Does God Hate Bisexuals and Homosexuals? - Page 6

July 10, 2008, 6:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger

Another thing you should note, Prince Vegeta. Leviticus was written BEFORE Jesus died for us, the old testament. Before Jesus died, those were the laws God had made for that time, as well as sacrifices. Now, since the time Jesus has died for our sins, that is no longer something that needs to be done. Jesus paid the price with His own death, therefore, making the death penalty no longer a factor.

Hey Hows it going, I don't think we've met,

No offense dude, but Vegeta is right. The bible is the damn bible. What difference does it make when the laws were made, your basically saying that the Ten Commandments, which God gave to Moses in Exodus isn't valid because it was made before Jesus's time.

The 10 commandments are a very good source for morality, while you don't have to follow the theological aspects of it, respect your parents, dont kill, etc are very valid paths to follow.

The death penalty? That has nothing to do with this debate, and as such is an invalid point.

July 10, 2008, 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger

Another thing you should note, Prince Vegeta. Leviticus was written BEFORE Jesus died for us, the old testament. Before Jesus died, those were the laws God had made for that time, as well as sacrifices. Now, since the time Jesus has died for our sins, that is no longer something that needs to be done. Jesus paid the price with His own death, therefore, making the death penalty no longer a factor.

Please don't lecture me on the Bible, my mother is a devout Christian and I grew up in church. There's a fair chance I know more about the Bible than you do. But if you wanna talk New Testament, then let's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

(9)Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
(10)nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(11)And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Now, that part actually does differentiate between the sinner and sin. So I would now like to call upon your logic and reason to look at this from an objective standpoint.

The Bible is a complete book, is it not? The Old Testament is thrown in with the New. The New focuses on the Gospel whilst the Old focuses mainly on the history of the Jews. People always accuse the Bible of being inconsistent, but let's look at the biggest inconsistency of all: the Old Testament Jehova is almost completely different from the New Testament one. In the Old, he is almost always a horribly cruel god who thinks it perfectly acceptable to kill homosexuals, shun women on their periods, and condones mass plunder and rape simply because other people "sin" and believe in a different god. There is hardly any speak of trying to convert these poor "sinners" and sway them to Judiasm, or give them time to atone.

Yet, in the New Testament, suddently he becomes a loving God who cares about everyone so much that he sends his son to die for everyone. He's practically a different god. And even still, this love he shares for people is inconsistent. He loves everyone, yet he cannot allow someone into heaven unless they have accepted Christ so he can cleanse them of their sins. Since he's holy, he can't be around impure people. Makes enough sense. So Jesus states that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. This brings two questions to mind:

1. Why do we need Jesus for that? If God is God, can't he just cleanse people in the first place and let them into heaven?

2. What of the people who never get the chance to hear about Jesus? What of people in locations so remote that no missionary will ever reach them? God is supposedly just, so this would conflict his nature if he let these people go to hell.

The answer to that second one is of course natural revelation. Theoretically, a human is going to look at the world, at everything around him, and think to himself "there has to be a God who created this" and that will be enough to allow him entrance into heaven. Of course the biggest flaw in that is that, while he may have a vague idea of god, he is going to know nothing of Jehova, of Jesus and his sins that must be cleansed. So assuming God is just and allows for this natural revelation, it makes Jesus a liar because there are other ways into heaven besides him.

So I ask you this: why believe such a silly, inconsistent book's view on homosexuality?

July 10, 2008, 7:02 AM

To Vegeta: Again, the bible does not say that what you do is what you are, therefore, the, what you call love the sinner, hate the sin, is true. Where does it say that what we do is what we are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by δ Kuja Ω

Hey Hows it going, I don't think we've met,

No offense dude, but Vegeta is right. The bible is the damn bible. What difference does it make when the laws were made, your basically saying that the Ten Commandments, which God gave to Moses in Exodus isn't valid because it was made before Jesus's time.

The 10 commandments are a very good source for morality, while you don't have to follow the theological aspects of it, respect your parents, dont kill, etc are very valid paths to follow.

The death penalty? That has nothing to do with this debate, and as such is an invalid point.

Hello Kuja. I am good.

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

July 10, 2008, 7:21 AM

Quote:

Hello Kuja. I am good.

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

Fair enough, but didn't God give the Ten Commandments to Moses for the people to follow non-believers included? Also how could people believe in something that was non-existant until years later(jesus) ? Unless I missunderstood u.

Quote:

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

Im a philosophical person, what you say is your opinion, and who am I to say your wrong. I support the Death Penalty from a moral standpoint, but oppose it from a pragmatic standpoint.

Nice debating with ya

- Kuja

July 10, 2008, 7:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger

To Vegeta: Again, the bible does not say that what you do is what you are, therefore, the, what you call love the sinner, hate the sin, is true. Where does it say that what we do is what we are?

I conceded the fact that the New Testament goes by the philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Nice job ignoring the rest of what I was getting at.

Quote:

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

And here you show how little you actually know of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were specifically given to Moses to give to the Hebrews. Or are you referring to when the Hebrews made the golden calf and Aaron condoned it? I scarcely think that makes them "unbelievers."

Quote:

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

If that is the case, then why do Christians regard the Old Testament as part of the Bible and selectively pick and choose laws and morals from it to uphold?

July 10, 2008, 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince Vegeta

I conceded the fact that the New Testament goes by the philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Nice job ignoring the rest of what I was getting at.

And here you show how little you actually know of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were specifically given to Moses to give to the Hebrews. Or are you referring to when the Hebrews made the golden calf and Aaron condoned it? I scarcely think that makes them "unbelievers."

If that is the case, then why do Christians regard the Old Testament as part of the Bible and selectively pick and choose laws and morals from it to uphold?

To answer the second paragraph: I am referring to that whole situation as well as for others, outside the Hebrews, more along modern times. As a Christian, we are expected to follow these commandments, hence why they are more for those who don't believe in God.

To answer the last question, because the laws that were given then are also morals that are used in today's society.

July 10, 2008, 8:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger

To answer the second paragraph: I am referring to that whole situation as well as for others, outside the Hebrews, more along modern times. As a Christian, we are expected to follow these commandments, hence why they are more for those who don't believe in God.

Now you are really starting to slip. The Ten Commandments are for people outside the Hebrews and in MODERN times? The were written over two thousand years ago for the Hebrews. Honestly man, if you want to argue the Bible, that's fine with me, but try to actually read it and know what the hell you're talking about. This is when Jehova spoke to Moses initially, before Moses got everyone to crowd around Mt Sinai as God dictated the Ten Commandments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exodus 19:3-6

(3)Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
(4) 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
(5) Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
(6) you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Also I would like to point out that as a Christian you have already broken the fourth commandment, because the Sabbath is on a Saturday and Christians worship on Wednesdays and Sundays (although a few select churches do hold Saturday evening services).

Quote:

To answer the last question, because the laws that were given then are also morals that are used in today's society.

No. They are the morals used in some societies. I'm fairly sure nobody (except maybe devout Jews) today goes by the "don't wear clothes of two fabrics" rule, or considers themselves unclean if they happen to touch a woman having her period. You really should just go ahead and concede, your arguments are only getting worse and worse.

July 10, 2008, 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince Vegeta

2. What of the people who never get the chance to hear about Jesus? What of people in locations so remote that no missionary will ever reach them? God is supposedly just, so this would conflict his nature if he let these people go to hell.

The answer to that second one is of course natural revalation. Theoretically, a human is going to look at the world, at everything around him, and think to himself "there has to be a God who created this" and that will be enough to allow him entrance into heaven. Of course the biggest flaw in that is that, while he may have a vague idea of god, he is going to know nothing of Jehova, of Jesus and his sins that must be cleansed.

The answer, is that they all go to hell. I'm not sure if you've read Dante's inferno, I'll presume you haven't. As Dante and Vergil travel through the first circle they see Vergil and all the other famous Greek/Roman writers, philosophers etc. They all go to hell because basically they believed in other gods. This was written in 1314 I think, I'm not sure what the pope would say today, he'd probably avoid the question.

As VR says, the god of the old testament and the new testament may as well be different.
YHWH sees jomosexuality as a sin, but does the new testament god?
If he does it would be almost impossible for gay people to enter heaven as they would have to repent for their lifestyle.
So do we assume that all gay people go to hell. Also does god hate everyone that is in hell?
Sorry if this doesn't maek sense but it is very early.