We discussed other potential relationships that would fit into that category, and as you pointed out, they are
all condemned by scripture.
Yes arguing for homosexuality is at best a slippery slope, because the only parameters you can use to justify it could as well exist in other relationships which are likewise
condemned by scripture.
And more problematically for you: You can't have it both ways: either ho.mo.se.xuality has been around for a long time (and is particularly
condemned by the Scriptures) or it is a recent innovation (which would beg for a whole separate critique, though I have yet to meet someone who seriously entertains this notion).
«You can't have it both ways: either ho.mo.se.xuality has been around for a long time (and is particularly
condemned by the Scriptures) or it is a recent innovation (which would beg for a whole separate critique, though I have yet to meet someone who seriously entertains this notion).»
Not exact matches
As far as it being
condemned by God, you can see some of my earlier posts where we talked about there being legitimate theological interpretations of
Scripture that allow for loving, committed gay relationships.
He
condemned and cursed the self - appointed religious leaders who perpetuated the perverted Judaism of the day through their promotion of the Talmud and Rabbinic Halachal above the Mosaic Law given
by God; those who added to the
Scriptures (the Pharisees) and those who subtracted from the
Scriptures (the Sadducees) and anyone else who changed the commandments of God because of their own human desires for acceptance and the honor of men.
Those who
condemn the Catholic Social Teaching on the poor, the sick, sinners and all those marginalized
by society, have not read their
Scriptures.
Statism is roundly
condemned throughout the entire cannon of the
Scripture from Babel to the Beast and should be avoided
by Christians.
«Rape and pedophilia (or at least pederasty) are both
condemned in
scripture by virtue of them causing harm to other people» (Trey)
More ironically still, the favorite sin we love to
condemn in others the most are usually the sins that are mentioned
by Scripture the least, whereas the «favorite sins» we ourselves commit are the sins that get a lot of attention in
Scripture.
Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand
scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was
condemned to die and
by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz
We would morally
condemn somebody who would, as
Scripture puts it, «stand idly
by the blood of [his] neighbor» (Leviticus 19:16).