toldailytopic: During His earthly ministry would Jesus have approved of the homosexua

[WizardofOz]

The only thing that makes it special is all the effort being made to condition our society into thinking it is not a sin worthy of death, but that it is a normal behavior that everyone should try to see if it suits them.

There are a lot of sins worthy of death that our society accepts. There are most likely more adulterers in America than there are homosexuals.

Just saying.

The topic is Jesus and homosexuals anyway. He would condemn homosexuality with as much vigor as he would condemn any other sin IMHO.

You don't confess to being a Christian so you really have no "honest" opinion to offer.....

Don't let labels lead you to assumptions. Do you want to counter my opinion or make ad hominen comments?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Unresponsive to my question, and the point of yours I was addressing.

There is enough to discuss on the topic of whether Jesus would have approved of the homosexual lifestyle, so I see no reason to derail the thread any further.

If you want, you can start a new thread about how Christians should be stoned to death for violating the Sabbath.

But, back to the topic...
Paul said that homosexual acts are worthy of death, both for those engaging in those acts and for those that approved of people engaging in those acts.

Would Jesus have done something worthy of death by approving of people engaging in homosexual acts? Yes or no?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There are a lot of sins worthy of death that our society accepts. There are most likely more adulterers in America than there are homosexuals.

Just saying.

The topic is Jesus and homosexuals anyway. He would condemn homosexuality with as much vigor as he would condemn any other sin IMHO.



Don't let labels lead you to assumptions. Do you want to counter my opinion or make ad hominen comments?

 

[Jordan Fontenot]

Jesus would not accept the homosexual lifestyle. However if a homosexual repented of their lifestyle then Christ will always accept them.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, you know, some people just don't like seafood. He probably used "abomination" to let us know He really meant it.

God merely says it's an abomination.

God didn't say that. You misread it, which is why you got a "F" on that exam. Go back and read it again and see if you can get it right, since I am sure you wouldn't let your students try to use that kind of sloppy scholarship.

 

[elohiym]

The wages of sin is death.

That doesn't mean the wages of some sin is death.

Deuteronomy 21:22 22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:​

1 John 5:16-17 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. ​

"The wages of sin is death" isn't about specific sins only. Sinners are dead in their transgressions.

Deuteronomy 21:22 and 1 John 5:16-17 are unrelated to Romans 6:23. I can't believe you had the audacity to argue against such a fundamental concept that the wages of all sin is death (the second death). Both Deuteronomy 21:22 and 1 John 5:16-17 are speaking specifically about temporal penalties under the law, not the wages of sin that renders all sinners dead to God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There are a lot of sins worthy of death that our society accepts. There are most likely more adulterers in America than there are homosexuals.

I agree, but adultery is not getting as much attention.

The topic is Jesus and homosexuals anyway. He would condemn homosexuality with as much vigor as he would condemn any other sin IMHO.

Agreed.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[genuineoriginal]

"The wages of sin is death" isn't about specific sins only. Sinners are dead in their transgressions.

Deuteronomy 21:22 and 1 John 5:16-17 are unrelated to Romans 6:23. I can't believe you had the audacity to argue against such a fundamental concept that the wages of all sin is death (the second death). Both Deuteronomy 21:22 and 1 John 5:16-17 are speaking specifically about temporal penalties under the law, not the wages of sin that renders all sinners dead to God.

So, you are admitting that you included Romans 6:23 as a red herring argument to throw off the discussion?

Good to know.

 

[Iconoclast]

Mt 11:23–24
For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Mt 10:14–15
14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.


Lk 10:11–12
11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.

The idea that Jesus never talked about homosexuality is false. Just like today if someone is called a sodomite it is commonly thought that they are a homosexual. While all of sodom was destroyed because the men of sodom allowed the homos to run rampant because they too had given themselves over to sexual immorality.

Jesus held up the worst example of people rejecting God to show just how bad the people who were rejecting him were. Thus if you were lower than Sodom you were lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut.

It doesn't matter what Jesus would have done what he did is more important and he used them as an example of the lowest of the low.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm just "Leary" of people who refuse to confess Jesus in public....

Then be gone because you have nothing to contribute to the thread by responding to me in the first place.

Your opinion is noted. I have been saved since age 10 by Christian standards. Either counter my statements or go start another thread. :wave:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Homosexuality is "just another sin" covered by the shed blood of Christ. There's a list of sins in the Bible, and all of them are forgivable....

Yep. :thumb:

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.​

 

[WizardofOz]

Homosexuality is "just another sin" covered by the shed blood of Christ. There's a list of sins in the Bible, and all of them are forgivable....

Wrong Mark 3:29 / Luke 12:10

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Then be gone because you have nothing to contribute to the thread by responding to me in the first place.

Your opinion is noted. I have been saved since age 10 by Christian standards. Either counter my statements or go start another thread. :wave:

 

[WizardofOz]

Are you a moderator????

No, what makes you think I am?
Are you a thread derailer? Sure seems like it.

 

[sky.]

Yeah, but there will be no sinners in heaven so there's that. I don't know why so many think that homosexuality is a "special" sin. :idunno:

It is a sin of immorality. It is the sin that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No, what makes you think I am?
Are you a thread derailer? Sure seems like it.

 

[Jordan Fontenot]

Wrong Mark 3:29 / Luke 12:10

The point of that is to say that if you truely believe God to be evil then you cannot find forgiveness because you will not turn to God. If you repent, you will always be accept and forgiven, but this is true repentance we're talking about, not what a lot of people think about it.

 

[elohiym]

There is enough to discuss on the topic of whether Jesus would have approved of the homosexual lifestyle, so I see no reason to derail the thread any further.

If you want, you can start a new thread about how Christians should be stoned to death for violating the Sabbath.

Nonsense. That's not what I believe, and what I've asked is not off topic, but a response to a point you made. This just your way of punting a question you are incapable of answering without destroying your own arguments. Pathetic.

But, back to the topic...
Paul said that homosexual acts are worthy of death, both for those engaging in those acts and for those that approved of people engaging in those acts.

The Romans indictment is obviously about idolatry, not homosexuality. You have mistaken "men with men" and "women with women" as homosexual sex, but that's just your assumption. The context doesn't support your claim.

Would Jesus have done something worthy of death by approving of people engaging in homosexual acts? Yes or no?

God (Jesus) is incapable of sin, so your question is pointless.

Jesus said "pray your flight is not on the sabbath day" speaking of after his death. Would Jesus have approved of someone violating the fourth commandment? Yes or no?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It is a sin of immorality. It is the sin that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.