NT acceptance of homosexuality

Originally posted by @js357
And further JTBC

To lie with a male one need not be homosexual and to be homosexual one need not lie with a male. Or even be a male.

Gotta get the wording clear on the death warrant.

So only men who have sex with other men are the ones I am talking about.

Is God the Father a bigot for telling Israel to kill such men?

Originally posted by @eladar
So only men who have sex with other men are the ones I am talking about.

Is God the Father a bigot for telling Israel to kill such men?

Where does God do that?

Edit: I don’t have an opinion about it, anyway.

Originally posted by @js357
Where does God do that?

Edit: I don’t have an opinion about it, anyway.

Leviticus 20.

13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them

Originally posted by @eladar
Leviticus 20.

13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them

It continues in the NT

From Romans 1

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Originally posted by @eladar
It continues in the NT

From Romans 1

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to ...[text shortened]... ommitting [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

OK, just checking, Romans does not repeat the death sentence, you can say it doesn’t need to, someone else can say God backs off to mere (?) abandonment (“gave them over”... “receiving in their own persons” ) and there you are, both sides justifying their position and seeing weakness in each other’s argument.

Originally posted by @eladar
Christians are called to recognize sin.

I take it you realize that homosexuality is a sin.

By implication you are saying homosexuality is a sin. There is this pesky problem that throughout history and even in the animal kingdom, there has always been and always will be homosexuality. Numbers fro 2 to 5% of the population, a million years ago, now, and a million years from now when hopefully there will be no more Christians or Muslims and we can finally live in peace.

Originally posted by @js357
OK, just checking, Romans does not repeat the death sentence, you can say it doesn’t need to, someone else can say God backs off to mere (?) abandonment (“gave them over”... “receiving in their own persons” ) and there you are, both sides justifying their position and seeing weakness in each other’s argument.

What do you think the penalty is?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
By implication you are saying homosexuality is a sin. There is this pesky problem that throughout history and even in the animal kingdom, there has always been and always will be homosexuality. Numbers fro 2 to 5% of the population, a million years ago, now, and a million years from now when hopefully there will be no more Christians or Muslims and we can finally live in peace.

I suppose if a small group will do it, then it isn't sin. Is that your logic?

Originally posted by @eladar
What do you think the penalty is?

I guess Paul didn’t want to say. Recall Romans 13 where he says to obey the local government’s laws? If killing homosexuals was not on the local books as legal, it would be treated like any other killing, which might be some category of murder. Obviously Paul didn’t want to rile the local government so he was noncommittal.

That’s a possibility.

Originally posted by @js357
I guess Paul didn’t want to say. Recall Romans 13 where he says to obey the local government’s laws? If killing homosexuals was not on the local books as legal, it would be treated like any other killing, which might be some category of murder. Obviously Paul didn’t want to rile the local government so he was noncommittal.

That’s a possibility.

Considering he was a jew, the consequence is the death penalty.

If there was no punishment then there would be no consequence mentioned.

Originally posted by @eladar
I suppose if a small group will do it, then it isn't sin. Is that your logic?

Wow, it seems not much logic is being used here by a few doesn't it? When ones try to use some kind of logic especially when they think it's spiritual logic by using scriptures, so they say, it simply goes back to this scripture....Eph 4:17-19.

"17 So this is what I say and bear witness to in the Lord, that you should no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk,y in the futility* of their minds.z 18 They are in darkness mentally and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensitivity* of their hearts. 19 Having gone past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to brazen conduct*a to practice every sort of uncleanness with greediness."

The point is so true in verse 19. The have no sense of morality because of their ignorance of the bible, god's word.

Originally posted by @galveston75
The point is so true in verse 19. The have no sense of morality because of their ignorance of the bible, god's word.

I have certainly heard Christians make a theological case - with regard to "sin" - against homosexuality, to which their fellow Christians are urged to subscribe, but I have yet to hear Christians, such as yourself, make a moral case against homosexuality, in and of itself, that has logical traction for non-believers. Are you able to make a purely moral argument that stands apart from your notion of "sin"?

Originally posted by @fmf
I have certainly heard Christians make a theological case - with regard to "sin" - against homosexuality, to which their fellow Christians are urged to subscribe, but I have yet to hear Christians, such as yourself, make a moral case against homosexuality, in and of itself, that has logical traction for non-believers. Are you able to make a purely moral argument that stands apart from your notion of "sin"?

It's detestable. Jehovah says it is and so do I. How's that?

Originally posted by @galveston75
It's detestable. Jehovah says it is and so do I. How's that?

Perhaps you should read the post you are replying to again. Have another go at addressing it.

Originally posted by @fmf
Perhaps you should read the post you are replying to again. Have another go at addressing it.

Perhaps YOU should read the scriptures I just posted and really try to understand them. if you can't understand, then you have a problem with God, not me.