• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is homosexuality a greater sin than others for Christians and why.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Originally posted by: 1prophet
NO CLIFF NOTES HERE!
Where exactly in the bible is that called a greater sin than other sins?
The greatest sin I have read is the one here of Ananias and Sapphira , two believers who were baptized and accepted the Holy Spirit. It is the only unforgiveable sin.
No get out of hell free card here.😉

Acts 4
The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet



Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misinterpreted the tale. Nowhere does Luke say their sin was greater than any other. Any implication to that effect is disabused by the rest of the NT.
Click to expand...


Jesus certainly does.

Matthew 12

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

And before you go any further those who twist the Word of God to justify themselves so that they may continue living in their sin while condeming others will be judged by God.



This is why christians are being mocked here, not for their beliefs but for their judgemental attitude of do as I say not as I do. And when someone calls them on the hypocritical nature of their lives they shun them off like they are beneath them.









 
In answer to the original question, I think most Christian put a "severity" measurement on sins based not necessarily on it's ability to keep you out of heaven, but on your ability to receive forgiveness for that sin. In addition to asking for Christ's forgiveness, restitution is required, whereever possible. For example, if you steal $10 from someone, you can't just tell God you're sorry and keep the money. You need to give it back. Christ also often stated "You're sins are forgiven. Go your way and sin no more." This would be another portion of repentance.

For sins such as lying, stealing, or coveting, these requirements are relatively simple to fulfill (except for the never again part, that's sometimes hard 🙂 ). However, how do you make restitution for killing someone? How do you make restitution for raping someone? These difficulties are a large part of the creation of a "severity" measurement.

Does one sin carry a larger punishment or greater consequence than any other? I don't know, ask God. Is one sin harder to receive complete forgiveness from than another? Absolutely. That's where your greater sin measurement comes in.
 
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
That's crazy. The evidence that Bush lied is weak at best, a sham at worst.
Click to expand...

ROFL. If the evidence that Bush lied is weak at best and a sham at worst what do you call the evidence of the existance of your 'God'? :roll:

 
From what I gleaned in Bible study (and the words attributed to Jesus), you need to watch out for being judgemental, hurting children, and rejecting the Holy Spirit more than anything else.

I take that to mean,

Don't think you are above anyone else (But for the grace of God go I)
Don't take advantage of innocents
Recognize the Supernatural and respect it

 
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Jesus certainly does.

Matthew 12

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Click to expand...

Ah, I knew someone would bring this up! No worries: the answer is quite simple. If you reject God's forgiveness, which is bestowed through the Holy Spirit, all bets are off. That's why it's okay to blaspheme against Christ, but not the Holy Spirit.

Rejecting the Holy Spirit isn't really any more of an offense to God, but it is the only sin that prevents forgiveness. So, in a way you could call it the "greatest" sin, but only by proxy.
 
No, people are just afraid and ignorant and self-centered and narrow-minded and egocentric. Seriously.

The whole biblical stance is retarded since the outcry against laying with another man is in Leviticus and Jesus broght a new covenent, overturning the old testament in effect. So anyone who claims biblical foundation against homesxuality had better be willing to sell their daughters into slavery, marry their brothers wife if he should die, kill anyone who works on Sundays, stone anyone who plants different crops side by side, etc.

Either it's all absolute, or none of it is, and anyone who's selective is a bigot and a bastard. Period.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, people are just afraid and ignorant and self-centered and narrow-minded and egocentric. Seriously.

The whole biblical stance is retarded since the outcry against laying with another man is in Leviticus and Jesus broght a new covenent, overturning the old testament in effect. So anyone who claims biblical foundation against homesxuality had better be willing to sell their daughters into slavery, marry their brothers wife if he should die, kill anyone who works on Sundays, stone anyone who plants different crops side by side, etc.

Either it's all absolute, or none of it is, and anyone who's selective is a bigot and a bastard. Period.
Click to expand...

As I have stated, in a previous post, Leviticus is not the only place that homosexuality is condemned. You can find references to it in the following books: Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude.

As you may or may not notice, those references are not all in the Old Testament. You're examples, however, are Old Testament. So you are absolutely correct in the fact that Jesus did bring a new covenant. But guess what? His ruling on homosexuality hasn't changed. So does this make you "a bigot and a bastard"? Period?
 
The Bible also says that death is the punishment for those wearing garments made of several different types of threads... or those working on the Sabbath... or those planting different crops side-by-side. I am sure you have done one or more of them. In that case, you must be put to death.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
The Bible also says that death is the punishment for those wearing garments made of several different types of threads... or those working on the Sabbath... or those planting different crops side-by-side. I am sure you have done one or more of them. In that case, you must be put to death.
Click to expand...

Hey, I missed that! You're right!

Jesus...
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
The Bible also says that death is the punishment for those wearing garments made of several different types of threads... or those working on the Sabbath... or those planting different crops side-by-side. I am sure you have done one or more of them. In that case, you must be put to death.
Click to expand...

The Bible also states that those many of those laws where the result of the "religious" rulers of the time, the same rulers who where responsible for the crucification of Christ. Tell me, do you really think that the laws they created where done so to increase peoples knowledge of God and his Son? For hundreds of years before Christ coming, laws such as these were invented by men with no priesthood authority or understanding. Thus the ignorance of some of them.

As far the working on the sabbath law, I believe in it quite a bit. And no, I don't work on the sabbath.

And as you may, or may not, have noticed, none of the laws of the new covenant had physical death as a consequence. The commandments didn't change, only the consequences. Rather than 10 commandments, there are 2. Love thy God (former commandments 1-4) and Love thy Neighbor (former commandments 5-10). The consequence changed from physical death to spiritual death. Why? Because Christ died for us and made possible the resurrection. Physical death was overcome, so all that is left is spiritual death, the separation between ourselves and God which comes about through our sin. So do we need to kill anyone because of the sins they have committed? No. Why? Because they are killing themselves, spiritually.

Making references and correlations between the Old and New Testament are almost impossible unless you understand the concepts of physical and spiritual death. But once you do, things make a lot more sense.
 
The usage and commenting on homosexuality is entirely different in the other 5 passages than it is in Leviticus (which is it's most direct accuser). While there is little debate of the meaning and accuracy of the Leviticus condemnation, the point is moot as it's old testament. The new testament passages are contentious at best, however.

I guess now we're down to semantic arguments and linguistics. I tend to side with those that point out the lack of accuracy in biblical translation (which is never done by linguists of non-faith). I see it as simple psychological process which lends to the translating of verse into a form most agreeable with ones warrants and justifications. Without spending a couple million words on the effeminant and homosexual etymology, let's just say this:

I find MOST 'christians' are nothing of the sort, having no knowledge of, nor participation in, their professed 'faith'. I find most seek rationalization of their own subconscious fears and peeves. I believe the interpretations of the bible (especially new testament) to be suspect at best. I believe you can NOT be acting in a 'Christ-like' manner and treat anyone (including homosexuals) the way they are being treated by evangelicals and fundamentalists in America today.

*shrug* that being said I do believe in God, so this isn't some atheistic soapbox. I just think any God who truly sees any of his creations as an abomination is no God I choose to revere.
 
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Meuge
The Bible also says that death is the punishment for those wearing garments made of several different types of threads... or those working on the Sabbath... or those planting different crops side-by-side. I am sure you have done one or more of them. In that case, you must be put to death.
Click to expand...

The Bible also states that those many of those laws where the result of the "religious" rulers of the time, the same rulers who where responsible for the crucification of Christ. Tell me, do you really think that the laws they created where done so to increase peoples knowledge of God and his Son? For hundreds of years before Christ coming, laws such as these were invented by men with no priesthood authority or understanding. Thus the ignorance of some of them.

As far the working on the sabbath law, I believe in it quite a bit. And no, I don't work on the sabbath.

And as you may, or may not, have noticed, none of the laws of the new covenant had physical death as a consequence. The commandments didn't change, only the consequences. Rather than 10 commandments, there are 2. Love thy God (former commandments 1-4) and Love thy Neighbor (former commandments 5-10). The consequence changed from physical death to spiritual death. Why? Because Christ died for us and made possible the resurrection. Physical death was overcome, so all that is left is spiritual death, the separation between ourselves and God which comes about through our sin. So do we need to kill anyone because of the sins they have committed? No. Why? Because they are killing themselves, spiritually.

Making references and correlations between the Old and New Testament are almost impossible unless you understand the concepts of physical and spiritual death. But once you do, things make a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

You're interpreting it yourself. You're picking and choosing what laws you will obey and which ones you won't. If Bible is the word of God, then you must take it as it is. If you don't, you're going against God's word. If you're going to choose what to obey, then you recognize the Bible as being word of MAN, and not of God.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
You're interpreting it yourself. You're picking and choosing what laws you will obey and which ones you won't. If Bible is the word of God, then you must take it as it is. If you don't, you're going against God's word. If you're going to choose what to obey, then you recognize the Bible as being word of MAN, and not of God.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of choice. The Bible very directly tells us that OT law is no longer in force. You yourself say that Christians should not go against God's word. To follow law no longer in force would be to do just that.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge

You're interpreting it yourself. You're picking and choosing what laws you will obey and which ones you won't. If Bible is the word of God, then you must take it as it is. If you don't, you're going against God's word. If you're going to choose what to obey, then you recognize the Bible as being word of MAN, and not of God.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell me which laws I am throwing out? As I wrote, the original 10 commandments are still in effect, only under the 2 new commandments that I listed. It's what some like to call the "spirit of the law." The reason for this is because not all possible actions are covered by the 10 commandments. However, Love thy Neighbor is much more inclusive. Was there a commandment that states you can't bad mouth your neighbor? No, but are you loving your neighbor if you're bad mouthing him? I doubt it. If anything, I'd say I'm including MORE laws, not excluding. Though perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying. Please let me know if I am.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The usage and commenting on homosexuality is entirely different in the other 5 passages than it is in Leviticus (which is it's most direct accuser). While there is little debate of the meaning and accuracy of the Leviticus condemnation, the point is moot as it's old testament. The new testament passages are contentious at best, however.

I guess now we're down to semantic arguments and linguistics. I tend to side with those that point out the lack of accuracy in biblical translation (which is never done by linguists of non-faith). I see it as simple psychological process which lends to the translating of verse into a form most agreeable with ones warrants and justifications. Without spending a couple million words on the effeminant and homosexual etymology, let's just say this:

I find MOST 'christians' are nothing of the sort, having no knowledge of, nor participation in, their professed 'faith'. I find most seek rationalization of their own subconscious fears and peeves. I believe the interpretations of the bible (especially new testament) to be suspect at best. I believe you can NOT be acting in a 'Christ-like' manner and treat anyone (including homosexuals) the way they are being treated by evangelicals and fundamentalists in America today.

*shrug* that being said I do believe in God, so this isn't some atheistic soapbox. I just think any God who truly sees any of his creations as an abomination is no God I choose to revere.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on many of the ideas you have presented. I believe there is a lot more to the references in the New Testament than most believe, but I do agree that many professed Christians could use a lesson on "love the sinner, hate the sin." I don't agree with homosexuality, but that doesn't change the fact that many of them are wonderful people and deserve to be treated with the same respect that everyone else is entitled to receive. I have many homosexual friends, and everyone of them knows I would give them the shirt of my own back if they needed it, but they also understand how I feel about homosexuality.

I also wouldn't believe in a God who feels that his creations are an abomination. However, just because someone violates a commandment, I don't feel God considers them to be an abomination. God knows that none of us are perfect, so he's not going to turn his back on us when we do something wrong. Personally, I think it's more us turning our back on him than him turning his back on us. It just easier to blame him than to accept responsibility.
 
Who was right here, the religious leaders who wanted to follow the law and stone the woman or Jesus by not condemning her?



John 8
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
 
I would say that neither was wrong. Were the Pharisees intentions pure? Well, one can only guess. But you'll notice that it was not the husband or any other victim that brought the woman forth, but the scribes and Pharisees. The law she broke was a law given by Christ. Therefore, only he had a right to punish her.

For this reason, I don't believe there was a right or wrong here. The scribes and Pharisees where following the laws at that time. Real question is, if that was the true law, why did they not go ahead and kill her, whether Christ gave his approval or not?
 
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I would say that neither was wrong. Were the Pharisees intentions pure? Well, one can only guess. But you'll notice that it was not the husband or any other victim that brought the woman forth, but the scribes and Pharisees. The law she broke was a law given by Christ. Therefore, only he had a right to punish her.

For this reason, I don't believe there was a right or wrong here. The scribes and Pharisees where following the laws at that time. Real question is, if that was the true law, why did they not go ahead and kill her, whether Christ gave his approval or not?
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is in verse 6, not so pure now their intentions?
 
Is homosexuality a greater sin than others for Christians and why.
Click to expand...


Because the 'new' group of Radical-Fundimentalists have a different version of the bible that leaves out certain parts of the Bible that have a misinterpreted cliff notes version of passages. If you do not believe me, try a couple differnt versions of the Bible and read them.... its a farce. ..... considering the people of the time were a bunch of goat fvckers. 😀









SHUX
 
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I would say that neither was wrong. Were the Pharisees intentions pure? Well, one can only guess. But you'll notice that it was not the husband or any other victim that brought the woman forth, but the scribes and Pharisees. The law she broke was a law given by Christ. Therefore, only he had a right to punish her.

For this reason, I don't believe there was a right or wrong here. The scribes and Pharisees where following the laws at that time. Real question is, if that was the true law, why did they not go ahead and kill her, whether Christ gave his approval or not?
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is in verse 6, not so pure now their intentions?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you meant verse 9, correct? Their own personal guilt was the reason. But whether they were feeling guilt or not is irrelevant. They had a responsibility to enforce the law. So why didn't they?
 
Example:

Judges 19

16Then at evening there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah. (The people of the place were Benjaminites.) 17When the old man looked up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, "Where are you going and where do you come from?" 18He answered him, "We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home. Nobody has offered to take me in. 19We your servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing more." 20The old man said, "Peace be to you. I will care for all your wants; only do not spend the night in the square." 21So he brought him into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate and drank.

22While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him." 23And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing." 25But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.

27?In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28?Get up,? he said to her, ?we are going.? But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home. 29When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, ?Thus shall you say to all the Israelites, 'Has such a thing ever happened? since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.'"











Why isnt it legal to do this? But Gay is bad?











SHUX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top