Not even worth responding to. Jesus is never present in the OT.

The Scriptures say differently--as previously shown.

 

[sojourner]

There was no opposition between what GOD said(say unto the children of Israel) and that which was written by Moses in response----"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev.20:13)
The Lord GOD is just in HIS judgment.
There is no love in disobedience.

Moses wrote nothing. Moses most likely never existed. I suspect God didn't say anything, either.

 

[sojourner]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

There is no love in disobedience.

May I assume that (since you're advocating for this law, you're implying your responsibility as "gatekeeper"), if you meet any convicted homosexuals, you'll put them to death, since you love God and don't want to disobey what God directs (which is to kill homosexuals)?

The point of the story was that sodomy was/is an abomination to GOD and worthy of death.

And the "abomination" was the sin of inhospitality.

The point of the story was that sodomy was/is an abomination to GOD and worthy of death.
"Consent" wasn't and issue---that group of men had come to gang rape the "stranger". It was "lust" that was the driving force---not LOVE.

No, the mob implied forcible rape, not simply "lust."

When the language being given is translated into words of a different meaning, the original meaning/message is NOT received as the message in the original language.

Which sometimes happens in the process of translation, since, many times, there are no equivalent words/phrases, plus there are differences of culture that render phrases not understandable in a culture other than the one in which the writing occurred.

GOD says what HE means---man's thoughts/sayings are such that one has to check them against the "Thus saith the Lord GOD".

But we only know what God "says" through the lens of flawed, biased, and limited human beings. God may "say" what God means, but that, by no means, means that the writer fully understands and accurately records what God "says." Therefore, what we're left with is a mere opinion of the writer of what God "says." We have no real "thus saith the Lord" to which to compare anything.

When one's "critical reading" is an attempt to distort the "Thus saith the Lord GOD", that is attempting to "cast doubt".

Critical reading doesn't attempt to distort. It attempts to clarify. Otherwise, it's not "critical reading." it's something else. "Wishful thinking," perhaps.

There is nothing vague or hard to understand concerning man is not to lie(have sex)with man as with woman."

There is when we assume things, and don't have all the information regarding the original languages, contexts, cultural implications, etc.

GOD is not the author of confusion---that comes from mankind in trying to circumvent the messages for a right relationship to GOD or Mankind.

Again, God "authored" nothing. All we're left with is what human beings wrote. Perhaps one of them "circumvented" a message?
Or maybe (more likely) they were simply ... wrong.

What was recorded in the Bible was what GOD inspired holy men to write. What was written and bound as the Bible was overseen by the Holy Spirit.

None of that means that mistakes weren't possible or made.

The Scriptures say differently--as previously shown.

Sorry. I've read the OT cover-to-cover many times. Jesus patently Does. Not. Appear therein.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
There was no opposition between what GOD said(say unto the children of Israel) and that which was written by Moses in response----"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev.20:13)
The Lord GOD is just in HIS judgment.
There is no love in disobedience.
Click to expand...

Moses wrote nothing. Moses most likely never existed. I suspect God didn't say anything, either.

Your opinion is just that, but doesn't change what is written in the Scriptures. And we are discussing that which is recorded for all to read in the Biblical Scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

sincerly said: ↑
There was no opposition between what GOD said(say unto the children of Israel) and that which was written by Moses in response----"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev.20:13)
The Lord GOD is just in HIS judgment.
There is no love in disobedience.
Click to expand...



Your opinion is just that, but doesn't change what is written in the Scriptures. And we are discussing that which is recorded for all to read in the Biblical Scriptures.

Yes, it's recorded for all to read. BUT: It may not carry either the authenticity or the authority that you claim it carries. What's written is always up for discussion and evaluation.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
There was no opposition between what GOD said(say unto the children of Israel) and that which was written by Moses in response----"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev.20:13)
The Lord GOD is just in HIS judgment.
There is no love in disobedience.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is just that, but doesn't change what is written in the Scriptures. And we are discussing that which is recorded for all to read in the Biblical Scriptures.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's recorded for all to read. BUT: It may not carry either the authenticity or the authority that you claim it carries. What's written is always up for discussion and evaluation.

Sojourner, It isn't me that you doubt and claim

may not carry either the authenticity or the authority

The Scripture context states the source/authority/authenticity is GOD to Moses and the recording is there to read. Your not believing does not change the authority nor the authenticity of the recorded facts. Believers in the Creator GOD have no problems in the "Thus saith the Lord GOD".

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, It isn't me that you doubt and claim

Didn't say it was.

The Scripture context states the source/authority/authenticity is GOD to Moses and the recording is there to read. Your not believing does not change the authority nor the authenticity of the recorded facts. Believers in the Creator GOD have no problems in the "Thus saith the Lord GOD".

Circular reasoning. A text has no authority to state its own authority. Just because it says something doesn't mean it's automatically true or factual.

Yes, reasonable believers do sometimes have problems with a "Thus says the Lord," if it is incongruous with other, more reasonable positions.

 

[sincerly]

Didn't say it was.

Circular reasoning. A text has no authority to state its own authority. Just because it says something doesn't mean it's automatically true or factual.

Yes, reasonable believers do sometimes have problems with a "Thus says the Lord," if it is incongruous with other, more reasonable positions.

Sojourner, The source form what was written by Moses was GOD.
The only circular reasoning is your attitude of I', not going to believe it no matter how many times it is expressed.
The Scriptures say that the "reasoning of mankind" is far inferior to that of the Creator GOD.
Those same scriptures state the Creator GOD has given all of mankind the option to believe HIM or accept the "reward" one has chosen.
Again, Eve thought(bought into) the serpent's "position" was "more reasonable".

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, The source form what was written by Moses was GOD.
The only circular reasoning is your attitude of I', not going to believe it no matter how many times it is expressed.
The Scriptures say that the "reasoning of mankind" is far inferior to that of the Creator GOD.
Those same scriptures state the Creator GOD has given all of mankind the option to believe HIM or accept the "reward" one has chosen.
Again, Eve thought(bought into) the serpent's "position" was "more reasonable".

1) Moses didn't write anything because
2) Moses didn't factually exist. He's a literary character.
3) It doesn't matter how many times something ridiculous is expressed. Ridiculous and unbelievable is still ridiculous and unbelievable. Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't magically make it true.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Sojourner, The source form what was written by Moses was GOD.
The only circular reasoning is your attitude of I', not going to believe it no matter how many times it is expressed.
The Scriptures say that the "reasoning of mankind" is far inferior to that of the Creator GOD.
Those same scriptures state the Creator GOD has given all of mankind the option to believe HIM or accept the "reward" one has chosen.
Again, Eve thought(bought into) the serpent's "position" was "more reasonable".
Click to expand

1) Moses didn't write anything because
2) Moses didn't factually exist. He's a literary character.
3) It doesn't matter how many times something ridiculous is expressed. Ridiculous and unbelievable is still ridiculous and unbelievable. Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't magically make it true.

Sojourner, Those Prophets who wrote after MOSES declared that Moses not only was real, but that his writings were to be heeded as Moses had written---the words from GOD whom the prophets and the people had known to be valid--honored--to be followed.
Yes, and Truth and factual events, recordings and information are still Truth and factual---no matter how many times one tries to negate them.

 

[sojourner]

Those Prophets who wrote after MOSES declared that Moses not only was real, but that his writings were to be heeded as Moses had written---the words from GOD whom the prophets and the people had known to be valid--honored--to be followed.

My parents declared that Santa Claus was real too. Doesn't mean that's the case. The operative term in your argument is "had." They had known the statements to be valid. I'm sure they were, so far as their accuracy and cogency to a particular culture and time period are concerned. Now we know differently, and so it behooves believers to search for meaning deeper than what's found on the surface.

 

[sincerly]

My parents declared that Santa Claus was real too. Doesn't mean that's the case. The operative term in your argument is "had." They had known the statements to be valid. I'm sure they were, so far as their accuracy and cogency to a particular culture and time period are concerned. Now we know differently, and so it behooves believers to search for meaning deeper than what's found on the surface.

Sojourner, the operative words you are using are--"Now we know"--as expressed by those "scholars" one chooses to believe. However, again, it harkens back to the principle given by the serpent to Eve.---"Believe me and ye will be as gods".
My parents were not the Creator GOD, And the Scriptural accounts still ring true.
And we know today that what's in the New York Times isn't always factual.
The Scriptures isn't "had validity", but "does have"--still today and until the earth passes away.
It behooves the searching believers today Not to be side-tracked by the nay-Sayers of the validity of the scriptures who use the so-called scholars of today as authoritative.

The "deeper meaning" does NOT negate/change the meaning of GOD'S Messages to contradicting those messages.
GOD'S messages/principles do NOT change with the attitudes of the changing of cultures or secular opinions.(times in which one lives)

Isa.5:20-24, is just as condemning today as it was 2700 years ago.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."

 

[sojourner]

the operative words you are using are--"Now we know"--as expressed by those "scholars" one chooses to believe.

Oh, you mean the people that bring the bible to you in your language, so you can read it? Those "scholars one chooses to believe?"

However, again, it harkens back to the principle given by the serpent to Eve.---"Believe me and ye will be as gods".

Yeah, but you're missing the whole point of that Genesis story. Therefore, it's not cogent to the discussion.

My parents were not the Creator GOD

Neither was the fictional character Moses.

The Scriptures isn't "had validity", but "does have"--still today and until the earth passes away.

Only inasmuch as they are relevant to us.

It behooves the searching believers today Not to be side-tracked by the nay-Sayers of the validity of the scriptures who use the so-called scholars of today as authoritative.

It behooves the searching believers today not to be sidetracked by an unhealthy idolization of the biblical texts, and a simplistic insistence upon their "inerrancy."

The "deeper meaning" does NOT negate/change the meaning of GOD'S Messages to contradicting those messages.

It does if the details of the messages, through advances in knowledge and changes in cultural and societal norms, are no longer applicable.

Isa.5:20-24, is just as condemning today as it was 2700 years ago.

Isaiah isn't condemning. It's affirming.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, except that what a person is isn't sin. The bible specifically says that people, themselves, are not sin, because we are the imago dei. And the best scientific evidence we have states that homosexuality is normal, IOW, it's how some people naturally are. Therefore, to insist that "the way some people are" is "against God" is dehumanizing.

I natuarally like the idea of having sex with women but I don't sin by doing so against God's law. So it is not what I am that makes me a sinner but what I do that makes me a sinner. I don't buy the natural inclination to homosexuality. I believe it is a fabrication based on wishful thinking in order to legitiimize sin. And yes I do believe that homosexuality dehumanizes those who practice it.

 

[Muffled]

What I do not understand is if god had as big a problem with it as some claim, why doesn't god do something about it?

I most often get the lame duck excuse that god does not interfere with free-will.
Fine, but if this is the case, why do some people think they are free to something that god himself refuses to do?

I beleive God does not need to act because the sin carries its own penalty.

I believe that is not the case. God does not allow free will (the capability to sin) in Heaven or in the Kingdom of God.

 

[Muffled]

So you oppose equal treatment for non-Christians, idolaters (you know: people who pray to statues or the like), divorcees, women with short hair, men with long hair, and people who have looked at a woman with lust in their eye?

I'd like to know that you aren't singling out homosexuals without reason.

I believe Homosexuality is one of the few sins that is called an abomination. The only other thing called abomination is desecration of Holy Sites which is akin to blasphemy.

I believe this requires context. I equally love all of God's children despite how bad they are. I believe laws are necessary like "Do not expose yourself to children."

 

[sojourner]

I natuarally like the idea of having sex with women but I don't sin by doing so against God's law. So it is not what I am that makes me a sinner but what I do that makes me a sinner. I don't buy the natural inclination to homosexuality. I believe it is a fabrication based on wishful thinking in order to legitiimize sin. And yes I do believe that homosexuality dehumanizes those who practice it.

IOW, "I honor my own sexuality, and my own full humanity, but I refuse to honor that of others who differ from me, because it makes me uncomfortable." Well, isn't that nice and convenient for you? Typical, entitled response. No compassion, no dignity given, no equality offered. Just a simple, self-righteous, "EEEEWWWW!!!"

 

[Sonofason]

IOW, "I honor my own sexuality, and my own full humanity, but I refuse to honor that of others who differ from me, because it makes me uncomfortable." Well, isn't that nice and convenient for you? Typical, entitled response. No compassion, no dignity given, no equality offered. Just a simple, self-righteous, "EEEEWWWW!!!"

Indeed sojourner, considering the fact that molesting little children is a crime, it is quite convenient for me that I personally believe that molesting little children is disgusting and depraved behavior, and therefore something I would never consider doing. If such a despicable act were something that I enjoy, I would find it most inconvenient that it is against the law. So I'm not really sure what your getting at in saying that homosexuals are not offered equality. Do you think that all people should have the right to be happy? Are you suggesting that pedophilia ought to be legalized so that pedophiles can be happy too?

Presently, throughout this great nation of ours, all persons of legal age have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. We have equal rights under the law right now. But it seems that you are suggesting that this isn't good enough, and that homosexuals somehow deserve the right to be happy as well. You believe that contrary to popular socially established morals, that homosexuals, in order to be happy, should be permitted to legally violate the established morals of society. I think this is a very slippery slope, and I will do everything that is in my legal power to prevent this from happening.

 

[Uberpod]

considering the fact that molesting little children is a crime, it is quite convenient for me that I personally believe that molesting little children is disgusting and depraved behavior, and therefore something I would never consider doing. If such a despicable act were something that I enjoy, I would find it most inconvenient that it is against the law. So I'm not really sure what your getting at in saying that homosexuals are not offered equality. Do you think that all people should have the right to be happy? Are you suggesting that pedophilia ought to be legalized so that pedophiles can be happy too?

Do you think it apt, to compare an adult and a child? I find it absurd. Also, absurd comparing an adult human to an animal or inanimate object. Basically - you are using wrong units, comparing feet to quarts and still think you are making sense. Do you understand the inherent difference between an adult and a child in a legal sense? Additionally, you must be aware that it is somewhat demeaning for a adult human to be compared to a child, a pig, or a shoe? Are you intentionally trying to be demeaning?

Presently, throughout this great nation of ours, all persons of legal age have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. We have equal rights under the law right now.

Do you believe rights should be rendered based on gender or do you believe in Human Rights across the board. Are you suggesting that gay people get married to people they do not love?

But it seems that you are suggesting that this isn't good enough, and that homosexuals somehow deserve the right to be happy as well. You believe that contrary to popular socially established morals, that homosexuals, in order to be happy, should be permitted to legally violate the established morals of society. I think this is a very slippery slope, and I will do everything that is in my legal power to prevent this from happening.

You will fail. Gay marriage bans violate equal protection under the law. Everyone would do well to recognize the importance of equal protection as it guards against mob rule. Virtually, everyone is or will become a member of a minority. Slippery slope arguments are absurd. Would you ever argue that women can not be priests or soon dogs will be in the clergy? of course not.