PDA

View Full Version : Common sense in religion



shrewsbury
07-06-2012, 03:50 PM
religion can be a hot topic and often is. We have had some heated debates, hurt feelings, and even some personal attacks do to our choice of talking openly about religion. I love heated debates, I understand hurt feelings, but personal attacks are never an option, and against SCF rules.

so here is my new topic

Commonsense in religion

at first glance one could say, commonsense and religion have little to do with each other, people who believe everything in the bible show they have no commonsense.

I strongly believe logic and faith should go hand and hand, without one, the other is just a dream or illusion. And it is this thinking that keeps me being a Christian.

Most will point out miracles, creation, and godly intervention as proof the bible is not true, to me this is not an issue becuase how could any of us prove God or any act He may or may not do? We barely understand the atom, evolution, or the universe, much less God. This is where faith must play a role in any religion, but this is where my faith ends and logic takes over.

Why can't a Jew drink wine poured by a non-jew?
why is it not a sin for a muslim to lie to a non-muslim?
why do some speak in tongues, but not all?
why does any religion condemn anyone for not following their religion?
why would god need to threaten or punish us on earth?
why would any race not be equal to another?

These questions and others is what keeps me a christian, someone trying to follow the example and teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jews from various nations, and He taught to accept all, no matter who or what they were. His teachings were of enlightment and understanding, of peace, and love. Sure He needed to get His point acrossed to many and some would only be swayed by fear, in fact this is how many understood god in the days of Jesus. But for those that could grasp a deeper meaning He preached love, to accept all, that the only sin is what we create, that there is nothing that is sin, but only the actions of humans create sin. You can drink what you like, with who you like, you can eat whatever you are lucky enough to have, that prayer and alms are a way of living, not a deed to be done at certain times.

I often wonder why those who so easily attack christianity do not see the difference. perhaps it is because christianity is so widely known and many outside of Judaism, and Islam know little about it.

I also wonder why many christians still try to use fear as a way to understand God and why they are not opened to others, as Jesus and his followers were.

This all seems like commonsense to me, but I have no issue with others who do not think so.

mrveggieman
07-06-2012, 03:54 PM
Great points!! :):

Wickabee
07-06-2012, 03:57 PM
I often wonder why those who so easily attack christianity do not see the difference. perhaps it is because christianity is so widely known and many outside of Judaism, and Islam know little about it.

I also wonder why many christians still try to use fear as a way to understand God and why they are not opened to others, as Jesus and his followers were.


I actually think you sort of answered your own question right there.

JustAlex
07-06-2012, 04:13 PM
I think you laid out some fair points, and for the most part I don't have a problem with individuals no matter what their belief might be...

The problem I have with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and really all religions, is that they have created a FALSE DICHOTOMY!

I will use Pascal's Wager as an example of this false dichotomy.

When I was a Christian, Pascal's wager was used repeatedly at me to reaffirm my beliefs, and I have to say that to me it was foolproof.

But then I realized....wait a minute, if I were Muslim wouldn't I think that Pascal's wager would be valid for this set of beliefs as well???

And then you open Pandora's box and you realize that Pascal's wager can be used on basically ANY and ALL belief systems in the world.


But wait a minute??

I thought for sure that my beliefs were correct, I believed in Jesus and the Bible and it all made sense to me!


But then I started to question why there are so many denominations in christianity?

Why does the bible have so many translations?

Why are Catholics and Protestants BOTH christians and yet they are vastly different?

My conclusion....all religion is false.


I think christians are some of the nicest people I have ever met, and so many of them are truly sincere in what they believe and how they go about in life.....but I can't accept their religion, I just can't.

imronron
07-06-2012, 05:25 PM
I think you laid out some fair points, and for the most part I don't have a problem with individuals no matter what their belief might be...

The problem I have with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and really all religions, is that they have created a FALSE DICHOTOMY!

I will use Pascal's Wager as an example of this false dichotomy.

When I was a Christian, Pascal's wager was used repeatedly at me to reaffirm my beliefs, and I have to say that to me it was foolproof.

But then I realized....wait a minute, if I were Muslim wouldn't I think that Pascal's wager would be valid for this set of beliefs as well???

And then you open Pandora's box and you realize that Pascal's wager can be used on basically ANY and ALL belief systems in the world.


But wait a minute??

I thought for sure that my beliefs were correct, I believed in Jesus and the Bible and it all made sense to me!


But then I started to question why there are so many denominations in christianity?

Why does the bible have so many translations?

Why are Catholics and Protestants BOTH christians and yet they are vastly different?

My conclusion....all religion is false.


I think christians are some of the nicest people I have ever met, and so many of them are truly sincere in what they believe and how they go about in life.....but I can't accept their religion, I just can't.
What is your understanding of Pascal's Wager?

ensbergcollector
07-06-2012, 05:31 PM
alex - i call attention when i think you are being offensive, so the least i owe you is the opposite of that. thank you for your word choice in that reply.

JustAlex
07-06-2012, 06:02 PM
What is your understanding of Pascal's Wager?
Basically it's a philosophical argument as to why people should believe in God, here are the conditions:



If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.



The problem with Pascal's wager is that it can be used for every religion....furthermore, it's a false dichotomy since it's basically saying there are only two sides to this equation when in reality there are MULTIPLE sides and multiple ways to see it.

For example the fact that Pascal's wager is making an assumption that the options are only the christian god and no god. Well, what if the Muslim god is the correct god?

What if Zeus is the correct god?

What if the universe IS god, you know like pantheism?


There are far too many equations to just narrow it down to pascal's wager.

magic_bobcat
07-06-2012, 06:11 PM
alex - i call attention when i think you are being offensive, so the least i owe you is the opposite of that. thank you for your word choice in that reply.

I salute you for stating this.

Wickabee
07-06-2012, 06:15 PM
Basically it's a philosophical argument as to why people should believe in God, here are the conditions:



If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.



The problem with Pascal's wager is that it can be used for every religion....furthermore, it's a false dichotomy since it's basically saying there are only two sides to this equation when in reality there are MULTIPLE sides and multiple ways to see it.

For example the fact that Pascal's wager is making an assumption that the options are only the christian god and no god. Well, what if the Muslim god is the correct god?

What if Zeus is the correct god?

What if the universe IS god, you know like pantheism?


There are far too many equations to just narrow it down to pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager relates to the existence of God and not religion at all. You can't try to use it to relate to any particular religion, just the existence of God. Doing anything else is doing yourself a disservice.

magic_bobcat
07-06-2012, 06:16 PM
Pascal's wager relates to the existence of God and not religion at all. You can't try to use it to relate to any particular religion, just the existence of God. Doing anything else is doing yourself a disservice.

Without a god there isn't a religion though surely?

Wickabee
07-06-2012, 06:22 PM
Without a god there isn't a religion though surely?

Ask an atheist.

magic_bobcat
07-06-2012, 06:33 PM
Ask an atheist.

Sorry not trying to be dumb, but if Pascal's Wager debates the existence of god, then surely it debates the purpose of religion. Because if there's no god then there's no religion?

JustAlex
07-06-2012, 06:36 PM
Pascal's wager relates to the existence of God and not religion at all. You can't try to use it to relate to any particular religion, just the existence of God. Doing anything else is doing yourself a disservice.
Well, the thing about Pascal's wager is that it was originally exclusive for the christian god.

It made a false equation assuming that all other "gods" were either false or not real.

So, the "wager" was completely off from the very beginning.

And yet, to this day this equation is still used in certain churches to reaffirm the belief in the CHRISTIAN god.

Some people say that the Muslim god is the same god as the Christian god.....but their beliefs are different.

Here comes another dilemma...

How can one be "saved" if every belief system has different ways of what you need to do to be "saved".


Like I said in my first post, Christianity itself is a perfect example of this.

There is approximately 38,000 denominations to Christianity in the world!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

And each one has different beliefs and they all interpret the bible differently.

So, REGARDLESS of whether or not they believe in the same god, how can I be "saved" if they all disagree with each other about the details?

When people say that there are 2 billion christians in the world, this means nothing to me since they can't even agree with each other.

magic_bobcat
07-06-2012, 06:49 PM
Well, the thing about Pascal's wager is that it was originally exclusive for the christian god.

It made a false equation assuming that all other "gods" were either false or not real.

So, the "wager" was completely off from the very beginning.

And yet, to this day this equation is still used in certain churches to reaffirm the belief in the CHRISTIAN god.

Some people say that the Muslim god is the same god as the Christian god.....but their beliefs are different.

Here comes another dilemma...

How can one be "saved" if every belief system has different ways of what you need to do to be "saved".


Like I said in my first post, Christianity itself is a perfect example of this.

There is approximately 38,000 denominations to Christianity in the world!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

And each one has different beliefs and they all interpret the bible differently.

So, REGARDLESS of whether or not they believe in the same god, how can I be "saved" if they all disagree with each other about the details?

When people say that there are 2 billion christians in the world, this means nothing to me since they can't even agree with each other.

I guess (and this may open me up to abuse) but you could equate Christianity to basketball.

The NBA, NCAA, D-League, WNBA, FIBA, BBL (British Basketball League) etc all have different rules and regulations and even when you decide on a sect like NBA there are another 30 denominations of that sect.

So if Basketball = Christianity
NBA = Catholic
[Insert any team] = Roman Catholic
[Insert any other team] = Russian Orthodox

So even though the NBA, NCAA, D-League, WNBA, FIBA, BBL are all different they're still basically basketball.

ensbergcollector
07-06-2012, 06:57 PM
while there are thousands of "denominations" that disagree on thousands of little things, nearly every one has the same criteria for being "saved" so I'm not sure where the issue is on that.

JustAlex
07-06-2012, 07:11 PM
while there are thousands of "denominations" that disagree on thousands of little things, nearly every one has the same criteria for being "saved" so I'm not sure where the issue is on that.
Are you sure about that?

Because the BIGGEST denomination of them all (Roman Catholic) has some very wacky rules compared to Protestant Christians.

And I'm not saying this is the case for ALL protestant churches but.....some evangelicals believe the Catholic Church is 100% false and some even go so far as to say the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

So, I would definitely argue that they do NOT agree on how to be saved.

Wickabee
07-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Sorry not trying to be dumb, but if Pascal's Wager debates the existence of god, then surely it debates the purpose of religion. Because if there's no god then there's no religion?

Pascal's wager doesn't debate the existence of God. It doesn't even have to be related to God necessarily. It basically says you have 2 choices each with 2 outcomes:
"I'm a believer" + God is real = Eternal reward
"I'm not a believer" + God is real = Eternal damnation
"I'm a believer" + God isn't real = Nothing
"I'm not a believer" + God isn't real = Nothing

Given those odds it makes sense to believe in God. If there is no God and you believe there is, when you die it's no harm no foul. If God is real and you don't believe you go to hell. The odds tell you to believe in God. While it was first conceived to be about God, Christian God to be precise, it doesn't necessarily have to involve God. I think it says more about gambling and odds than it does religion. I also think it's stupid to "believe" in God because of Pascal's Wager and even stupider to disbelieve God because people use it. Frankly, any Christian who pulls out Pascal's Wager to try and convince you of Christianity has run out of talking points and is reaching hard trying to sell Christianity (or religion as a whole) as being the safer bet. Call me old fashioned, but my beliefs have nothing to do without safety...unless the topic is safety.

The reason I said ask an atheist is that they believe there is no God. Assuming that's true (which I don't personally, but for the sake of the conversation) then we have religion with no God right now. You can have religion without God and you can have God without religion. They are not dependent on each other and, despite popular belief, they are nowhere near the same thing.

magic_bobcat
07-06-2012, 07:27 PM
Pascal's wager doesn't debate the existence of God. It doesn't even have to be related to God necessarily. It basically says you have 2 choices each with 2 outcomes:
"I'm a believer" + God is real = Eternal reward
"I'm not a believer" + God is real = Eternal damnation
"I'm a believer" + God isn't real = Nothing
"I'm not a believer" + God isn't real = Nothing

Given those odds it makes sense to believe in God. If there is no God and you believe there is, when you die it's no harm no foul. If God is real and you don't believe you go to hell. The odds tell you to believe in God. While it was first conceived to be about God, Christian God to be precise, it doesn't necessarily have to involve God. I think it says more about gambling and odds than it does religion. I also think it's stupid to "believe" in God because of Pascal's Wager and even stupider to disbelieve God because people use it. Frankly, any Christian who pulls out Pascal's Wager to try and convince you of Christianity has run out of talking points and is reaching hard trying to sell Christianity (or religion as a whole) as being the safer bet. Call me old fashioned, but my beliefs have nothing to do without safety...unless the topic is safety.

The reason I said ask an atheist is that they believe there is no God. Assuming that's true (which I don't personally, but for the sake of the conversation) then we have religion with no God right now. You can have religion without God and you can have God without religion. They are not dependent on each other and, despite popular belief, they are nowhere near the same thing.

Ok, I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager until about 5 minutes ago.

ensbergcollector
07-06-2012, 07:42 PM
Are you sure about that?

Because the BIGGEST denomination of them all (Roman Catholic) has some very wacky rules compared to Protestant Christians.

And I'm not saying this is the case for ALL protestant churches but.....some evangelicals believe the Catholic Church is 100% false and some even go so far as to say the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

So, I would definitely argue that they do NOT agree on how to be saved.

acceptance of jesus christ as the son of God is the universal means to salvation in every christian denomination. do you know of any christian denomination in which that is not the case? I am very aware that there are many different ideas on how to live and what God expects and how to worship, etc. but even catholics and protestants agree on the jesus as son of God.

mrveggieman
07-06-2012, 08:28 PM
Pascal's wager reminds me of Proofs for the existance of God by Renee Decartes. When I was learning about that in school the teacher was explaining that Decartes was attempting to prove God in general not a christian, jewish, islamic, etc God. My personal belief which most people disagree with is that there is a God but that he wants you to worship him in the best way for you so if that is christanity, judiasm, islam or anything else as long as you are a good overal person and do what you feel in your hear is right by God you will be rewarded. Man is limited by the bounds of religion but God isnt.

shrewsbury
07-06-2012, 08:32 PM
to be saved as a christian, you simply need to believe in the virgin birth, jesus as the mesiah, jesus dies for our sins, jesus rose from the dead, and Jesus ascended to heaven, well i guess that ain't so simple.

you cannot put human logic or principles to faith, that is not how the faith part works. if you want to put them on you being a human, then you are on the right track.

habsheaven
07-06-2012, 08:35 PM
to be saved as a christian, you simply need to believe in the virgin birth, jesus as the mesiah, jesus dies for our sins, jesus rose from the dead, and Jesus ascended to heaven, well i guess that ain't so simple.

you cannot put human logic or principles to faith, that is not how the faith part works. if you want to put them on you being a human, then you are on the right track.

I guess I will never be saved then, because I have a problem with 3 of the 5 things I am required to believe.

shrewsbury
07-06-2012, 08:57 PM
what 3 my friend?
I might be able to get you in on a friends pass, no expiration, and at a low, low price!!!!

JustAlex
07-06-2012, 09:10 PM
what 3 my friend?
I might be able to get you in on a friends pass, no expiration, and at a low, low price!!!!
LOL....that was good.

If I had to guess though, I think the virgin birth, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven are the things that are hard to believe.


Personally I DO believe Jesus was real, and he probably did say he was the son of god, and he was probably crucified as well.....but that's it.

And hey.....guess who also agrees with me.....Jews!

habsheaven
07-06-2012, 09:13 PM
I am pretty sure Heaven is a place I do not want to spend all eternity in. I don't want to get into the "logistics" of it all, but I have a feeling it ain't going to be all it's cracked up to be.

habsheaven
07-06-2012, 09:18 PM
LOL....that was good.

If I had to guess though, I think the virgin birth, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven are the things that are hard to believe.


Personally I DO believe Jesus was real, and he probably did say he was the son of god, and he was probably crucified as well.....but that's it.

And hey.....guess who also agrees with me.....Jews!

Nope, you got 2 out of 3. Ascending to heaven I suppose could happen as religion doesn't really contradict itself on that point. The one you missed is died for our sins, with emphasis on the "died" part. How can Jesus "die" if He is God?

shrewsbury
07-06-2012, 11:47 PM
Habs, excellent point and question, how could god die and be reborn?
It is the human body that died, his temple, a place that houses God.

There is no doubt that having faith jesus was born of a virgin mother, he rose from the dead, and he ascended to heaven, is the biggest decision you can make in your life, most life altering, and a huge burden.

These were certainly the last things I came to believe, the hardest to initially accept, and longest personally debated topic I have ever had with myself.

But for some reason all the logic behind the other factors of christianity seem to be very logical to me, and this has lead me to have faith in something that I cannot prove or have first hand experience with, I have never seen Jesus nor the Devil, that would be the only way for me to know from experience and the only way i could prove it would be to introduce you to either of them.

Wickabee
07-07-2012, 12:18 AM
Pascal's wager reminds me of Proofs for the existance of God by Renee Decartes. When I was learning about that in school the teacher was explaining that Decartes was attempting to prove God in general not a christian, jewish, islamic, etc God. My personal belief which most people disagree with is that there is a God but that he wants you to worship him in the best way for you so if that is christanity, judiasm, islam or anything else as long as you are a good overal person and do what you feel in your hear is right by God you will be rewarded. Man is limited by the bounds of religion but God isnt.

I agree quite a bit.

theonedru
07-08-2012, 05:08 AM
Basically it's a philosophical argument as to why people should believe in God, here are the conditions:



If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.



The problem with Pascal's wager is that it can be used for every religion....furthermore, it's a false dichotomy since it's basically saying there are only two sides to this equation when in reality there are MULTIPLE sides and multiple ways to see it.

For example the fact that Pascal's wager is making an assumption that the options are only the christian god and no god. Well, what if the Muslim god is the correct god?

What if Zeus is the correct god?

What if the universe IS god, you know like pantheism?


There are far too many equations to just narrow it down to pascal's wager.

What if there is no hell or heaven but just an afterlife, ying/yang existing as equal yet separate entities. This is a much more logical and plausible argument and needs no God to exist

shrewsbury
07-08-2012, 09:32 AM
yin and yang come from the wu ji, which is "the one", which can be said to be the big bang or god. the one seperates to create the two, the two devides to create the four and the four splits to create the 8, this is bagua. everything comes from the one source and this source could easily be god.

I am not only a christian but i practice and teach bagua and have for a few decades, it fits in perfectly with my religion.

Wickabee
07-08-2012, 12:18 PM
Nope, you got 2 out of 3. Ascending to heaven I suppose could happen as religion doesn't really contradict itself on that point. The one you missed is died for our sins, with emphasis on the "died" part. How can Jesus "die" if He is God?

He's not, he's God's son. This is where the trinity falls apart...but don't tell anyone, a lot of people don't like to hear it.

Wickabee
07-08-2012, 12:19 PM
What if there is no hell or heaven but just an afterlife, ying/yang existing as equal yet separate entities. This is a much more logical and plausible argument and needs no God to exist

But if you're wrong, you go to hell.
If you're right Christians just die like the rest of us.

shrewsbury
07-08-2012, 05:14 PM
He's not, he's God's son. This is where the trinity falls apart...but don't tell anyone, a lot of people don't like to hear it.

please explain

Wickabee
07-08-2012, 05:30 PM
please explain

I don't have a Bible in front of me, but the notion that "The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" are all one being is just laughable to me.

shrewsbury
07-08-2012, 05:33 PM
one being?
laughable?

so i am not a father, husband, and son?

Wickabee
07-08-2012, 05:44 PM
one being?
laughable?

so i am not a father, husband, and son?

Are you your own father AND your own son?

God sent his only begotten son, didn't he? So, does that mean God himself came to earth and died and then, while dead, raised himself?


Yes, laughable.

shrewsbury
07-08-2012, 05:57 PM
so have you given any real thought to this, did you look at what jesus said about it and not what man has said?

it seems you are stuck with the explanation of the trinity that evolved around the same circumstances of man creating the bible, who were lead by a roman emperor, and not the teachings of jesus.

Wickabee
07-08-2012, 06:11 PM
so have you given any real thought to this, did you look at what jesus said about it and not what man has said?

it seems you are stuck with the explanation of the trinity that evolved around the same circumstances of man creating the bible, who were lead by a roman emperor, and not the teachings of jesus.

I think the whole idea is looney. There's God, there's Jesus and there's the holy spirit. Jesus is not God, Jesus is God's son.

And yes I've given real thought to it. I'm a little insulted you would think otherwise.

shrewsbury
07-08-2012, 11:33 PM
why would you be insulted by my question?

we have lived a different life and have different experiences, none better, just different.

here is osme interesting reading on the subject, this helps point out how man played a role in all this, not jesus


Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

if you are interested in anything else along these lines let me know.

Wickabee
07-09-2012, 01:43 AM
...That's fine. I fail to see how that proves the trinity, but it's nice...

mrveggieman
07-09-2012, 09:40 AM
You know I have been meaning to ask this for a while. I have already asked other people this and have yet to get a suitable answer. Christians often like to throw out the OT laws that they don't like because they are outdated. However they are quick to cling to the parts of the NT that they like including the books written by the apostle paul a man who never saw jesus face to face, originally hated christians, all of a sudden claims to have jesus speak to him and converts. That is one of the main issues that I have with the NT. How could some guy who never saw jesus in the flesh have as much if not more credibility than any of the other writers of the bible? If anyone dares to respond feel free. Thanks.

shrewsbury
07-09-2012, 09:57 AM
wickabee, it shows how man has defined the trinity, not jesus.

veggie,

the OT is kind of like listening to your grandparents talk about their childhood, cool to here but most has nothing to do with you, heck we can't figure out how they were walking uphill in both directions???!!!!

I think the books in the NT are written by people with good intent and shared what they thought jesus was about. being they were human, we will not all agree on what they said, nor did they agree with eachother.

Paul changed from a jew killer, to one of the greatest spokesman ever, he was more open and talked a whole lot more than the rest. I have no issue with paul, but I am also interested in Thomas and Mary. without paul i am unsure if christianity would be what it is today.

Wickabee
07-09-2012, 01:31 PM
You know I have been meaning to ask this for a while. I have already asked other people this and have yet to get a suitable answer. Christians often like to throw out the OT laws that they don't like because they are outdated.

That's your misunderstanding. Jesus' death broke the covenant God had with Abraham, making the Mosaic (or OT) laws null and void and bringing in Christ's Law.


wickabee, it shows how man has defined the trinity, not jesus.
I'm quite certain the trinity is a construct of man and has absolutely nothing to do with God or Jesus. That was my original point.

mrveggieman
07-09-2012, 02:14 PM
That's your misunderstanding. Jesus' death broke the covenant God had with Abraham, making the Mosaic (or OT) laws null and void and bringing in Christ's Law.


I'm quite certain the trinity is a construct of man and has absolutely nothing to do with God or Jesus. That was my original point.

So using that logic then the OT ban against homosexuality is also null and void.

Wickabee
07-09-2012, 02:42 PM
So using that logic then the OT ban against homosexuality is also null and void.

In a sense, yes. But there is this passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(New International Version)





9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

There homosexuals are put in the same category as drunkards, idolators, adulterers and a host of other "sinners".

mrveggieman
07-09-2012, 03:03 PM
In a sense, yes. But there is this passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(New International Version)


There homosexuals are put in the same category as drunkards, idolators, adulterers and a host of other "sinners".

Normally that would be fine but that goes back to my other concern. As some of you may know the book of corinthians was written by paul a man who never actually saw jesus in the flesh. I am interested in knowing any verses where jesus or someone who actually spent time with him spoke out against homosexuality.

Wickabee
07-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Normally that would be fine but that goes back to my other concern. As some of you may know the book of corinthians was written by paul a man who never actually saw jesus in the flesh. I am interested in knowing any verses where jesus or someone who actually spent time with him spoke out against homosexuality.

Well, it could be argued that Matthew 19:4 allows for only heterosexual and married sex:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’”

There's also this from John 5:46-47

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
Which would indicate that Christ's Law was based on the Mosaic Law. Whether that relates directly to homosexuality would be up for debate, but it's an easy argument to make that it does. Of course, it's also not a hard argument to say that eating shellfish is still wrong. How you interpret it is up to the individual, I guess.

shrewsbury
07-09-2012, 05:23 PM
wickabee great posting!!!!!

informative, referenced, direct, but still open!!!!

some of us may snarl, bark, and snap at eachother, but it is posts like these that keep me coming back, and why I believe all of us make this forum section the best.

mathew 19:4 tells me what marriage is about, but not that a homosexual relationship is sin, just that it can't be a marriage

Tivo32
07-10-2012, 12:33 AM
That's your misunderstanding. Jesus' death broke the covenant God had with Abraham, making the Mosaic (or OT) laws null and void and bringing in Christ's Law.

I would respectfully argue and say that Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled or completed the Abrahamic covenant. Thereby ushering in Christ's new Law. Maybe that's just semantics though.

Wickabee
07-10-2012, 01:02 AM
wickabee great posting!!!!!

informative, referenced, direct, but still open!!!!

some of us may snarl, bark, and snap at eachother, but it is posts like these that keep me coming back, and why I believe all of us make this forum section the best.

mathew 19:4 tells me what marriage is about, but not that a homosexual relationship is sin, just that it can't be a marriage

Thank you.

I would say you're correct, but a homosexual relationship implies sex, which is out of wedlock, which is fornication, which is a sin if you take everything at face value.


I would respectfully argue and say that Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled or completed the Abrahamic covenant. Thereby ushering in Christ's new Law. Maybe that's just semantics though.

It probably is semantics, but yes, you're correct.