How Did Humanity Come To Be

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think homosexuality is a sin not from Mosaic Law but from the New Testament where Paul says the "effeminate" will not enter the Kingdom of God.

And the concept of sin from which christianity is derived is the jewish concept which explicitly applies only to jews. A point which you have failed to address.

In addition, since when are all gay men effeminate? That and the translation used in those passages is just wrong. The greek word "Malakos" used in the KJV to denote effeminate has no sexual connotations. Literally in greek it means Soft, but because Paul was a turkish (and thus greek speaking) jew by birth (and there is no evidence of him ever being a Pharisee BTW), he used it in its idiomatic form, which means a man who is weak.

The other term used which is typically translated as homosexual "arsenokoitai" is not even in the greek language pre-paul and the only place it appears after paul is in documents attempting to decipher its meaning.

The only other condemnation of homosexuality anywhere in the new testament is in Romans Romans 1:18-27, which specifies that god gave up a group of idolators to "unnatural passions" which are passions against the persons nature. It was not a statement about the individuals passions being unnatural in toto, but rather unnatural for them as it was against their nature. God engaged in psychological torture.

[General Mung Beans]

It was counted as a sin in both the Mosaic Law and Paul. Leviticus mandates death by stoning for any man "who lieth with another man as with a woman" or some such. Horribly barbaric and not at all the sort of book which should be used as a guide for the conduct of a modern society.

...And I don't support death penalty for homosexuality nor do I support it for adulterers nor blasphemers and etc.

[General Mung Beans]

And I believe Taste of Home magazine is inspired by a goddess, and if we only ever eat food made from the recipes it offers, we will live forever. Just kidding. My point is, you have offered no proof. Your assertion is no more valid than the comedic assertion I just offered.

So...proof?

That's when faith kicks in I suppose.

[Einzige]

It was counted as a sin in both the Mosaic Law and Paul. Leviticus mandates death by stoning for any man "who lieth with another man as with a woman" or some such. Horribly barbaric and not at all the sort of book which should be used as a guide for the conduct of a modern society.

...And I don't support death penalty for homosexuality nor do I support it for adulterers nor blasphemers and etc.

And so you reveal yourself as a dishonest Christian - a typical Christian - willing to support some of the precepts of the faith and not others.

[Surlethe]

That's when faith kicks in I suppose.

What is faith? Why is it a valid defense of religious beliefs? If it's not, then why don't you just admit that the only thing going for you is your own say-so?

[General Mung Beans]

[
And the concept of sin from which christianity is derived is the jewish concept which explicitly applies only to jews. A point which you have failed to address.

In addition, since when are all gay men effeminate? That and the translation used in those passages is just wrong. The greek word "Malakos" used in the KJV to denote effeminate has no sexual connotations. Literally in greek it means Soft, but because Paul was a turkish (and thus greek speaking) jew by birth (and there is no evidence of him ever being a Pharisee BTW), he used it in its idiomatic form, which means a man who is weak.

"Effeminate" and "soft" don't have direct sexual connotations either but as homosexuals has been stereotyped as such they are often eupheisms for "homosexual" after all what else could it mean in that context?

[General Mung Beans]

And so you reveal yourself as a dishonest Christian - a typical Christian - willing to support some of the precepts of the faith and not others.

That's Mosaic Law which no longer applies to Christians. Indeed Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman.

[Einzige]

And so you reveal yourself as a dishonest Christian - a typical Christian - willing to support some of the precepts of the faith and not others.

That's Mosaic Law which no longer applies to Christians. Indeed Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman.

You act like you're revealing some sort of wondrous new information to me. You aren't. I know that this is the line of argument put forth by apologists for decades. I also know it's bullshit, utterly unsupported by any legitimate textual analysis. Where does the Mosaic Law end and the New Covenant begin? It's entirely subjective and subject to change.

[General Mung Beans]

What is faith? Why is it a valid defense of religious beliefs? If it's not, then why don't you just admit that the only thing going for you is your own say-so?

To quote Wikipedia faith is:

Faith in Christianity, as in other Abrahamic religions, centers on a belief in God, a belief in the reality of a transcendent domain that God administers as His kingdom, and in the benevolence of God's will or plan for humankind. Christianity differs from other Abrahamic religions in that it centers on a belief in the ministry of Jesus, and in his place as the prophesied Christ, as substantiated by his Passion and Resurrection, and a belief in the New Covenant.

And part of my faith is that the Bible was inspired by God.

[Alyrium Denryle]

[
And the concept of sin from which christianity is derived is the jewish concept which explicitly applies only to jews. A point which you have failed to address.

In addition, since when are all gay men effeminate? That and the translation used in those passages is just wrong. The greek word "Malakos" used in the KJV to denote effeminate has no sexual connotations. Literally in greek it means Soft, but because Paul was a turkish (and thus greek speaking) jew by birth (and there is no evidence of him ever being a Pharisee BTW), he used it in its idiomatic form, which means a man who is weak.

"Effeminate" and "soft" don't have direct sexual connotations either but as homosexuals has been stereotyped as such they are often eupheisms for "homosexual" after all what else could it mean in that context?

No. Why? Because those stereotypes did not exist at the time the text was written. Homosexuality was accepted among the greeks and there were a LOT of other words that paul would have used to denote it.

[General Mung Beans]

You act like you're revealing some sort of wondrous new information to me. You aren't. I know that this is the line of argument put forth by apologists for decades. I also know it's bullshit, utterly unsupported by any legitimate textual analysis. Where does the Mosaic Law end and the New Covenant begin? It's entirely subjective and subject to change.

The New Covenant is I believe what is said and reinforced in the New Testament although that to you is probably subjective.

[Einzige]

You act like you're revealing some sort of wondrous new information to me. You aren't. I know that this is the line of argument put forth by apologists for decades. I also know it's bullshit, utterly unsupported by any legitimate textual analysis. Where does the Mosaic Law end and the New Covenant begin? It's entirely subjective and subject to change.

The New Covenant is I believe what is said and reinforced in the New Testament although that to you is probably subjective.

You're treating it as if the New Testament openly says, "scrap everything in the Torah and the Talmud, we're starting from scratch." It doesn't. There are numerous addendums and revisions to pre-existing rules (again calling into question your God's inability to get what He wants the first time He does something), but this point isn't clarified or expanded upon in any meaningful fashion, and most of the Laws repealed are dietary in nature.

[General Mung Beans]

No. Why? Because those stereotypes did not exist at the time the text was written. Homosexuality was accepted among the greeks and there were a LOT of other words that paul would have used to denote it.

It should be remembered Anatolia and Syria was part of Rome at that time where conservative Romans considered homosexuality (or at least some forms of it) to be "effeminate" or decadent.

[Liberty]

And I believe Taste of Home magazine is inspired by a goddess, and if we only ever eat food made from the recipes it offers, we will live forever. Just kidding. My point is, you have offered no proof. Your assertion is no more valid than the comedic assertion I just offered.

So...proof?

That's when faith kicks in I suppose.

Muslims have faith in Allah and the Koran. You have faith in the Jesus and the Bible. Are you both right?

[General Mung Beans]

[


You're treating it as if the New Testament openly says, "scrap everything in the Torah and the Talmud, we're starting from scratch." It doesn't. There are numerous addendums and revisions to pre-existing rules (again calling into question your God's inability to get what He wants the first time He does something), but this point isn't clarified or expanded upon in any meaningful fashion, and most of the Laws repealed are dietary in nature.

Galatians 3:1-29 (NIV):

Faith or Observance of the Law
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Sons of God
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

[General Mung Beans]

Muslims have faith in Allah and the Koran. You have faith in the Jesus and the Bible. Are you both right?

I do not think so. All in all this is why I have been trending toward Calvinism since it seems it is almost impossible from the surface for a person from a non-Christian background to convert yet it has happened and increasingly I find that it is due to the hand of God.

[Einzige]

Nonsense. Matthew 5:17 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Obviously the New Testament does not obviate the Mosaic Law in its entirety.

[Liberty]

Muslims have faith in Allah and the Koran. You have faith in the Jesus and the Bible. Are you both right?

I do not think so. All in all this is why I have been trending toward Calvinism since it seems it is almost impossible from the surface for a person from a non-Christian background to convert yet it has happened and increasingly I find that it is due to the hand of God.

So if you both believe because of faith, how do you know you're right and Muslims aren't?

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. Why? Because those stereotypes did not exist at the time the text was written. Homosexuality was accepted among the greeks and there were a LOT of other words that paul would have used to denote it.

It should be remembered Anatolia and Syria was part of Rome at that time where conservative Romans considered homosexuality (or at least some forms of it) to be "effeminate" or decadent.

The greeks who lived in Anatolia were not romans. They were culturally distinct from the romans and had different practices.

[General Mung Beans]

Nonsense. Matthew 5:17 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Obviously the New Testament does not obviate the Mosaic Law in its entirety.

That means the spirit of the Law considering Jesus violated the Law quite a few times (for instance working miracles on the Sabbath).

[Einzige]

Nonsense. Matthew 5:17 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Obviously the New Testament does not obviate the Mosaic Law in its entirety.

That means the spirit of the Law considering Jesus violated the Law quite a few times (for instance working miracles on the Sabbath).

That reads like extremely selective interpretation to me, given the context of the quotation. There's a pretty clear conflict between Christ and Paul's interpretation of the Law.

[General Mung Beans]

[

The greeks who lived in Anatolia were not romans. They were culturally distinct from the romans and had different practices.

But considering they were under Roman rule they almost certainly were influenced in some currents of thought plus Paul was speaking not only to the Greek populations in the Near East but to the Roman Empire in general.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Nonsense. Matthew 5:17 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Obviously the New Testament does not obviate the Mosaic Law in its entirety.

That means the spirit of the Law considering Jesus violated the Law quite a few times (for instance working miracles on the Sabbath).

No. If Jesus was in fact the Messiah (which he was not even if god were real, because he does not meet the required prophecies), it means that he was there to fulfill the law, specifically the coming of the Messiah, which was supposed to bring about in addition to an end of death, universal Jewish adherence to the Torah.

[Surlethe]

What is faith? Why is it a valid defense of religious beliefs? If it's not, then why don't you just admit that the only thing going for you is your own say-so?

To quote Wikipedia faith is:

Faith in Christianity, as in other Abrahamic religions, centers on a belief in God, a belief in the reality of a transcendent domain that God administers as His kingdom, and in the benevolence of God's will or plan for humankind. Christianity differs from other Abrahamic religions in that it centers on a belief in the ministry of Jesus, and in his place as the prophesied Christ, as substantiated by his Passion and Resurrection, and a belief in the New Covenant.

And part of my faith is that the Bible was inspired by God.

[1] Don't ever quote Wikipedia.
[2] That's not a definition of faith. Do you know what a definition is? Do I need to teach you?
[3] If I deign to accept your quotation, it says essentially that faith is a "belief in [a benevolent] God," the spiritual domain, and the ministry of Jesus. In other words, it's a set of propositions you hold true.

You can't defend beliefs by saying they're "faith," then turn around and quote "faith" to be the beliefs you're defending.

[Alyrium Denryle]

[

The greeks who lived in Anatolia were not romans. They were culturally distinct from the romans and had different practices.

But considering they were under Roman rule they almost certainly were influenced in some currents of thought plus Paul was speaking not only to the Greek populations in the Near East but to the Roman Empire in general.

But he was speaking in greek and using greek idioms which romans at the time would have known. Additionally, the romans were very hands off culturally. There may have been some influence, but not enough from one political faction in rome to erase hundreds of years of accepted cultural practice.