• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ok... change my mind. It would be a relief.

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Opposing Sin and Religious Error: Judge Not vs. Rebuke Evil

This is what it means to "hate the sin, but love the sinner." We love the soul of the one who did wrong so much that we want him to repent and do right, so we must oppose his sin. When we do this, there will always be people who object. But the reason they object is that sinners want to continue their sins without the embarrassment of being reproved. They are the ones who do not have a proper concept of Bible love.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I guess what I would say on this matter is that you should learn to read Hebrew and Greek. There aren't very good English cognates for the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. Some are much more egregious than others. For example, the word usually translated as "abomination," thuobe, really means something more like "against our custom" or "against the thread of our identity."

Perhaps more importantly, notion that the Bible was written by God, rather than mostly by fallible human beings who are closer to God than others but who still may make errors, is relatively recent. The Jews only came to think this about Torah (and not the rest of the Tanakh) in roughly the fifth century A.D., and Christians only came to think this way much later. I think the most reasonable reading of such passages is that they describe civil laws of that particular time and place, written by people who were divinely inspired, though not necessarily at the time of writing.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,802
Reaction score
35,215
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Paul and Timothy were Christians and accepted as canon, but never actually met Jesus, the central figure of the New Testament and Christianity. I don't know if all canon matters more to you as a Christian or specifically the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Paul did meet Christ, which formed the basis for his claim to Apostleship.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

I think we have to also exclude the OT, since basically no one follows OT behavioral rules

Thus, I think the OPer should clarify he means the Bible - excluding Jesus and the OT.

Is that correct? Or is he also condemning Red Lobster's shrimp special and every BBQ restaurant's pork ribs? The marriage laws of the OT are rather odd too.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Also it needs to be clarified between male and female same-sex, as for how the Bible defined sex it is not possible for 2 women to have sex and specific verses about same sex is exclusively about men.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,826
Reaction score
50,641
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

I think we have to also exclude the OT, since basically no one follows OT behavioral rules

Thus, I think the OPer should clarify he means the Bible - excluding Jesus and the OT.

Is that correct? Or is he also condemning Red Lobster's shrimp special and every BBQ restaurant's pork ribs? The marriage laws of the OT are rather odd too.



I know it is a long thread joko, but we already covered that on like page 1 and page 2.
 

RAMOSS

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
57,840
Reaction score
23,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess what I would say on this matter is that you should learn to read Hebrew and Greek. There aren't very good English cognates for the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. Some are much more egregious than others. For example, the word usually translated as "abomination," thuobe, really means something more like "against our custom" or "against the thread of our identity."

Perhaps more importantly, notion that the Bible was written by God, rather than mostly by fallible human beings who are closer to God than others but who still may make errors, is relatively recent. The Jews only came to think this about Torah (and not the rest of the Tanakh) in roughly the fifth century A.D., and Christians only came to think this way much later. I think the most reasonable reading of such passages is that they describe civil laws of that particular time and place, written by people who were divinely inspired, though not necessarily at the time of writing.

The Hebrew word is Toe'vah which is more along the lines of 'ritualistically unclean'. Everyone reaches that state in their life. You have to clean yourself in the Mikvah bath, according to orthodox and some conservatives. You had to be 'clean' to enter the temple. A lot of that doesn't matter anymore, since there is no temple.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
2,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
RAMOSS said:
The Hebrew word is Toe'vah which is more along the lines of 'ritualistically unclean'. Everyone reaches that state in their life. You have to clean yourself in the Mikvah bath, according to orthodox and some conservatives. You had to be 'clean' to enter the temple. A lot of that doesn't matter anymore, since there is no temple.

Same word (Tau Vau Ayin Beth Heh), different transliteration. I'm not sure how to use diacritical marks on boards like these, so I typically put "Th" for Teth, and use "u" for Vau as it sounds slightly closer to the right sound to my ears.

Anyway, as you say, it doesn't matter so much any more, but not just because there is no temple. The point of that end of ritual in those days was to divide members of the in-group from those of the out-group. Others do these kinds of things, we don't. My point was that the word "abomination," which is the most commonly bandied word in translation, signifies something that is wrong in some absolute sense, not simply against convention. That's not the meaning conveyed in Leviticus 20:13.
 

Unrepresented

Undisclosed
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
4,230
Reaction score
1,605
Location
San Diego
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Paul did meet Christ, which formed the basis for his claim to Apostleship.
Let me be more specific with my wording: Paul never met Jesus in his earthly form.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,333
Reaction score
29,884
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am Jewish, so the NT is not relevant to me. I have posted the theological reasoning of why there is nothing sinful about CONSENSUAL homosexual behavior and about homosexuality as an orientation many times. I will repost it here:

I would say what this post did for me way back was to induce some doubt about my opinion on homosexuality. Consequently I don't necessarily condone it, but I'm rather neutral on the matter now.
 

RAMOSS

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
57,840
Reaction score
23,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, actually it is a big leap. Sexual sins are like one of the biggest no-no's there is, probably because once people start committing them habitually, they usually don't want to stop.

I see it as 'things are written a lot differently, and taken out of cultural context'. For example, like I said, the passage in Romans, the homosexuality is a punishment due to practicing various pagan practices.. not a prohibition. ..according to Paul. the 1 Corintian one the translation has changed, and the concept of 'effeminate' changed over time... so what Paul was writing about and how it is interpreted today most likely two different things... and third makes up a word that people are aligning to their preconceptions, but could very well mean many other things.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
20,022
Reaction score
2,005
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does the OP mean the OT, NT or what Jesus said?

First, we can begin with Jesus never said anything about it, leaving it then down to the OT and NT.

Some argue that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.

It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

As for eating seafood, I don't know of any seafood restaurants that God destroyed unless there was one in Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
Top Bottom