Hey Morphyx - Read Here

[cannabis]

blonde I gotta say for someone who claims to have had enough of religious debates you seem to bring them up a whole lot...

[CosmicSerpent]

Here's the answer - from the link morphyx posted. The important parts are in bold:

Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?

In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God's attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death. Now God loved His people Israel dearly, and it was from His great heart of love that He chastened them. The Epistle to the Hebrews says, "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth" (Hebrews 12:7). When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning. However, when anyone broke the law, the offender paid the penalty due him. God is a holy God who hates and judges sin. Parents who love their children will not refrain from warning them of prevailing evils, nor will they fail to chasten them when they disobey. The church today not only tolerates sin but in some instances condones it. God does neither.

In the New Testament the principle of discipline was applied with apostolic authority. In the church at Corinth the young man who was committing fornication with his step-mother was excommunicated. Paul instructed the church to take that action "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and with the power (i.e. the authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 5:1-8). In Romans 1:21-32 where Paul shows the Gentile world in its downward plunge into sin, including the sin of homosexuality, verse 32 concludes with the words, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . " Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Which goes along with the quote I posted from morphyx originally:

Originally Posted by morphyx

The Apostle Paul wrote extensively on the subject throughout the New Testament. We live under a New Covenant of Grace. The purpose behind the OT Mosaic Law (including the Ten Commandments) was to illustrate to mankind that they are incapable of living up to God's standards, and thus need a Deliverer/Savior.

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by cannabis

blonde I gotta say for someone who claims to have enough of religious debates you seem to bring them up a whole lot...

Yeah, some people on this forum enjoy nothing more that trying to disprove another person's belief system. Sounds a little insecure to me, and ultimately a waste of time. I can accurately answer the question, and I'm not even a Christian. You don't have to believe in something to understand it.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

Was that the answer you were looking for? Because that's basically what his response will be.

Rep for that. You won't consider the answer unless it fits the mold of your question, limited as it is. But hey, all questions are limited. It's just the ones that at least make an attempt to sound infinitely open-ended that you get a real variation of possible answers for.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by teamochi

Those answers say the same thing, that homosexuals should be put to death... this doesn't really answer anything...

It does not say that "gays" should be put to death. That's just not true. The Bible also says "thou shalt not kill". Thus, it is not your responsibility, as one subject of the Law of God [I'm speaking from the perspective of a Christian, but I am not one personally, just to stress for you all. You actually can think through another perspective without holding it as your own.] to judge gays personal. Thus, I (and I'm guessing here, feel free to PM me privately morphyx if I'm incorrect so I can better understand) believe morphyx does not do the judging himself. That would be un-Christian in and of itself. He leaves it all to God, and does not argue with what he believes is God's Word. Is that clear enough of an interpretation?

Does God hate gays? Does God hate sin? "Gays" is a blanket term for people who (in one perspective) engage repeatedly/habitually in sexual fantasies about or experiences with defined members of the same gender, not a scientifically defined concept. That's true even for non-Christians. The sin is the action or thought, and is just as much an abomination to God as a lack of faith in unreality is to the Buddha. It's not a death sentence, at least not a sudden one. Further, it is not a human concern until human judgment advances beyond the specified Word of God. Does God hate sin? Well, existence and his Creations engage in it, so does he hate Creation? Give morphyx a break guys. You call him out as if he's already in the wrong, but he merely stands here to defend his personal belief in the veracity and divine "implicity" of the Scriptures.

By the way, if you welcome somebody to your thread rather than summoning them with "Hey! You, come'ere!"s you might actually open up the new possibility of furthering mutual understanding.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent Quote

When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning.

Issuing a law cannot stop someone from sinning especially when thought = action in regards to whether or not someone has sinned. Not your words I know, just thought I'd comment on it anyway.

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent Quote

Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Mark 10:17-21:

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It would seem, according to Jesus (or this one bit of the Bible) that one must follow the law and follow him (Jesus) to be saved.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Issuing a law cannot stop someone from sinning especially when thought = action in regards to whether or not someone has sinned. Not your words I know, just thought I'd comment on it anyway.

Mark 10:17-21:

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It would seem, according to Jesus (or this one bit of the Bible) that one must follow the law and follow him (Jesus) to be saved.

Still, being saved is a choice, according to the Bible. Evidence abounds to help you make the right ones, is its gist, whether one agrees or not.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

Yeah, some people on this forum enjoy nothing more that trying to disprove another person's belief system. Sounds a little insecure to me, and ultimately a waste of time. I can accurately answer the question, and I'm not even a Christian. You don't have to believe in something to understand it.

I agree.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

Yeah, some people on this forum enjoy nothing more that trying to disprove another person's belief system. Sounds a little insecure to me, and ultimately a waste of time. I can accurately answer the question, and I'm not even a Christian. You don't have to believe in something to understand it.

Arguing whether or not Jesus existed would not disprove Christianity. Some early Gnostic's believed it was not possible for God to assume human form and that everything happened on a spiritual plane. Arguing (which I do) that Paul differs from what Jesus (apparently) taught, does not disprove Christianity. Arguing for the facts of evolution does not disprove Christianity, as a god could quite easily use evolution to bring about the creation they wanted to. No argument disproves or proves Christianity, or any other religion.

Why did I answer the question the way I did? Perhaps because I equate killing someone for being who they are or for not believing in something a certain way, to be a matter of hate. If, and I really do not like using this example because it is overly charged but it is the best one I can use so everyone can see what I am saying, Hitler said he loved the Jews, would that make it so? Now, does it matter that the New Testament is light on the violence? Not to me. This God actually demanded these acts of violence against people because they did not agree with him or lived life a different way. No amount of sin talk can cover that up and make it justifiable. "My son refused to listen to me so I strangled him". That is not love, it is hate. Thus, God hates gay people, according to the Bible of course. If that is in error, than certainly, God does not hate gay people.

[morphyx]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Arguing whether or not Jesus existed would not disprove Christianity. Some early Gnostic's believed it was not possible for God to assume human form and that everything happened on a spiritual plane. Arguing (which I do) that Paul differs from what Jesus (apparently) taught, does not disprove Christianity. Arguing for the facts of evolution does not disprove Christianity, as a god could quite easily use evolution to bring about the creation they wanted to. No argument disproves or proves Christianity, or any other religion.

Why did I answer the question the way I did? Perhaps because I equate killing someone for being who they are or for not believing in something a certain way, to be a matter of hate. If, and I really do not like using this example because it is overly charged but it is the best one I can use so everyone can see what I am saying, Hitler said he loved the Jews, would that make it so? Now, does it matter that the New Testament is light on the violence? Not to me. This God actually demanded these acts of violence against people because they did not agree with him or lived life a different way. No amount of sin talk can cover that up and make it justifiable. "My son refused to listen to me so I strangled him". That is not love, it is hate. Thus, God hates gay people, according to the Bible of course. If that is in error, than certainly, God does not hate gay people.

You make a reasonable argument from a humanist pov. This is the flaw.

You assume that you have a "right" or entitlement to life. On the contrary, you were given life for a purpose that was determined and disclosed by the creator. Your life belongs to Him and He alone has the right and entitlement to decide it's means and purpose.

(not a perfect illustration) If you created robots who turned on you, you would destroy them. They are yours to destroy. The robots have no self purposed entitlement to exist.

It's not hate, it's love for the ones who chose to follow your instructions of purpose. It's love for the one's destroyed who failed to perform as intended and prevent them from being duplicated.

You can buy into the concept of natural selection with no emotion? But can't accept Divine selection?

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Arguing whether or not Jesus existed would not disprove Christianity. Some early Gnostic's believed it was not possible for God to assume human form and that everything happened on a spiritual plane. Arguing (which I do) that Paul differs from what Jesus (apparently) taught, does not disprove Christianity. Arguing for the facts of evolution does not disprove Christianity, as a god could quite easily use evolution to bring about the creation they wanted to. No argument disproves or proves Christianity, or any other religion.

You're completely right... no argument disproves or proves Christianity as a whole, especially when you consider the beliefs of Gnostics to be a part of Christianity. But what I'm getting at is that there exist a multitude of different interpretations and variations that all label themselves as Christian... morphyx's set of beliefs that he calls truths are just a part of them.

This is the reason I specifically said "trying to disprove another person's belief system" and not "trying to disprove Christianity." By arguing things like whether Paul's teachings differ from what Jesus taught, you may not be trying to disprove Christianity as a whole, but you are in fact trying to disprove a belief system that morphyx adheres to. That was the distinction I was making.

Why did I answer the question the way I did? Perhaps because I equate killing someone for being who they are or for not believing in something a certain way, to be a matter of hate.

But God was present and made himself known to the people of Israel, so there was no reason for them not to follow his law. If they believed that He is truly God, and he said homosexuality was wrong, then it was wrong.

If, and I really do not like using this example because it is overly charged but it is the best one I can use so everyone can see what I am saying, Hitler said he loved the Jews, would that make it so? Now, does it matter that the New Testament is light on the violence? Not to me.

It's a lot more complicated than simply being "light on violence". It has more to do with the view that no man is without sin, and therefore cannot judge another person's sin and punish them for it. Only God can do that.

This God actually demanded these acts of violence against people because they did not agree with him or lived life a different way. No amount of sin talk can cover that up and make it justifiable. "My son refused to listen to me so I strangled him". That is not love, it is hate. Thus, God hates gay people, according to the Bible of course. If that is in error, than certainly, God does not hate gay people.

He demanded these acts of violence to prove to mankind that we cannot live without sin no matter how hard we try. Although that isn't to say that we should abandon the laws of the OT completely. Since He is omniscient, then He knew that this would be the only way to prove to us that we required faith in a Savior.

And besides, physical death isn't the end of life according to any Christian belief that I'm aware of. So the brutality of God killing someone (or ordering someone to be killed) depends entirely on the belief in the afterlife.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Give morphyx a break guys. You call him out as if he's already in the wrong, but he merely stands here to defend his personal belief in the veracity and divine "implicity" of the Scriptures.

His belief leads him to an automatic hatred or strong disapproval of a group because of a biological difference, and that sort of thinking is unacceptable. Would you have told the North (U.S.) to backoff the South when the South insisted slavery (and then segregation) was their way of life and it was a personal belief of theirs that the African Americans were below them and white people were inherently better?

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

His belief leads him to an automatic hatred or strong disapproval of a group because of a biological difference, and that sort of thinking is unacceptable.

The Bible teaches not to hate. I'd be willing to bet that a lot more people on this forum have a strong disapproval of morphyx than he has of them.

Would you have told the North (U.S.) to backoff the South when the South insisted slavery (and then segregation) was their way of life and it was a personal belief of theirs that the African Americans were below them and white people were inherently better?

Well last time I checked, Christians haven't enslaved non-Christians for quite some time. Maybe if we were living in the very distant past, you might have a valid point, but it's a bad comparison for the modern world. If someone believes (ignorantly or not) that they're better than someone else, but it has no direct effect on our ability to live peaceful lives, then I really couldn't care less. To each his own... many people hold that belief anyway regardless of religion.

[tea.mochi]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

It does not say that "gays" should be put to death. That's just not true. The Bible also says "thou shalt not kill". Thus, it is not your responsibility, as one subject of the Law of God [I'm speaking from the perspective of a Christian, but I am not one personally, just to stress for you all. You actually can think through another perspective without holding it as your own.] to judge gays personal. Thus, I (and I'm guessing here, feel free to PM me privately morphyx if I'm incorrect so I can better understand) believe morphyx does not do the judging himself. That would be un-Christian in and of itself. He leaves it all to God, and does not argue with what he believes is God's Word. Is that clear enough of an interpretation?

Actually, in the Bible it does say they should be put to death, and Christians tend to pay attention to both the old and new testaments. Its funny tho, the OT says not to kill, yet it lists a whole bunch of reasons to kill people, from being a disobedient child to being homosexual. Nevertheless, even tho the judging should be left to God, many "Christians" take it upon themselves to judge homosexuals and what they should be allowed and not allowed to do, and in some countries you can be put to death for being homosexual, of course this is under Islam, but still true. But we're not asking whether or not HE believes they should be killed, we're asking for his interpretation of all this anti-homosexual stuff that God says and how it lines up with God hating/disliking/not accepting the natural sexuality of his own creation.
And I know you're not Christian, but thanks for clarifying ^__^;;.

Does God hate gays? Does God hate sin? "Gays" is a blanket term for people who (in one perspective) engage repeatedly/habitually in sexual fantasies about or experiences with defined members of the same gender, not a scientifically defined concept. That's true even for non-Christians. The sin is the action or thought, and is just as much an abomination to God as a lack of faith in unreality is to the Buddha. It's not a death sentence, at least not a sudden one. Further, it is not a human concern until human judgment advances beyond the specified Word of God. Does God hate sin? Well, existence and his Creations engage in it, so does he hate Creation? Give morphyx a break guys. You call him out as if he's already in the wrong, but he merely stands here to defend his personal belief in the veracity and divine "implicity" of the Scriptures.

I call no one out, I ask questions expecting answers.
Why do you keep saying "gays"? Sorry, the way you're using it is confusing, cause I feel like its implying that I've used the term, which I'm quite sure that I've not, as I try not to use it.
I know what a homosexual is. I also know that many of them do not engage in relationships simply to piss God off, they do it because it is what comes naturally to them, they cannot love the opposite gender the way they do the same gender, so God commanded that they be killed simply because they are doing something that he created, because God created all things, good and bad (this happens when you make an angel that wants to be better than you and therefore gets sent to a damned place that all people who disagree with you go to, thus creating everything that is bad and punishable).
And even if we're not to judge them now (even tho most "Christians" didn't seem to get the memo) they are still judged by God, and he will still send them to Hell (it seems) even if they've been good Christians simply because they did what comes naturally and God didn't like it... which makes no sense.

Um, I just realized I might have sounded a bit rude or "matter of fact" in my post, I had just come home from work so my mind was still in a very "rushrush" and "lets get to the point" sort of set so don't take it offensively, I was just trying to get it all out there and stuff..

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by morphyx

You make a reasonable argument from a humanist pov. This is the flaw.

I am not a humanist.

Originally Posted by morphyx

You assume that you have a "right" or entitlement to life. On the contrary, you were given life for a purpose that was determined and disclosed by the creator. Your life belongs to Him and He alone has the right and entitlement to decide it's means and purpose.

This really only applies to people who believe it. There is no reason to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof for it coming down the pipe.

Originally Posted by morphyx

(not a perfect illustration) If you created robots who turned on you, you would destroy them. They are yours to destroy. The robots have no self purposed entitlement to exist.

If I created a sentient species of robots that turned on me and tried to kill me, I would be well within my rights to attempt to destroy them. Not because they are my creation, but because I have the right to survive and defend my life. As soon as the species is sentient it more or less has a right to decide something for itself, that is the very essence of free will, is it not, and is free will something that god says we have?

Originally Posted by morphyx

It's not hate, it's love for the ones who chose to follow your instructions of purpose. It's love for the one's destroyed who failed to perform as intended and prevent them from being duplicated.

You can buy into the concept of natural selection with no emotion? But can't accept Divine selection?

If my son displeases me it would be loving to kill him for doing wrong? If there is any failure on the part of a human being it would be the failure of that which created them. Going by the robot example, if I created them to be blood thirsty and unleashed them upon mankind, and they turned on me and I had to destroy them, whose fault would it be? Certainly not the robots who were only being what they were created to be.

Divine selection from a being that is supposed to be all love and all good? No. Because there are better ways to deal with people than to kill them, as we as a society are slowly learning. We do not just kill people (well, some of us) anymore because they break a law we deem requires someone to die. Killing seems to be rather brutal from an all powerful being who could heal someone of their sin as opposed to making them suffer for something that is beyond their control. After all, according to the Bible Adam and Eve sinned, yet all of us have to pay for that sin. Seems hardly fair, but it is the fault of God because he decided to set things up that way.

God gives us rules that he himself does not have to live by?