Helpmabob

Bold - That would be dishonestly humble? Humility was part of Jesus' character, dishonesty would be totally out of character for Him.

Hi noah,

You said - The point is, however, that JC was not the only son of God as I am sure you will agree.

I would agree that I am an adopted son. I am like a branch grafted into the true vine. I do not deserve to be accepted before God. But Christ has earned the right to sit at God’s right hand.

You cite - [Deut 6:25] ("And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.") But it is also clear time and time again, that the people of Israel could not obey all the law. The book of Judges is stuffed full of examples of how the people disobeyed God turned to Him and away again. They could not behave themselves: But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways. Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and said, "Because this nation has violated the covenant that I laid down for their forefathers and has not listened to me, I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. [Judges 2:19-21]

I also try to focus more on how I stand with God today, and what I can do now, for myself and others and God. I pay less attention to what has happened in the past, and how the OT people will be judged, as I can do nothing about it. I reckon lessons can be learned from all ages, however.

You ask why I do not focus so much on the Old Testament and Luke. I admit there is no way I can carry out God’s commands perfectly on my own. But I know there is help at hand – a new covenant: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.� [Luke 22:22]

With the new covenant come new commands: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." [John 13:34,35]

Do I follow Christ, or Paul? I am a christian, although I appreciate the considered views of others and the fact that they tolerate mine. Paul was just a man, albeit a very devout and proactive one from whom a lot can be learned.

Ebonmuse - I recommend bringing that one up the next time some homophobic fundamentalist starts spouting off about the "sin of sodomy".

Or, you could try turning the other cheek?

diana

Hi, Helpmabob. I've been reading along here. I hope you don't mind if I interject, but the fact that dishonesty was supposedly out of character for Jesus was Bold's point.

What's happening here is that pharoah has looked upon the evidence, and produced that which belies the "Jesus did not sin" assumption. You have begun with the assumption and dismissed the evidence out of hand.

The fact remains that "Matthew"--divinely inspired, we're led to believe--stated that (1) Jesus claimed to not be "good," and (2) Jesus claimed to not be God. If Jesus was both good and God, either the book of Matthew is not inspired, or lying is a good, Godly act. Leading someone to believe something you know to be untrue--no matter how "humble" your motivations--is still a lie.

d

John Kesler

It's true that this passage doesn't mention sexual sin in condemning Sodom, but in fairness to the "fundamentalist," the NT book of Jude makes the connection:

diana

True, John. What might be more interesting--and enlightening to many, I daresay--is to use the term "Sodomite" to refer to those who commit the sins listed in Ezekiel 16:49 (pride, gluttony, idleness, not helping poor and needy). The bible in no way suggests the "unnatural lusts" problem was the defining sin.

d

mata leao

diana, the Bible makes it very very clear that the defining sin was sexual immorality and unnatural lust.

diana

You think so?

1. The sins of Sodom listed in Ezekiel 16:49: pride, gluttony, idleness, not helping poor and needy.

This verse becomes even more poignant in context. Ezekiel spends a great deal of time listing the sins and abominations of Jerusalem:

This is the point where Ezekiel lists the sins of Sodom. Jerusalem has been accused of being a whore in no uncertain terms. Not an unnatural whore, mind you. Just a common whore. And she is considered worse than Sodom.

2. The story itself in Genesis 19, in which the men wish to rape Lot's guests, which is hardly the "sexual immorality and unnatural lust" Christians traditionally attribute to it. However, I concede that rape arguably qualifies as both. (There are opposing theories that rape was a time-honored way to humiliate another man, and of course the modern assumption that rape is an act of violence.)

3. Isaiah 1, in which Judah and Jerusalem are likened unto Sodom and Gomorrah:

Nothing in there about sexual immorality and unnatural lust that I see.

4. Isaiah 3, where the sins in question appear to be pride, vanity and arrogance. The daughters of Zion, among other things, have "wanton eyes." This could be construed to be "sexual immorality," but there was clearly far more to the problem.

5. Jeremiah 23:14:

Adultery is mentioned here in conjuction with lies and helping evildoers. This constitutes a mention of sexual immorality, IMO.

6. Zephaniah 2:9-10, in which Moab is likened unto Sodom. Sin: pride.

7. Matt 10:15 (Mar 6:11, Luk 10:12), in which the offense is lack of hospitality and/or refusal to listen to the gospel.

8. 2 Peter 2:6: living "ungodly." More is discussed in the context, but I'm not sure who the author is speaking of; it appears to be those who would spread "damnable heresies" that he means.

9. Jud 1:7, as mentioned: giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh. More sexual immorality.

The bible makes it clear that sexual immorality was one of the sins of Sodom, but I fail to see how it is a "defining sin." I find no consensus on the matter.

(Most interestingly, I find only one verse that can reasonably be construed to argue that homosexuality was the problem. It's worth noting that Strong's definition of "strange" in "going after strange flesh" means one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different.)

The bible is unclear on what the defining sin of Sodom was, and perhaps we are misguided to presume there was any one defining sin. Nonetheless, were I to have to pick one, it would be pride.

d

Helpmabob

Hi diana,

I think you are quite correct to correct me in respect of my approach to logical argument. If my faith was based solely on logical arguments from the Bible, then I would be struggling.

God made not just our brains, but our hearts as well. When we only allow our brains to be used to deal with eternal matters that our brains cannot themselves fully comprehend, then we are fumbling around in the dark. It remains that the Bible describes Jesus as one without sin: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. [Hebrews 4:15]. This is the Jesus I recognise with my head and my heart.

As you point out in a different post, there are sins of the flesh, and of the 'heart' e.g. pride. hmb

mata leao

it is amazing how people will take clear, straightforward scripture and try to find ways to invalidate it in order to justify their homosexual and lesbian lifestyles.

Ebonmuse

Are you perhaps not aware of where you're posting, mata leao? This is an atheist board. The vast majority of people posting here are neither Jews nor Christians, and so we see no need to concern ourselves with what the Bible says in order to "justify" anything.

For the record, I agree that the Bible is an intensely homophobic book. There are many verses that clearly do condemn homosexuality, and these verses are morally unacceptable for that reason. But the verses discussing Sodom are not among them. As diana has capably pointed out, not a single Old Testament verse ever claims that homosexuality was Sodom's sin; you have done nothing whatsoever to refute this evidence, although you have made a number of completely unsupported assertions.

Ebonmuse

That doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that the author of Jude, like generations of Christians after him, misread what the Old Testament said. It wouldn't be the first time. Witness (and to help get this thread back on topic) another example, where Matthew makes a flat-out mistake when it comes to which prophet said what:

The only problem is that there is no such verse in Jeremiah. The verse Matthew meant to refer to is actually in the book of Zechariah: