Gamera

You believe wrong. The OT condemns homosexuality, for whatever reason. It also condemns the eating of lobsters.

Thankfully, I"m not under the OT. I'm a Christian.

seebs

There's a huge distinction between deciding to do something and being ordered to do it.

There is no moral merit in being forced to do something. If you are coerced into a course of action, it's no longer a moral choice; societal enforcement can turn an action from a moral one into an immoral one undertaken only out of self-preservation.

No, it's that I do not believe they are things that should be enforced on others. Motes and beams.

Yes, but there's a substantial difference between asking people not to harm me, and asking people to behave as I think I would in their circumstance.

As soon as you acknowledge that there may be deeper purpose to it, you open the door to the very real possibility that the same questions apply to the apparent prohibition on gay sex.

I don't see how, and no one's ever given me a good argument for it, either with or without Scripture.

So you've said, but I've seen no support for the claim. I'll spot you adultery. I see no condemnation of other kinds of sex outside of marriage.

Doesn't matter. There's no statement that extramarital sex is immoral, only a dearth of specific examples.

And yet He ate with prostitutes.

Seems to me that God rather changed that rule.

Not clear to me, yet. It looks like a shoddy inference. In fact, it's very much a cultural norm; our view is not at all like the view of earlier Christians.

"You have had five husbands."

In the absence of a single statement that they are not marriages, common sense says they are.

It never addresses homosexual activity outside of a very very narrow scope. Not, IMHO, enough information to draw a firm conclusion from.

rhutchin

As you have noted previously, the Bible consists of texts that have no power of their own. Whatever power the gospel could have can only be derived from God and that power is exercised as God determines and directs. Not all are saved; not all are sealed; not all have faith; not all are pierced by the word. Two people live side-by-side and both read the "texts" of the gospel and one is changed and the other is not. Certainly people have a choice. So does God. Who has ever chosen God without God also choosing them?

rhutchin

Yes. That can happen. On the other hand, a person can be coerced, if only superficially, to do that which is right (or not do that which is wrong). The issue then is to discern between the two.

No problem. The things that should be enforced on earth are the things for which a person will be judged when he stands before God. But you would seem to have a different list based on…what?

“…asking people to behave as I think I would in their circumstance.” Isn’t that what you are arguing against? Have you not been arguing that people should be allowed to behave counter to that which you would in their circumstance? You might "ask," but you would not object to a person doing the opposite of that which you ask of them. In the end, you would not ask anything of any person other than that they do that which is right in their own eyes.

Not really. God has taken a naturally occurring function (menstration) and used it to illustrate the difference between clean and unclean. He then ordered a certain action (removal from the camp) that coincidentally seems to have had secondary practical purposes (whatever those purposes were).

Sex is also a natural activity (but not naturally occurring as menstration), and God has identified certain sexual activities as immoral (sin). These include hetero and homo sexual activities.

You seem to be saying that no sexual activities are condemned except those by a married man/woman who has sex with someone other than their wife/husband. That would be adultery.

However, the Bible also refers to fornication which you need to do something with as I explain further in the next comment.

The term, fornication, seems to refer to wrong sexual activity. It would not refer to sex within a marriage. It can be adultery but this is a subset of fornication. Adultery is fornication but fornication encompasses things other than adultery. We see this distinction here:

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,…

So what is fornication? Paul says that it is a work of the flesh. Can we define it as something other than sexual immorality? Is there any reason why we cannot go to Leviticus to begin to define sexual immorality and include the following—

- you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife,… (Lev 18:20)
- You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. (Lev 18:22)
- Nor shall you mate with any animal…Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (Lev 18:23)

Christ ate with all types of sinners. He did not do it to commend their sin but to lead them away from that sin. However, it is also true that no person who is impure (sinful) will enter heaven.

Johnny Skeptic

Have you not said that you do not oppose homosexuality if a loving relationship is present? Regarding homosexuality, do you have any evidence that the Bible writers spoke for God and not for themselves?

Johnny Skeptic

Whose fault is that? If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, more people would be saved. Decent people are not able to will themselves to love a God who refuses to reveal himself to everyone. No man can fairly be help accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message (supposedly) exists.

If you have children, if they were drowning, would you try to save all of them, or some of them? If you would try to save all of them, why would you try to do that? Do you feel obligated to protect your children from drowning? Do you feel obligated to tell your children about the very same message that God deliberately refuses to share with many children?

rhutchin

It is the person's fault because the person sins and thus puts himself in the position where he needs to be saved.

Then, it is the person's fault who hears the gospel message who refuses to accept the salvation that is freely offered.

The, it is the person's fault who refuses to tell others the gospel message because he doesn't wnat them to be saved.

I guess we could say that God is at fault for giving people the freedom to do these things. However, if He had not done so, they wouldn't really be people would they?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If you have children, if they were drowning, would you try to save some of them, or all of them? I have asked you this question a number of times at this forum, and at the EofG Forum, but you have always refused to answer it. I guess that is because you know that if you do, you will embarrass yourself.

No person is in any more need of being saved from his sins than God is. God is an immoral being. Even Attila the Hun did not kill some of his most devout and faithful followers. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it t o New Orleans. God is the biggest threat in the world by far to humans and innocent animals. How are you able to love such a detestable being? You would never love a human who acted like God acts.

But you have said that it is God’s decision who he tells about the Bible, and now you are saying that it is a human decision whether or not to tell someone else about the Bible. Now which is it?

Whose fault is it that God refused to tell hundreds of millions of people about the Gospel message and allowed them to die without hearing it? Whose fault is it that God refuses to disclose additional information that would cause some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced?

Regarding predestination, there is not any credible evidence that the Bible writers who mentioned it were speaking for God and not for themselves. You have said that the Bible is inerrant, which you have never reasonably proven, and that the Bible all that we have. Those are not rational arguments.

God has the freedom to convince more people to become Christians, but refuses to do so. Thus, for that reason, and for many other reasons, decent people are not able to will themselves to accept him. For your information, Pascal’s Wager, aka risk assessment, does not work on decent people. Decent people are not able to abandon their principles based upon threats. If God told lies, you would not be able to love him even if he threatened to send you to hell if you refused to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is.

Assuming that the God of the Bible exists, HIS character is the fundamental issue, NOT the character of humans. No belief system is any better than its foundation is. The foundation of the Bible is God’s supposed good character. God has poor character. Therefore, the foundation of the Bible is faulty.

You have said that there is empirical evidence that God is good, but what is this evidence?

Jon Barleycorn

Well, what an amusing thread this is - & a perfect example (as if any were needed) as to why christianity is of no use whatsoever to anybody - we've seen three christians all arguing with each other as to what it is exactly that god means regarding homosexuality & sin - they've not been able to agree at all on what it is exactly that their god wants them to do! And, Rutchin is a perfect example of the morally bankrupt christian - I'd love to know your history rutchin, I'd love to know what it is that's bought you to this state of hating your fellow man quite so completely? Rutchin's idea of " a person can be coerced, if only superficially, to do that which is right (or not do that which is wrong)" is to......yes, you've guessed it..........kill them! Kill people for their own good, mind you........so they know what it is that his god disapproves of! Wow! A truly loving christian!! Surely seebs & gamera - you can acknowledge that whilst people such as rutchin can identify themselves as christians then any inherent good that the christian message might have once held can no longer be said to apply! In other words - so much death & misery has been caused by your "doctrine of love" that it is surely hight time to bin the whole awful thing? After all, if you can't even agree amongst yourselves - what on earth is the point of it all?

seebs

The problem is, if you're coerced into it, it's no longer "right". Right action is not something that can be emulated.

Pure pragmatism. We cannot enforce the laws God would judge by, and trying to do so is probably blasphemous. The purpose of earthly government is to give us an environment in which we have enough freedom and safety to consider our moral choices.

It has nothing to do with morality. Morality is inherently a question for individuals.

Yes, as long as they are not harming me by doing so.

Oh, I might ask many things of them. I might try to persuade them that I'm right, too.

But I will not compel moral behavior per se by force, and that includes "by law".

This is a lot of speculation and eisegesis.

Which ones, and how are you determining this? The OT only ever identifies sexual activities as unclean.

Well, it depends.

In the OT, the only adultery is to have sex with a woman who is married to someone else. For a married man to fool around with unmarried women is not adultery in the OT.

In the NT, I would argue that there are plenty of possible examples; for instance, despite the lack of explicit condemnation, I'd say rape is immoral.

Not at all. "Fornication" is a word coined to emulate porneia, and simply refers to immoral sex. Trying to determine which sexual behaviors are moral or immoral by referring to a word denoting sexual immorality is circular.

Exactly.

It could. If a married couple were having sex as part of an idolatrous ritual, for instance, that might be fornication. Rape within marriage is, I believe, clearly fornication.

I would agree with this.

Yes, a huge one.

Impurity is not immorality, and never has been.

It makes no more sense than taking an NT injunction against gluttony and going back to Leviticus to define food-immorality.

See Acts 15. We are not under the Law of Moses, and it does not tell us about morality; it was there to prepare us for the new covenant, but we now have a new covenant.

It is no more correct to go back to Leviticus to try to cherry-pick sexual morality rules than it is to demand that Christians keep kosher and circumcise their male babies. All that is gone.

This isn't to say that there is no such thing as sexual immorality; it's just to say that, instead of trying to get a detailed list of actions which are immoral no matter who does them or why, we are supposed to be thinking about how or whether our actions express love.

This is why we can condemn rape, even though the Bible hasn't got a word against it.

Obviously, given that everyone is sinful, we are to expect some kind of transformation between here and there. I just bought a new video game while there are people starving; I don't think I have any better claim on Heaven than people who are having immoral sex.