Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[HoboJoe007]

incognition

See. thats just stupid, everything is a ******** sin in christianity, so its kinda a mute point.

i'm cathlic and my best freinds is gay and i support him



..... actaully 90% of my freinds are gay/bi 3nodding

[linaloki]

kellie15

This is ludicrous! the whole reason/ sin that caused god to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gommorah is homosexuality! That one man would be joined to one woman......



GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE...NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Proof that it was homosexuality when the Bible says it wasn't?

Proof that Adam and Eve were alone in creation?

[uzsTl]

linaloki

Nedak

linaloki

Nedak

[(Z)]

1) I want a verse that says it or else your points cannot be verified

2) If the "morals" of Leviticus still were applicable, then it would still be a sin to shave because, in that book, it says that removing your beard was an immoral thing.

3)Many of the phrases u have used were from newly translated versions, which have slight errors in them. I was in church, and my pastor even pointed out an error that happened in the new print. You see, homosexuality was not a word until LONG after Jesus's birth and death. It's not possible that the bible originally had a word meaning homosexual because there was not such word.

You're obviously talking to me.
Alright, I'll take number two. I don't know why I never took that point seriously...

I know that homosexuality wasn't a word at the time, or possibly even a known concept. But I'm talking 'bout the sex. Which obviously has happened, and was known to happen.

As for number one, I'm not completely, entirely sure what you're asking for, but I will point back at Romans where he calls same-sex, sexual relations as "unnatural" but fails to call any lustful opposite-sex, sexual relations as "unnatural", lustful or not. I really think it's absence of Paul never calling an opposite-sex relation as unnatural, yet never says that a same-sex relation wasn't unnatural.

Whose word will you taje? Jesus's or Paul's? Jesus said lust was sinful. No matter who was lusting. And I've explained that the Romans passage probably refers to public orgies. Which WAS unnatural.

As for the morals thing, which laws are the moralistic ones?

Like I said, I concede that Acts part and taking point number two.
If he was talking public orgies, then why mention same-sex sexual encounters at all? If he was talking about everyone, why stick these relations in the open, and not say, "and men were inflamed with unnatural lust for women just as some men were inflamed with one another"?
I don't like the sound of "probably" T-T

I would take the word of Jesus of course, the thing is that I don't know whether or not Paul was speaking the words of Jesus. I'd rather not take that risk and ignore Paul.

EDIT: I have to go soon, if anyone has anything to say to me and I don't respond on the forum, leave a PM.

Because Paul was an extremely devout Jew. Many of his beliefs in the Epistles stemmed from his Judaism. Example: Women need to shut up.

Oh noez. I'm back gonk

Okay so, basically what I'm getting out of you is, because Paul had Jewish beliefs, not everything he said could be taken seriously.
I always thought that Jesus chose Paul to go out and deliver this message.
That was what the blinding flash thing was about, right? In the end, Saul turns into Paul and starts going everywhere preaching. If I'm right about Jesus choosing Paul to preach some divine message, and I would think Jesus knew who to pick to preach such a message, (in this case, he decides to go with a devout Jew):
Jesus made a bad move deciding to go with a Jew to preach to everyone, this person didn't preach the message exactly as Jesus had planned. Paul threw in some extra stuff (his Jewish beliefs)
But if that's true, then why have I yet to see Jesus correcting him, or pointing out a mistake? Did he ever say, "Okay, that isn't the complete message that I wanted to get out. You worded this wrong."?

[linaloki]

Paul even says in some of his Epistles that some things are his own opinion.

I feel that Paul may have said some things that were based on his supremely Jewish background. This doesn't mean he was wrong... but perhaps misguided?

Point is, Paul must be taken under scrutiny as the wording is sometimes funny. We should always take Paul into some consideration before taking the words he said as straight from God.

[uzsTl]

linaloki

Paul even says in some of his Epistles that some things are his own opinion.

I feel that Paul may have said some things that were based on his supremely Jewish background. This doesn't mean he was wrong... but perhaps misguided?

Point is, Paul must be taken under scrutiny as the wording is sometimes funny. We should always take Paul into some consideration before taking the words he said as straight from God.

Okay, so, know that I know it's a fact Paul said things were his own opinion and can't really be taken too seriously, or even seriously at all, what about his saying what's natural and unnatural when it comes to sexual interaction?
How can we tell whether this was fact or opinion?
Or does the "he was probably talking about public orgies" take place here?

[[(Z)]]

Or was his own bias and refusal to admit the wrongs of levitican law clouding his judgement and making opinions and ideas that had nothing to do with God at all? For all we know, his opinions (not those of God) are what is written in there. I mean, if you look at it, it makes sense. Man doesn't like change. It's hard to accept. So, you can let that refusal influence your opinion and, in conclusion, what you write and condemn.

[uzsTl]

[(Z)]

Or was his own bias and refusal to admit the wrongs of levitican law clouding his judgement and making opinions and ideas that had nothing to do with God at all? For all we know, his opinions (not those of God) are what is written in there. I mean, if you look at it, it makes sense. Man doesn't like change. It's hard to accept. So, you can let that refusal influence your opinion and, in conclusion, what you write and condemn.

Sound almost like what Loki said...
and like Loki said, Paul admits that some of the things he said were his own opinion, and were most likely from his Jewish background.
The problem is figuring out which parts are fact(Word of God) and which parts are opinion(word of Paul) and in the case I'm putting forth, whether or not it was opinion that these same-sex relations were unnatural.

[[(Z)]]

You can't know for sure. You can only go by what is confirmed, what Jesus himself has said. He never once said anything about homosexuality being morally incorrect.

[uzsTl]

[(Z)]

You can't know for sure. You can only go by what is confirmed, what Jesus himself has said. He never once said anything about homosexuality being morally incorrect.

This brings up one question....

Unless of course, and I think this is what I should have figured out a long time ago...
Paul was nothing more than a messenger. True, he was sent to spread the "Good News", the word of Christ, etc., he just threw in some things and admitted that he had opinions that he threw into it.
Paul =/= God and admitted to that and that he voiced his opinions, which were his own human words.
or....
Does this mean that some of Leviticus's laws still have a place in Christianity?
True that Christians no longer have to follow all of Levitican law or anything like that from the Old Testament, but what about the ones that seem to be repeated in the New Testament? Jesus may not have condemned such acts, but God did. Could Jesus' silence on the matter mean that he agreed, and felt that there was no need to bring it up, since what he thought about it had already been said? He never said you couldn't, but he never said you could either.

Jesus' view on the matter seems to have never been confirmed.

[Goddess Hekate]

Nedak

linaloki

Paul even says in some of his Epistles that some things are his own opinion.

I feel that Paul may have said some things that were based on his supremely Jewish background. This doesn't mean he was wrong... but perhaps misguided?

Point is, Paul must be taken under scrutiny as the wording is sometimes funny. We should always take Paul into some consideration before taking the words he said as straight from God.

Okay, so, know that I know it's a fact Paul said things were his own opinion and can't really be taken too seriously, or even seriously at all, what about his saying what's natural and unnatural when it comes to sexual interaction?
How can we tell whether this was fact or opinion?
Or does the "he was probably talking about public orgies" take place here?

It's actually quite simple.
Women weren't allowed to have sex with anyone that were not their husband, in Greek society(Not that far from Roman really same roots) a woman wasn't supposed to even talk with their husbands because they'd have better male friends who they could talk to.
And to complete that part: It was forbidden for a male of female with citizenship to be a prostitute. (I'm not sure if the same laws were in Roman society, I wouldn't be surprised if they only allowed slaves to be prostitutes)

I'm rather sure he wasn't talking about pedestary(The act of taking in a younger male to teach him, this included sex) or "Friendships" since they weren't unnatural.
(Ignore me if you think my post is irrelevant since, I basically only know about greek society sweatdrop )

[linaloki]

Nedak

linaloki

Paul even says in some of his Epistles that some things are his own opinion.

I feel that Paul may have said some things that were based on his supremely Jewish background. This doesn't mean he was wrong... but perhaps misguided?

Point is, Paul must be taken under scrutiny as the wording is sometimes funny. We should always take Paul into some consideration before taking the words he said as straight from God.

Okay, so, know that I know it's a fact Paul said things were his own opinion and can't really be taken too seriously, or even seriously at all, what about his saying what's natural and unnatural when it comes to sexual interaction?
How can we tell whether this was fact or opinion?
Or does the "he was probably talking about public orgies" take place here?

The fact that Paul never really said anything original that wasn't his own words, and merely elaborated or added to things Christ had said... And the fact that Christ never said anything about homosexuality or homosexual sex...

Now, the naturality thing probably does refer to the public orgies. However, even if it doesn't, it can't be sure exactly what he was talking about. He didn't use the word that was translated as homosexual there... so what was different about that situation? That's why I personally, adding the lust factor and history of Romans, believe it's probably referring to orgies.

[Nicole Elmore]

What is sin?

[uzsTl]

Nicole Elmore

What is sin?

...
Something that's been described in the OP :3 .. (I hope that means first post)

[Goddess Hekate]

Nedak

[(Z)]

You can't know for sure. You can only go by what is confirmed, what Jesus himself has said. He never once said anything about homosexuality being morally incorrect.

This brings up one question....

Unless of course, and I think this is what I should have figured out a long time ago...
Paul was nothing more than a messenger. True, he was sent to spread the "Good News", the word of Christ, etc., he just threw in some things and admitted that he had opinions that he threw into it.
Paul =/= God and admitted to that and that he voiced his opinions, which were his own human words.
or....
Does this mean that some of Leviticus's laws still have a place in Christianity?
True that Christians no longer have to follow all of Levitican law or anything like that from the Old Testament, but what about the ones that seem to be repeated in the New Testament? Jesus may not have condemned such acts, but God did. Could Jesus' silence on the matter mean that he agreed, and felt that there was no need to bring it up, since what he thought about it had already been said? He never said you couldn't, but he never said you could either.

Jesus' view on the matter seems to have never been confirmed.

No, I believe that if anything was still to be valid he would have voiced it.
It really just follows a pattern.
OT - laws (We don't even know when they will be valid since it's just about impossible to follow them without sinning)
NT - Abolishes laws and certifies some few out of the many
Qur'an - Rectifies and Errects new laws for almost everything.

[linaloki]

Nicole Elmore

What is sin?

Definition is in the OP dahlin.