Community >> View Post
·
Post By
HammerTime

Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 3,887
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,933
Subj: Re: Christianity does not mean anti-LGBT by default...
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 at 05:23:27 pm EST (Viewed 146 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Christianity does not mean anti-LGBT by default...
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 at 03:33:17 pm EST (Viewed 145 times)




    Quote:
    Even if it means ignoring other parts of the Bible that do not say "Love thy neighbor, unless they are gay" or the thing about he without sin casting the first stone and so on and so forth.


But you haven't proven that refusing to employ homosexuals as Christian school teachers is hating thy neighbor. When challenged for proof, you keep repeating the lie that you're being asked to prove.


    Quote:
    It is hypocrisy. Just because you can find some lines against something in there does not mean you are practicing Christianity. Polygamy is acceptable in sections, forced marriage and other things.


I'm not arguing against polygamy or forced marriages. I'm certainly not for them here in America, but that's an American culture and legal issue, not a Biblical one. I haven't found in the Bible where it says those practices are forbidden, so I wouldn't have a problem if someone is practicing those things outside of America (or any other country that doesn't have laws against it). In fact, I once spoke about polygamy with an African Christian, and I was quite surprised when he told me that it seemed like an American concept. Since then, I researched the topic and learned from that experience.


    Quote:
    Hell, homosexuality is condemned in the same language as eating shellfish. I wonder if all Christians do not do that. Both are called abominations within a few versus of one another.


Yes, they eat shellfish, and there's no contradiction, or picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. Your argument just displays to me how little your understanding of Biblical theology and hermeneutics are.

Christians follow the New Testament (Covenant), not the Old Testament. In other words, only the New Testament is binding. Now, there are places where the New Testament references the Old, and in those cases, the Old is still applicable. But these always pertain to moral laws (e.g., Ten Commandments), never ceremonial (how to worship, laws on animals for food) or civil laws (daily affairs). Homosexuality is in the moral category, whereas eating shell fish is in the ceremonial.

https://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law


    Quote:
    Selectively pulling one part out of the context of the other parts, and then treating it like the most important part to represent ones faith is hypocritical. Very much so. At the core, it would be declaring that I can judge you because your sins are greater than mine.


You really shouldn't be talking and lecturing people on Biblical hermeneutics. It's just as ignorant as a patient lecturing a physician on how to diagnose an ailment.


    Quote:
    Jesus said direct things about that.

    If you want to argue from a legal point of view than they have a right but they are being highly subjective in their scripture. Even if the leaders of the early church were opposed to it, they probably were as a part of defiance of Greece etc, but it is strange that they be allowed to treat somebody as lesser when Jesus brought comfort to those that were outcast by society in general. It was his mission.

    Heck, he was more aggressive towards power in the scripture, than he was about discussing the ills. All sins were forgivable in God according to current views. That has its own problems, but it is hard to acknowledge that Jesus did not like the gays but was willing to bring together and forgive everybody else. Including murderers.


Just another poor argument built on faulty Biblical hermeneutics. Yes, Jesus was willing to forgive everyone, including murderers. But that's not the full context and where it stopped. There was a condition that you ignore: repentance. A change of thinking. He would not have forgiven a murderer that had no intention to stop murdering. Are you seriously trying to dispute this? Because it seems the crux of your argument is built on a sandy land that the storm washed to sea.





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software