The debate "Christian debate over gay being a sin" was started by
November 23, 2016, 9:45 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 31 arguments to the agreers part.
WolfiesMom posted 5 arguments, neveralone posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, Neopatriarch, Ethan8336, harshita, sabrina, Rajat, redeemed, human and 9 visitors agree.
Cyril, WolfiesMom, tanya, ZenithOmega, Hillclimber, PoliticsAsUsual, sereinyy, Parallax, KiwiSheepTrainer, allyssa, JunioRodgers, ProfDoke and 23 visitors disagree.
cool beans. that was taking me forever to find. like a needle in a haystack
It was referenced in an article I read. So I remembered it, looked it up, and found the actual lines.
That's what I did quite a while ago and the shortcut usually works. I restarted the device and it would still launch to a black screen with occasional white flashes and never fully launch. First time I've had to uninstall and reinstall. Hope faith doesn't happen again.
the app crashes. Yeah i know that it occurs frequently. all you have to do is to make a shortcut in your home screen of your android. And launch the app through the shortcut. i promise it wont crash. if it crashes, restart your device.
what would y'all say would be an other controversial topic between Christians?
just out of curiosity how did u find that verse so quickly?
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Sorry about the late response. The app crashed and wouldn't launch until I uninstalled and reinstalled it.
exactly. thanks for finding the exact site
Mark 7:14-23 PsychDave
it's a story of sexual impurity so try again.
I'm disproving what ur saying how is that ignoring?
That is a story about rape, ot homosexuality. Try again.
I understand that, but you are ignoring anything that doesn't suit your belief. I'm going to stop trying because while you can't see the hypocrisy of picking which rules are convenient and saying they don't apply, hopefully people reading the arguments can.
this is about beliefs if u look at the topic. we are talking about the Christian BELIEF on gay. which is that it's bad. I am offering Christians who don't believe so to explain why so I can see there side.
have u read the Bible fully or do u just like to nit pick it?
I can't seem to post the exact words so here's a quick version.
angels went to town, lot let them stay at his house, they were disguised as MEN, MEN came to the house to rape them, lot said it was wicked, angels say to lot that because of these things and more that God will destroy the town.
ergo God is agaisnt it
Eating shellfish is just as much a sin as homosexuality since both are mentioned in the same book. You don't even have a weak argument, you are simply stating your beliefs as fact.
When was it nullified? You keep saying that as though you had provided something beyond "we ignore it" to justify your argument.
If you know the story, you know it was not homosexuality that resulted in the destruction, it was people wanting to rape angels. Unless you think gay people all want to rape angels, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
we follow them all. the one u r talking about was a) to Moses and the people for that time only and b) has been nullified.
it's because it's so small and weak of an argument that it's sad. I mean unless u think eating shellfish is a sin then this is a poor defense.
no there not a sin
I know it's story.
It's funny how most Christians agree that rules that would prove inconvenient to them don't matter, but ones that justify them singling out other people do. I wonder why that would be.
Don't bet that I can find something, do your research. Find me an example or admit that it doesn't exist.
You can't bless it because it's a sin? So is eating pork and shellfish. Find some consistency or admit to your hypocrisy.
Could you read the story of Sodom? I think you will be surprised by what it is about, and it will simply this conversation if you know it.
yeah I'm surprised u know that story it's pretty good and can teach u much. but somone eating habits isn't much of a big a deal. most Christians agree these were rules only to Moses anyways.
those aren't laws for the whole. again look in the Bible and I bet I u'll see somone eating shellfish and did God punish them? no but God did punish Sodom and other cities for sexual impurity
u can't though. it's against God's will
Has every sin been addressed in the bible? The Church also follows natural law.
Yes, I really think Jesus never ate these things. It would have been remarkable to his followers and would have been noted that Jesus ate "unclean" things. If we know he washed a poor woman's feet, do you really think they wouldn't have commented on him eating prohibited food?
So what? You could bless a gay marriage, does that make it acceptable?
Sin is sin, so to excuse yourself for breaking religious laws but to oppose others for breaking different laws from the same book of the Bible makes no sense.
I was remarking on what history said. there isn't one as far as I know but do u really think Jesus never ate these things? also we bless our food
That makes absolutely no sense. If freeing slaves is wrong, free speech is too?
Give me the verse Jesus said "You may now eat shellfish."
his last one isn't hypothetical. it is a nullified law while the other wasn't. we now bless our food before eating it. so that's another reason. would u say slavery is bad and should be nullified? if so then having freedom of speech should be to by ur reasoning.
so despite there being nothing to distinguish the two in the Bible, you think that one crime is a horrible sin and the other is antiquated rule?
do you ever even try to analyze the things you believe? because they are incredibly hypocrital.
Shelfish was never a question of morality. I believe jesus even said that what is consumed doesnt matter.
So the prohibition on homosexuality stands, but the prohibition on shellfish is obsolete because Jesus came. You don't see the hypocrisy in that statement?
Lobster was a tradition of the Israelites. Christians are not bound by the laws of the Old Testament; however, the morality of both are the same. Jesus gave a new tradition to the Church.
Watching pornography create a filter in which you see the world. It sexualizes. It doesnt have to hurt someone.
red lobster? look in the Bible after that and I'm sure u will find them eating these things and God not condemning them.
If breaking the riles is a sin, where is the mass protests against Red Lobster? Again, you cannot claim some are still rules and some not without some form of justification for the difference. Why is eating shellfish no longer prohibited?
they arnt. there sin is. two very different things.
the idea that it is immoral is solely a social construct. they aren't hurting anyone. what makes it immoral?
the first part I agree with
with the second one it's not only about what's logical but whats moral.
That's why I don't understand why you accept disregarding rules from the old testament like eating pork and shellfish being prohibited.
When the rules were made they were logical since both of these could make people sick. Since we have better food preparation practices, they are safe now so we don't need to worry about it.
When homosexuality was banned, thwy needed to increase the population. Telling people that same sex relationships were wrong forces them to either make heterosexual pairs or face being kicked out of the community. This encourages people to reproduce, even if they otherwise wouldn't have. In a time when they were out numbered and needed to increase their population, this is logical, if harsh and cruel. Now that society has evolved, this kind of rule is unnecessary.
that's fine. ok but I look at the Bible as a whole instead. old or new doesn't matter to me. their sections to a whole.
Fair enough. I just added the statement about my beliefs about the Bible because it likely sheds some light on why I disregard rules from the old testament as being irrelevant. As I don't believe they are divinely inspired, I don't believe they should continue to be respected if they serve no societal purpose. I don't intend to pursue that line of argument though.
that'd ur opinion. idk on the priest not being able to marry. that's mainly a chathilic thing.
I don't think all laws were right at the time. Laws are often made to benefit those in power. There are many secular and religious rules that benefit those in power and not everyone else.
I suspect I also differ from you in that I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Even if it originally was, over thousands of years of editing religious leaders have modified it to suit their interests. Priests not marrying is an obvious example since the Bible actually laws out restrictions of who they can marry, meaning they were certainly allowed to. I think various religious leaders and authorities have modified the Bible, as evidenced by the fact that there were actually councils to decide which version to follow and what books shouldn't make the cut. That gives me more justification to criticize biblical rules, but I try to avoid using it much in debate since it would be only somewhat related to the topic and opens a whole new cam of worms.
Idk if Jesus did (we weren't interested in his meals) but lets think about this. when did we stop doing said things? I would bet shortly after.
not parts but old laws. would u say all laws ever made were right for them at that time? a) as u said he was talking about adding not nullifying.b) he was talking to the them who were adding laws.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there are many rules you ignore because they would be inconvenient if you still had to follow them. Where is the Christian outrage that women are having sex on their period? Where is the outrage about people eating shellfish? When did pork stop being banned? (contrary to your statement, I cannot ever remember Jesus eating pork).
You say Jesus did away with parts of the Old Testament, but Jesus himself disagrees. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus argued with the Pharisees about the rules they had added to the law, but if those are included in the Bible it has already stopped being the word of God and become a book of human rules, removing its authority.
no he didn't come to abolish them he came to sacrifice himself for us which abolish the sacrifice laws on the side.
Yes, I was questioning why some parts have been nullified, and others had not. Jesus himself said he had not come to abolish the laws.
I believe psych Dave was tackling why it's silly for it to be arbitrarily nullified, I'll let him get back to that. I was just correcting your definition of kosher.
when u read the Bible as a whole instead of a price u see later that they eat pig and no one says anything is wrong with that. why? because it got nullified.
what still doesn't work. you said it doesn't apply to pigs, but it does.
I think Dave does. idk about other.
They dont care to understand haha
ok...still doesn't work.
you forgot the restriction that they must chew their cud.
pigs do not chew their cud, therefore not kosher.
Moses was leading the people. at that time they needed help getting there stuff all good so God gave them these commands.
read back and forward and u will see they were. they were allowed plenty off fish and pig. they weren't allowed any land animal that didn't eat plants or didn't have hooves that were split. so they could do both.
rules as to guide there people in life forever. these rules are the commandments of God to all the people. also if u read the Bible fully u will see that they later stop following these rules.
You are aware that God gave the instructions to Moses, which then passed them on to everyone else, right? They were commands for everyone, not just forbidding Moses personally from doing things.
The shellfish prohibition was not about sacrifice, nor was the prohibition regarding pork. Why are Christians not pursuing the fishing and farming industries.
Finally, most of them don't say anything about sin. They say "don't do this". God never says the 10 commandments are sins, he just says "thou shalt not kill" and we are pretty safe in assuming that breaking that constitutes a sin since it is breaking God's rules, right?
Lev. 3:17- that was for animal offerings that's why u weren't supposed to eat fat. now we got Jesus so the fat is not needed in offerings therefore can be ate.
Lev 11:4-7 again this is about sacrifice so no longer needed since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
lev 12- yet another about sacrifice and again same answer.
about fields- it says that is for the poor and when actually read never says the word sin and sounds more like it's just to then than all
lev 19:19 is about having sex with animals.
beard thing. not a word saying sin. also again sounds like he's talking to them only not to us all. I am also all for not cutting my beard. haha
all of ur examples actually start with "and the Lord said to Moses" not and the Lord said to all.
Buy you ARE picking and choosing what you want. Have you eaten shellfish or pork? Have you eaten fat? These are obsolete sins, but they come from the same place. You still haven't explained why they are ok now. You justified defying God's punishments for sinning, but have yet to justify picking which ones are still sins and which not.
1) I follow the Bible as a whole. because all of it is the word of Jesus.
2) idk what ur talking about with menstruation. that was the Jews way of punishment which Jesus stopped. I think there should be some form of punishment but if u want to discuss that make another debate or we will get too far off topic. "though shall not kill" words to live by.haha:-) it's more than that with other Christians. on adultery there is but there isn't as much agruement agaisnt it with other Christians since Jesus himself says not to do it. u can with ur wife. again look at reason on adultery.l look at reason above for not being killed. ours revolves around the Bible as a whole. we don't pick and choose parts that we happen to agree with.like the new testament.( might sound angry but am not). again look below on this one.
1. I know you didn't mention Moses! I mentioned Moses because I wanted to point out that I acknowledge the Old Testament for the information, historical backgroud, tradition & lineage of Jesus it provides but in practice, I follow the New Testament. As a Christian, my focus, in daily living, is following & living by what Jesus taught. That's why I said I follow Jesus, not Moses.
2. Again, why the focus on sex? If you must stay living in the Old Testament, there are many laws & commands you can find that are violated daily. So why is it that homosexuality is always the #1 issue? Why not be critical of men having with women during menstruation? I don't hear people in an uproar over this topic! Or what about adulterers? In Leviticus, they are to be put to death. Why aren't we executing adulterers? And why isn't the public outraged that we're not killing them? Why is the outrage only about homosexuality? About 2 people loving each other. Where's the outcry against the adultery or the man who has srx with a women during her period? Or what about cursing your parents? They are to be put to death, too. But there are no Christian cursades against these people. Their are only Christian cursades against homosexuals. I don't understand that but then again, my daily living doesn't revolve around the Old Testament. I follow Christ & His teachings in my everyday life. And as a follower of Christ, I, also, cannot nor will not judge the adulterer, the man having sex with women during menstruation or the homosexual. They can all eat at my table because, as a Christian, I am to welcome all in my heart. If Adam & Steve are doing something against God, then it is between Adam, Steve & God, not me. That's what Christ teaches.....acceptance not judgement.
that was probably a bad analogy. I meant if u were God and u wanted to make the stick longer with anything. exactly he made man in his image. so why not make another perfect image to complete it? instead he goes to a lot of trouble to make something completely different and new from man? God's work is never done until after Revelations and then it only lessens slightly if I had to guess. why would he do that when he made a perfect union.
God made murders and rapist to. do u think that's wrong? gay is a sin. it's not a part of the person originally per say. sin is a weight that will inevitably destroy u if u don't seek forgiveness. it only needs a foot hold then it's like rot. but it does not make the person. like I said I have a friend who is gay. do I think there sinning?yes. do I judge them for it? no. we all sin. sin was not created by God so a person having it does not make God have a mistake.
That's fine, but you are extrapolating what God thinks from limited information. If I wanted to make a stick longer, 9t depends what was available. If a fishing rod was handy, why would I discard it to find another stick. I'm not sure where your analogy was going. God made man in his image. Why not make whatever he wants to to complete them? Do you assume that, at the moment of creation, God was done making new things? If so, you cannot be God's creation. If not, why couldn't God create gay people once there was a sufficient population?
God made gay people too. Since we cannot choose who we are attracted to, God made them gay. Do you believe God made a mistake?
though I think Adam and Steve is supposed to be slightly funny in the first place. I think it's funny because it makes me think what if God actually did that? also just to add to the argument no one made to complete another in the Bible was of the same sex
that's not exactly the argument I'm using. let me ask u. if u have a stick and u wanted to make it longer with something what would u first think of? another stick. not a fishing pole. if God made man in his image why wouldn't he just make another man? because man+man doesn't complete them. idk exact Genesis verse but it's in there and I don't have my Bible with me to cite it.
The argument that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve is always hilarious. It was also Lott and his daughters, not Lott and his sons. Does that mean it's ok to sleep with your kids, as long as you aren't gay?
You still have failed to justify ignoring some rules and not others. It was a sin to eat fat. Why not anymore. It was a sin to eat shellfish. Why isn't it now. You said the rules stayed but the ceremonial punishments didn't (for some reason), so why are these things ok?
why only his?the old is still true today. because a) we believe in no sex before marriage. god made us able to have sex for marriage alone. and b) sex is something from God. this particularly is an affront on God because he didn't make Steve he made eve. why make something completely new and different to complete Adam? why not just another man? Because this is how God wanted it.1man and 1 women.
Moses was a follower of God as well . why would he be taken out also I never said anything about him. only about God
Do you believe premarital sex is wrong?
Pauls Romans 1 i believe is where it is discussed
You're still quoting Old Testament. Talk about the teachings of Christ. Also, why are so many Christians hung up on other people sex life? I've never understood that one. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just asking why so many Christians have issues regarding sex btwn consenting adults. Personally, I don't want to know what my neighbors are doing in private. So that's my question to you. But please, as a Christian, talk more about the teachings of Christ not focus on Jewish law & Jesus' Jewish heritage. I'm a follower of Christ not Moses.
look at that we settled this in under 20 post when usually it will be over a hundred.:-)
we may both be. but on sin is sin God says do not be lukewarm or I will spit u out. This is to say there is no gray with God.
Our values & system say they are not equal. I do not believe these are equal offenses. My point though was to say, as far as I know, God does not say one is worse than the other.....hence, sin is sin (if one believes in this same system). Also understand, I'm not saying I'm right about all this. This is what I believe for me. I may be dead wrong.
do u not remember Sodom? not trying to be rude. no there even I never said either is worse than the other. he did teach love but also not to abide sin or injustice. idk what ur trying to say on the rest.
A sin is a sin. But are murder and lying in a trivial case equal?
First, no, Jesus NEVER said being gay was wrong. You, yourself, instead of listening to other media, go read the New Testament. Download your version of the New Testament then search for homosexuality, etc. Jesus, Himself, never said a word. Yes, I looked myself. Not a word. As far as God not abiding in sin. As a Christian, we're all sinners. God loves me as a sinner. Sin is sin. If you think homosexuality is a sin (which is don't), so is lying. Christ doesn't say one is worse than the other! A sin is a sin. Christ taught love, not hate, not judgement. It is BECAUSE I'm a Christian that I support marriage equality. Christ taught love, not hate, judgement or intolerance. I cannot judge someone for who they love.....that's insane......who they LOVE......listen to how that sounds......I don't like a particular group because of who they love!!!! Yeah, I don't want to be explaining that to God at my judgement!!!!! Christ wants as to love! I cannot judge but only do my best, as a Christian, to love, respect, care for my fellow human beings. As I said previously, if I'm wrong in my belief, than let me error on the side of love, not hate; acceptance; not intolerance. For that is what I will be judged on.
I will clear this up. Take Leviticus 20:10.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death
The first statement made is one that is moral. We see that there is something obviously wrong with doing adultery. It is the moral law to which the stoning is performed. If we look at the stoning itself, it is a ceremonial law. We can see clearly that adultery is wrong, and that stoning is the proper recompense; how we react to adultery--the ceremony to perform. For tgis reason, adultery to this day is still sinful.
The morality of the old testament remains the same. Christians are not bound by Jewish ceremonies. Those were ways to follow God before we could follow Christ. But what always still remains is the sense of justice and morality left by God.
I agree on the parts u mentioned idk on where these even defend his stance but he gives good points later on.
God was talking to Moses only when he said that. on other rules he tells everyone.
Your link says Jesus was God of the old testament as well, but that would reinforce all rules, not just the one.
It says lots of Jesus teachings were not recorded, but that can be used to justify anything. It says he also never addressed rape, incest or other topics, but again this is not justification so much as rationalization.
Could you explain where the difference between the rules comes from in a bit more detail? How are are the rest of the rules just for Moses but that one carries through to today?
jesus does say it. do u not remember these verse or city's.though please stay u r the kind of person I wanted in this debate.
"not judging, being good to everyone & knowing that Love is the greatest gift of all" these are good points but God also can't abide sin. he is a god of Justice as well. that is one reason we need to be forgiven. also examples of why it is is in the link.
I'm a Christian who supports marriage equality. I feel the Christians who don't support marriage equality or equality across the board for all are not following Christ's words regarding whatever you do to the least of these.....Also, as PsychDave pointed out regatding Leviticus, there are many "evils" listed other than homosexuality yet there seems to be an obsession about sex. Leviticus is most quoted verse when judging gays. Christ, founder of the Christian church, never said a word about gays. As a Christian, I talk all into consideration but focus on not judging, being good to everyone & knowing that Love is the greatest gift of all & with that, I support marriage equality. If I'm wrong, than God will determine that not humans but I'd rather take a chance to error on the side of goodness, love, equality & caring for my brothers & sisters without judgment.
this is more of a command to all of us rather than just Moses.
In that case, why is homosexuality a problem? If the rest of this is no longer applicable, why is that one?
Actually read Leviticus and what it pertains to. Those were the laws God told Moses to establish for the Isrealites. That is why it isn't a issue.
The same section says it is a sin to eat fat (Leviticus 3:17), eating most kinds of meat (Leviticus 11:4-7), eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12), going to church shortly after giving birth (Leviticus 12:4-5), harvesting the edges of a field (19:9), mixing fabric in clothes and crossbreeding animals (Leviticus 19:19), planting two crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19), trimming your beard (Leviticus 19:27), and working on the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3). How many of these do you feel are morally wrong and how many are no longer valid? Why does the condemnation of homosexuality remain a sin, but wearing cotton-poly blends isn't an issue?
If I am off on verse references I apologize. The app crashed repeatedly while trying to complete this.
That is because what you've said is true.
Homosexual acts are a sin for sure. I cannot find anything stating that just being gay is a sin.
The ceremonial requisites of the old Testament are not continued by Christians. However, the moral requisites still stand.
the rule against homosexuality is right next to the rule that says if you disrespect your parents you should be beaten to death. if you won't enforce all the rules then you can't pick and choose which ones you like.
I wanted to do this because of another agruement saying there's Christians who support gay marriage and I wanted to see there side. this is mainly for Christians but if someone from a dif. religion or lack of one wants to play devil's advocate that's fine too