This one's a bit of an odd one to pull out to justify reviling gay people, since the full passage also condemns "revilers," too.
Does your Bible include 1 Timothy 4, BTW?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not a sin anymore???
- Thread starter Truth in love
- Start date
Does your Bible include 1 Timothy 4, BTW?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The ancient world did not have modern science and medicine, like we have today, that can mop problems that modern human behavior often create. Back then, if you got AIDS there was no medical solution, so death would occur. Since the wage of sin was death, it was considered sinful based on natural cause and affect; observational. The math added up. They would identify behavior leading to death and call it sin.
Today, we can use science and medicine to overcome natural cause and affect and allow artificial behavior, that would have been deadly back in the day. We can give liver transplant to an alcoholic. The taboo against shellfish, for example, was simply due to lack of refrigeration, like we enjoy today. The Middle East was a hot place and the time between harvest and buying at the market and cooking could be deadly. Pigs carry parasites due to their omnivore nature. Pork needs to be cooked, thoroughly, to prevent deadly digestive issues. Too many people, back then, as today, preferred rare, which was very risky. It was safer for all, to just make it taboo.
I would expect the ancient people would be confused by everyone ordered to wear masks for COVID; invisible bugs. Back then only the women would cover their heads or faces to avoid angels being tempted. They may have thought men now have to wear masks, maybe become the angels have become gay. Different times and different preventive measures.
I never seen a reference that specifically said that lesbian behavior was taboo, since this is not typically a natural cause of disease and death. Polygamy was common. The lessons of the Bible are more gear against promiscuous and gay behavior, since both were a know source of evil spirits; disease, before we knew how to cheat natural cause and affect.
To help atheist understand the underlying nature of religious attitude about behavior, it was/is about natural behavior versus manmade behavior, made possible science and medicine. Natural was God's creation and manmade was from man. In modern times, we can alter men and women physically through medicine and surgery to get transgender. But this does not occur naturally. Humans do not undergo any form of natural metamorphosis that allows sex to change. The ancient traditions tried to stay natural and not just follow the latest fads that science and the free market might allow. Natural was God's creation while unnatural was of man which was less than perfect.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Vid is blocked copyright issues
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So that would be a no I’m having a point. Your dislike of the Bible is clear, but this is not a Bible bashing thread.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
The law of Moses came to an end. This did not being an end to all commandments. Do you have evidence that God brought an end to the commandments on sex?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Where did God change his mind on the issue of homosexual behavior? When did it become not a sin?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
1. The kill the witch verse was badly translated.
2. The law of Moses came to an end.
3. The other parts of the Bible remain non force.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So that would be a no on the Bible saying it’s not a sin?
Colt
Well-Known Member
The Bible implies that homosexuality is immoral. Sin is deliberate disloyalty to deity.
If you accept the Bible as inerrant, there is no point in debating with you. You will not be reasoned out of what you were not reasoned into.
If, on the other hand, you accept the Bible as the best effort by mere humans to understand what God wants, then you can easily see how not understanding that something which is uncommon is not necessarily unnatural. Albino people happen -- very uncommonly (about 1 in 17,000), far far less than homosexuality happens -- yet it is a completely natural genetic variation. Would that make you suppose that albinism is a "sin?"
Your claim doesn't tally with expert translators. For example, my usual RSV says, "You shall not permit a sorcerer to live." Check out another 26 or so >here< ─ every single one of them disagrees with you and agrees with me.
So now we've cleared that up, you can start hunting them witches down and killing them, just as God ordered.
You're making excuses ─ you cited the Tanakh to support your argument in your OP.
That's what I said, you're keeping the parts you like and disregarding or making excuses for the ones you don't.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
The first commandment chronologically was the be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).
Matthew 22:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
If we are to Love God and Christ we are given a way. John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
As for not judging it is expressly not my place to decide your eternal fate, on the other hand that direction does not mean that I pretend that robbery, rape, murder etc are not sins.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Its far from implied as it is expressly condemned many times. One knowing the commandment and acting contrary would that not be disloyalty to God?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
3 in force auto correct fail.
2. The ending of some practices and punishments does not invalidate the core commandments that not “making excuses”
1. congrats to your translators, but I’ll stick with prophets.
Colt
Well-Known Member
No, its disloyalty of the opinion of the men who wrote the Bible that others made into a fetish by claiming that God wrote it.
"Your" Bible promotes some obscenely backward positions.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So in short you have no evidence from the Bible that it’s not sin you just don’t like the Bible.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Such as?
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well that is just a thing that modern progressive new age Christians don’t like.
But the truth of the bible is not grounded in what you personally like or don’t like, so these progressive Christians have the burden proof in showing that these verses are not really “anti gay” some efforts have been done. For example some argue that the bible condemns homosexuality only in the context of “polygamy” or “adultery” or”rape”…But there is nothing against moral, normal and authentic Gay loving relationships (as in a marriage).................................
…. But this is far beyond the scope of my own personal capabilities, I have no idea what the original text says, nor understand the original language, nor understand the original context…….
Or perhaps doing “gay stuff” is simply wrong, the fact that one doesn’t understand why is it wrong, doesn’t make it ok