Christianity and Homosexuality

Spoken to the OT theocracy of Israel, which no longer exists.

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant, see Galatians.

Explained here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

 

1) The question is "which is an edict from heaven" ... or are you claiming God changed his mind - rescinded the old edict and created a new one. Your comment does not address this question.

2) there is no such thing as a "New Covenant" -and don't refer to an entire book in the Bible without quoting the passage you are referring to - and if there was a "New Covenant" it would have been Jesus who gave this Covenant and not some dude who.

A) knew almost nothing about the life of Jesus
B) never met Jesus while alive and
C) was not part of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples after the death of Jesus)
D) said some really dumb things that were not "inspired" and who contradicted the teachings of Jesus.

Last - New Covenant Theology has only been around for a century or so and is only believed by extremist fundamentalist Christian denominations.

3) Your website is a joke - again if you are going to claim - and don't refer to some diatribe from some website without quoting at least something from that website - this is A ) against forum rules and B) moronic

What is worse is that the site - while it states the question - does not address the contradiction nor address "MY Question" which is - "which edict is correct".

 

Let me apologize to you and other posters. For me to proclaim who is Christian and who is not is downright ludicrous. I once posted that Mormons were not "real" Christians and wish I could delete that self-righteousness. Sorry.

 

Not according to Wikipedia:

"The key New Testament chapter for the Christian concept of the New Covenant is Hebrews 8, a portion of which is quoted below:

But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

— Hebrews 8:6–13
That full quotation, with partial quotations of the same text in other New Testament passages, reflects that the authors of the New Testament and Christian leaders generally, consider Jeremiah 31:31–34 to be a central Old Testament prophecy of the New Covenant.[9] Here is the key text:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

— Jeremiah 31:31–34
Some Christians claim[who?] that there are many other passages that speak about the same New Covenant without using this exact wording. Some passages speak of a "covenant of peace",[10] others use other constructions; some simply say "covenant", but the context may imply that the New Covenant is at issue; and some claim metaphorical descriptions, for example that "Mount Zion" is really a metaphor for the New Covenant.[citation needed]

New Testament texts[edit]
The occurrence of the phrase "new covenant" varies in English translations of the Greek New Testament. The King James Version sometimes uses "testament," for "covenant," with the words "new covenant" together only occurring in Hebrews 8:8, 8:13 and 12:24 while in the New International Version "new covenant" occurs at Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 12:24 as a translation of some form of διαθήκη[11] and καινός[12] or νέας.[13]

Luke 22:17–20 (part of the Last Supper) is disputed. Six forms of the text have been identified; for example, the Western text-type such as Codex Bezae omit verses 19b–20.[14]

The Daniel 9:27 commentary found in the 1599 Geneva Bible connects the verse with the NKJV translation of Matthew 26:28. In this interpretation, the Angel Gabriel reveals the coming New Blood Covenant of the Messiah, which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise that through Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed. Galatians 3:16, 26-29 [15]"

He did. Luke 22:20 relates how Jesus, at the Last Supper, takes the cup and says, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (ESV)

If you're referring to Paul, bunk, you just made that up.

Paul met Jesus on his Damascus road conversion experience.

Did anyone claim Paul was one of the original disciples?

Some of his teachings were inspired, and there is no contradiction with Jesus. Whatever differences are because they spoke to different audiences, Jesus to Jews, Paul to Gentiles.

LOL, I'd say not since very few of the world's 2,300,000,000 Christians follow Jewish OT law.

Why?

So is name calling.

Both were, at the different times in history and audiences to which they were spoken. Context is everything.

 

Surely you have to admit that is one of the most confusing and contrived explanations one could possibly create.

The idea that God's covenant with Jews was a failure and had to be replaced is an odd thing to suggest. Something as central as God's relationship to man failed? That was THE central issue in Judaism (and any other religion with a god) - and God decided it was a failure?

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest".

When is THAT going to happen? What does it mean for Gentiles? Is this implying that if one backslides then there must never have been a conversion in the first place - thus one was not actually "saved"?

What does THIS part mean: "Whatever differences are because they spoke to different audiences, Jesus to Jews, Paul to Gentiles." Is Christianity different for Jews than for Gentiles?

 

Prove it. Else, we all claim you are making it up.

Pedophilia has a legal definition.

 

Women are women
Men are men
girls are girls
boys are boys

None are the same.

 

Everyone is born with hair, at least most. But some have red hair.
Most are born with hands. Most are dominant right handed, but some of us are not. And some are equal in using either hand.
Not every animal in the world of every species is set for procreation only. There are also gay animals, and I bet, some that don't care whether the other partner is either male or female at the moment of want.
I doubt 100% you can control 100% of your thoughts. You are NO god. Even if one believe a god could achieve such a feat.

But if you have evidence to promote your belief that people are in complete control of thoughts, which often time equate to actions, provide it.

 

[QUOTE="]Cougarbear, post: 1070336967, member: 80420"Even back in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, it was frowned upon for a man to take up sexual behavior with a girl under 18. [/QUOTE]Prove it.

Nope, as recent as 1800s

Yes, it was normal for boys and girls once in puberty to marry and strengthen the numbers of their tribes and communities. In our day, we want them to go off to college and have jobs for 10 years before having children. We can do that because we have birth control that actually works rather well and easily distributed. Yet, teenage pregnancy is still very high.[/QUOTE]Even as recent as 1800s, late 1800s.
In our day, in other words humans have changed/evolved. Not some god.

 

Who says they don't?
Crime of opportunity.

 

nope. again, words mean things.

nope..............https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

 

I can assure you Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans do not buy into the gay agenda, which I define as the attempt to normalize what God calls perversion.

Neither is God's word.

So your authority is anthropology, not God's word?

 

It's like the story of the guy who was asked which of his two dogs was bigger, he answered "The one I feed the most". There will be a difference between someone diving into the gay lifestyle and one who by prayer, Christian fellowship, and reading God's wood seeks to live his life in accordance with God's will. With God all things are possible.

By your logic alcoholics, some of whom are 'born that way', are helpless victims who can't change, right?

Can pedophiles change?

 

What are you talking about? Obviously you have no understanding of the Old/New Covenant, something that was settled in the church 2,000 years ago. Truly, "the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

It was replaced by something better, that would lead to the opportunity of salvation for all mankind, something the Jewish system could not do. The OT points to Christ, the perfect sacrifice for our sins who made the OT sacrificial system obsolete.

From John Piper:

"Wen we are born again, God gives us a new heart and a new spirit, and the result is that the law of God written in Scripture is no longer offensive to us. We are no longer hostile to it like Paul says in Romans 8:7. We are not hostile to the word of God, but rather, we are submissive. We delight to do God’s commandments. It doesn’t mean that we know them all by heart, because they are written on our hearts. It doesn’t mean that. It means that, when we read them in the word, the inclination to do them is in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This is a great work of the Holy Spirit, purchased by the blood of Christ called the new covenant."

Perhaps you should prove the alleged discrepancies between what Paul and Jesus preached, as someone here claimed and which is what I was responding to.

 

A terrier will never be as big as a husky, no matter how much you feed the terrier or little you feed the husky.

If they are born that way, the best they can do is minimize bad results for alcoholics.
IMO, no, pedophiles can't change any more than a hetero can change to gay or vice versa.
The best they can hope for is to not act upon their urges.
Unless, science can find what part of the brain wires peoples urges/needs/wants, label it how you want, and some pill can block those signals.

I asked you not to long ago, I don't remember a reply, what is God's word? God was wrote about in the OT, you don't have to follow the OT you tell us.
The NT is mostly about Sauls opinions.
And some of the books of the NT focus on what Jesus said and taught.
So, who/what words to you follow as the word of God?

 

Which people with urges towards adultery, alcoholism, or same-sex feelings can all do.

It is all God's word, are you confused about the New Covenant?

 

And you think an omnipotent God is confined to the box your book puts Him in?

 

Not at all, in heaven we will know Him perfectly, and won't need a Bible. For the present, it does a good job in leading people to God, for those with an open mind.

 

You're quoting from the Bible even in your answer claiming your book doesn't put Him in a box. That's hilarious.

 

alcoholism, of that group is one that is destructive to them and their loved ones.
Adultery is also destructive, but after either forgiveness or split up, it will be over. It's not born this way thing.
Sex feelings never go away, perhaps when one is in the 60s or 70s it may be reduced.

So, the new covenant, God's admittance he did something wrong and came up with a new/different plan.
So much for OMNI everything.

How did God say one reaches its paradise?
How did Jesus say one reaches the paradise?
How did Saul say one reaches the paradise?
Afterall, it's all God's words, yes?

 

Alcoholic feelings also never go away. Gay sex, at least in males, is very destructive. According to the CDS, gays males are 2% of the US population but account for 61% of new HIV cases.

You just made up that 'wrong' thing, huh? God said in the OT he does new things. Jesus Christ was the perfect sacrifice whose death made the OT sacrificial system obsolete. That is why we have Jewish records of strange goings on in the Temple at the time of His death.

 

If you say so.

 

I said alcoholics are forever.
Sex diseases can be controlled with care. Its not destructive.

I made up nothing. You said he made a new covenant. Even though the omniscient being new he created a failed creature.

What did god say is the way to paradise?
Jesus?
Saul?
Do they say the exact same things about it? Since you say the word of god is always the same.
Are you dodging for a reason?

 

Yet there are millions of gay males who will not get AIDS. And gay women have even lower rates of AIDS transmission than heterosexual males.

 

No, anyone can become a Jew. Judaism, the old covenant, is available to all. No change was required in order to apply to a wider audience.

Outside of that, feel free to answer the questions I asked.