Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

[Jon Miller]

babies are not sinful, they are just predisposed to sin

that means that they are attracted to it, that does not mean they have sinned

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I am tired, if I remember this thread I will return (I want to hit the others before I go to bed)

Jon Miler

[David Floyd]

read Hebrews, in particular the bit about Abraham

he was not christian

I'm sorry, you're of course correct. My understanding is that before the Christ, the people who went to heaven were those who believed in the coming Messiah, basically Godly men. I was speaking more about post-crucifixion, though. Most OT law applied only to Jews, anyway.

[Felch]

Why don't born again Christians live forever?

[Jon Miller]

I think that it is true post-crucifixion as well

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My understanding is that before the Christ, the people who went to heaven were those who believed in the coming Messiah, basically Godly men.

Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

[David Floyd]

Why don't born again Christians live forever?

Everyone lives forever, because of the concept of life after death. One either lives with God, or lives separated from God.

I think that it is true post-crucifixion as well

Actually no, the Bible states that only those who specifically accept Jesus are saved.

[David Floyd]

Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

If it's in the Bible, I've certainly never seen it. Could be wrong though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

I believe that this is one of the supposed prophecies of Revelations, so the big J will do that after the second coming.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no

it is not obvious that non-christians go to hell

read Hebrews, in particular the bit about Abraham

he was not christian

Jon Miller

He was neither a Christian nor a Jew. According to the Koran, he was a Muslim, because Muslims are pure faith, which he was, because he was not an idolator.

I guess you can look at anything in any way and still come out right.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is the whole "Jesus going down to hell and whooping some demon ass and freeing the good souls who had died before Jesus could absolve them of their sins" story actually in the Bible, or did Dante completely make that up?

It is based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water (1 Pet 3:18-20).

For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does (1 Peter 4:6).

This idea is also represented in several creeds of the early church councils.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I agreed with that. I am just thinking that the word may not have that meaning in anything outside the Bible considering how far down the list it was.

I'd doubt that . . . to "know" someone is a common euphemism for sexual relations in many languages including English. The reason it is "so far down the list" as it were is because it is a specialized meaning and because yada is one of the most common words in the Hebrew Bible and has so many different connotations.

However, just to be sure, I'll check DCH (Dictionary of Classical Hebrew) the next time I'm in the library to see how it is represented in extra-biblical literature.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I understand that. But let's take that through to its conclusion.

The wages of sin are death. Death, in that sentence, equates to hell, separation from God. Therefore, sin equals hell.

Actually not. The wages of sin is death. There is no equation to "hell." Sin causes the incorruptable to become corruptable. Therefore, death is the result of sin. No sin, no death.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If one doesn't sin during their life, they won't go to hell. But, it is impossible for one not to sin. Yes, one has a choice about which action to take, but the Bible itself even says that all have sinned (and by logical extension, all WILL sin). Therefore, in actuality there is NO choice in the matter, and we will all sin at some point.

We all sin by choice. The Bible simply observes this fact.

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is of course because we are born with a sin nature. We did nothing to deserve this sin nature. The sin nature is there because of Adam and Eve's sin. Thus, every person is born with a sin nature that is a result of the sin of two people thousands of years ago, and as a result of THAT, everyone will go to hell.

We are born into sin and a sinful world. We have a predisposition towards that sin because of our finiteness. It is not necessary that we sin though. Our sin results from choice.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless, of course, they become a Christian.

Correction: Unless, of course, God in his mercy saves you.

Originally posted by David Floyd
But that brings up another good point. What about non-Christians? Well, obviously non-Christians go to hell, because they have sinned, and have not received forgiveness, not been saved. Yes, there are exceptions that I think the Bible provides for, such as small children and the mentally retarded, but overall, it can be said that all non-Christians go to hell.

But what about those that never heard about God, that were brought up their whole lives as, say, a Hindu? Well, the argument usually goes that if one really seeks the truth - Christianity - then they will find it. However, this argument makes no sense. If one is brought up as a Hindu, they are taught all their life that Hinduism is truth. They believe Hinduism is truth, and have no reason to seek another truth. It's not really fair to say that they should have been Christians if they really sought out truth, because that is not their fault.

Yet these people still go to hell, because of their sin nature, which they did nothing to deserve. I've also heard it argued that they did in fact deserve the sin nature because of sins they will commit later in life. But this doesn't make any sense at all, because one has no choice in the matter of sinning by virtue of having a sin nature. That's circular logic - one sins because of their sin nature, and one has a sin nature because of their sin. Does not compute.

God reveals himself to all people at some point; they are accountable to the degree they have received that revelation. If they choose to reject it and deny Christ, they have made a choice.

God's love is proved through Christ; his grace and justice are immutable and irreproachable. Though I can not know all his designs or means, I can trust that he is the ultimate arbiter of true and just judgments regarding each person. The central claim of the NT is that by whatever knowledge or faith people are saved, they are saved through Jesus Christ (whether they know it or not).

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or, take the example of an atheist. Most atheists arrive at their atheism through a form of logic and reason. Logic and reason are both natural, we are created with both. But, one can't really find God through reason or logic, but through faith. However, one can easily use logic and reason to go the other way - there is no empirical evidence for God, no scientific method for proving Christianity. Yes, one can use logic, reason, and science, to prove parts of the Bible, such as historical accounts, but so what? That doesn't prove anything - it isn't logical to say that because part of a book is true, the whole book must be true on the basis of that part or parts.

Thus, even those people who attempt to arrive at a conclusion using God-given gifts - logic and reason - go to hell as well, for the same reason as the Hindu in our example. The only person who has a chance to go to heaven is the person who has faith in Jesus Christ. But faith in Jesus Christ - that is, Christianity - is one belief system out of many, that has little to no degree of scientific proof, much the same as every other religion, and cannot be arrived at through reason and logic, also much the same as every other religion.

For whatever reason, God has chosen to meet with humanity through faith rather than logic or reason (although a Christian is not required to eject these two faculties either). One might speculate as to the reason faith is of importance and the Bible gives us some direction in this respect. But, I think, one of the main reasons faith is God's preferred approach is that faith is the great equalizer; all people are capable of it, regardless of their intellect. Not all people are capable of logic or reason; self-control; etc. etc. In this way, faith is non-discriminatory.

Originally posted by David Floyd
On a purely objective basis, even a logical one, choosing Christianity is no more likely and no more helpful than choosing Hinduism, or Islam, or atheism.

Ethelred will no doubt agree with you. However, I think an analysis of the claims of the myriad of religious movements proves that the religions of the world have varying degrees of plausibility, validity, and quality. Christianity, apart from any faith conviction, holds up remarkably well.

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, this is getting long-winded and I'm rambling, but I just see a lot of inherent contradictions in some of this stuff, stuff that doesn't really make sense. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I don't necessarily agree with many of the traditional interpretations of the Bible.

Contradictions are often simply tensions that must be held together in the absence of further knowledge.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Asher
The bible encourages homosexuality. Why else do you think Jesus was a long haired hippy?

Didn't you watch Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus was hetero through and through . . . even got married, twice -- and the second time to two women not just one.

[ckweb]

Re: Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I'm not going to have this as a troll, like it will most likely turn out to be, but here goes.

I've been reading my Bible a lot closer lately, and nowhere in there does it say OR allude to Sodom and Gomorrah as being destroyed for pervasive homosexuality. It is not mentioned directly, and as far as I can see (in TWO versions), there is no allusion to indicate that the destruction took place due to men having sex with men.

Could you please explain to me why, then, it is so widely interpretted this way be fundamentalist christians, and even some moderates?

Ethelred's analysis of the passage on page one is fairly accurate, aside from his throw-in opinions, which leave something to be desired. "Know" is a common euphemism in the Bible for sexual relations and the fact that Lot offers his daughters (in 19:8) suggests the request made by the men involved sexual sin. However, Ethelred is right in noting that the greater offence in the cultures of that period and place is the lack of hospitality shown by the city.

To add to these observations made by Ethelred:

The Sodom and Gomorrah story has echoes throughout the rest of the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah becomes the eminent example of evil for later writers, who make frequent allusion to it. In many of those passages, the writers interpret the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah explicity as gang rape and perverse sexual desires. Though even here, some later writers also note the lack of hospitality as an issue too.