Hey Morphyx - Read Here

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

 

There's an old saying involving flies and honey... or maybe it's bees and sugar. I can never remember.

Anyway, my lack of credibility in your eyes would seem to preclude me from providing any exegetical commentary on scripture that would satisfactorily meet your approval. I suggest you try google. There's plenty for you to get going with there.

 

Playing the victim to avoid answering a question?

The question is simple. Does God hate gay people? Now, you could answer this a few ways. You could say...

1. Yes, he does.
2. He hates the sin, not the sinner. (Which would not be true or else he would not order them put to death)

See, it is not so hard to answer the question. God does indeed hate gay people and the Bible makes that plain. Just like god hates people who do not agree with him, their children, the animals they keep, and the land they live on. The desert god is an angry god after all.

 

You've drawn your own conclusion. You've made a statement. That will be between you and God.

 

Okay, I'm going to attempt to make sense of this.

Morphyx.
You said before that we live under a new covenanat of grace.
Does this imply that two men can fuck as long as they want and still be okay in God's eyes?
We're just asking for an answer here.

 

Sorry teamochi, you seem to be a very sweet person.

However, I'm unable to address the question at this time for a simple reason. Enevitable decided to act ignorant and I gave him an ultimatum. So, until he retracts his statement I won't answer the question to enevitable or by proxy.

However, there's a host of answers available...here's one for example

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

In fact, I agree with the answers found in this Q&A

 

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

 

I hope you are not surprised.

 

I don't have really anything to add to this thread but:

 

Yeah true... Should have expected it lol.
It was about as expected as this.

 

Failing to answer a question because of some childish grudge against another member?

Lame.

 

I think the question here doesn't arise from homosexuality and whether or not it's a sin. The part that is problematic is putting people to death. The part of Leviticus that mrblonde quoted not only describes homosexuality as an abomination, but also includes things like dietary restrictions (although these aren't punishable by death). It also says that children who curse their parents, adulterers, and those who commit incest or bestiality should also "surely be put to death." There are other parts of the Bible that say anyone who breaks the Sabbath, has pre-marital sex, or worships another God should also be stoned to death or destroyed. So it isn't like homosexuality is unique in this aspect.

All of these rules are in the Old Testament, mostly Leviticus and Exodus. However, in the book of John (New Testament), Jesus tells those who'd like to stone to death an adulteress that whoever among them that is without sin should "cast the first stone." None of them do it, and Jesus tells the adulteress that she is not to be condemned. This seems to be a direct contradiction... and of course there's also "Thou shalt not kill."

So to me, the biggest problem is clearly with the issue of capital punishment. Should people be put to death for these things or not?

 

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

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.