NationStates

Hakons wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:but Paul had a lot of strange beliefs that we no longer follow (1 Timothy 2:9-15) and also Paul isn't Jesus so tbh why would we follow anything he said.

Because Paul is an Apostle and wrote with the help of the Holy Spirit, so his writings were concluded to be Canonical.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:
but is Leviticus heresy, If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Leviticus is the Old Law; things have changed, namely that redemption is possible

Diopolis wrote:

The Princes of the Universe wrote:I don't understand why anyone would want to do that in any context let alone with enough frequency to warrant a specific condemnation so early in church history, but that's not particularly germane to this thread...

He's condemning sexual practices aimed at avoiding conception.

Diopolis wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:but god doesn't hold any sin higher than others, why would sodomy be more severe than say gluttony?

Actually, God does hold certain sins to be more severe than others, and sodomy is, in the tradition of the church, the severest of sexual sins excepting only rape(bear in mind that the church's definition of sodomy is fairly broad and not specific to homosexuality), on par with the worst of sins such as murder and defrauding workers of their wages.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Leviticus is the Old Law; things have changed, namely that redemption is possible

But the moral laws of Leviticus are not changed. Sexual immorality means the same in the time of Moses as it does now.

Eli Islands wrote:

Diopolis wrote:This is entirely wrong for a couple of reasons:
1) Actually, we don't know what specific context arsenokoitai was intended to cover. It's a neologism. We can infer that it doesn't refer to pedophilia because a: the etymology is pretty specific to men, not to a man and a boy and b: Greek at the time had a word referring to homosexual pedophilia, and so Paul probably wouldn't have invented a new one.
2) There's a fair amount of evidence that relatively consensual homosexual relationships were common or at least not stigmatized as a form of contraception among the Roman middle class. Granted, we know very little in general about how the Roman middle to low classes lived, but what we do know points to a fair amount of homosexuality that was more consensual than the standard heterosexual relationship of the day, which was between a thirteen year old girl and the thirty year old man she'd been sold to. Literary evidence indicates that these relationships tended to have an age gap but that most of the participants involved would have been old enough to give consent, albeit barely in some cases. Most early Christian converts probably came from the middle class.
3) If the problem was rape or pedophilia per se, why doesn't Paul condemn that, instead? Both behaviors were reasonably common, and in some cases not stigmatized, in Ancient Rome. Greek has the ability to refer to both without a neologism, whereas homosexuality as we think of it was not well enough defined to have a term for it.
4) Arsenokoitai appears, in the Greek, to be calling back Leviticus 18:22. No one argues that Leviticus 18:22 is really just specific to rape and pedophilia.

but Paul had a lot of strange beliefs that we no longer follow (1 Timothy 2:9-15) and also Paul isn't Jesus so tbh why would we follow anything he said.

Diopolis wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:but Paul had a lot of strange beliefs that we no longer follow (1 Timothy 2:9-15) and also Paul isn't Jesus so tbh why would we follow anything he said.

Umm... We do follow Paul's teachings on women. Granted, Paul says a lot of things that must be explained by a theologian(for example, that passage is not understood to be condemning jewelry in general), but we do follow them.
Paul was an apostle, a bishop, and his letters are infallible. He speaks with the authority of the churhc and with Christ.

Eli Islands wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Because Paul is an Apostle and wrote with the help of the Holy Spirit, so his writings were concluded to be Canonical.

so women shouldn't hold authority over man and the only way women can be saved is through child bearing?

Hakons wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:so women shouldn't hold authority over man and the only way women can be saved is through child bearing?

Women will be saved if they believe and try to follow Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

As you are a person that professes to be Christian, I find it alarming that you seek to delegitimatize the Holy Bible, the Apostles, and the Church.

Eli Islands wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Because Paul is an Apostle and wrote with the help of the Holy Spirit, so his writings were concluded to be Canonical.

so women shouldn't hold authority over man and the only way women can be saved is through child bearing?

Diopolis wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:so women shouldn't hold authority over man and the only way women can be saved is through child bearing?

Women are forbidden from holding religious authority over men, yes. This is one of the reasons women cannot be admitted to holy orders. It is the opinion of most theologians that women holding authority over men in general ought to be avoided except in the context of a mother over her son, however this is not always possible and is not a sin.
The passage says "yet she shall be saved through childbearing". AKA that a woman's first duty is as a wife and mother, or homemaker, when she has minor children. This fits in with the general Christian theme of observance of the duties of your state in life being the first religious duty; it's the same reason why parents are dispensed from their Sunday obligation if they have a sick child.

Eli Islands wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The tradition holds that all non heterosexual and non(word I don't want to use) intercourse is sinful. It's firstly that there is not a homosexual marriage, and secondly that what we now know as sodomy is sinful.

when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:
when the tradition was made most homosexual acts were either rape or between a man and a boy. but the Bible never talks about loving consensual relationship.

Mainly because this isn't true, despite what LGBT apologists have tried to argue. While rape and pederasty did occur, the sexual practices in that age were much more nuanced. For instance it was seen among the pagans as perfectly acceptable to have sex with another man, so long as you were the one doing the penetrating. Penetration was seen as a symbol of power, thus idealized in the pagan world. It was deemed taboo or embarrassing to be the one penetrated.

However, in biblical standards of sexual morality, both are condemned. It's morally wrong to either penetrate or be the one penetrated in same sex intercourse.

Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."

You're grasping at straws here with the "loving consensual relationship". Such relationships did exist in biblical times and were still condemned under biblical doctrines.

Eli Islands wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Mainly because this isn't true, despite what LGBT apologists have tried to argue. While rape and pederasty did occur, the sexual practices in that age were much more nuanced. For instance it was seen among the pagans as perfectly acceptable to have sex with another man, so long as you were the one doing the penetrating. Penetration was seen as a symbol of power, thus idealized in the pagan world. It was deemed taboo or embarrassing to be the one penetrated.

However, in biblical standards of sexual morality, both are condemned. It's morally wrong to either penetrate or be the one penetrated in same sex intercourse.

Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."

You're grasping at straws here with the "loving consensual relationship". Such relationships did exist in biblical times and were still condemned under biblical doctrines.

Leviticus 19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads."
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."
Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die."
so you are telling me you believe and follow every single thing in Leviticus?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Caliphate of the Netherlands wrote:Then you just brand them as heretics, problem solved

/sarcasm

Erdogan... it IS you

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:Leviticus 19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads."
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."
Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die."
so you are telling me you believe and follow every single thing in Leviticus?

The Council of Jerusalem declares that some dietary and all Law on sexual immorality should be followed by gentiles. The Law, in its fullness, is for the Jews.

Eli Islands wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Council of Jerusalem declares that some dietary and all Law on sexual immorality should be followed by gentiles. The Law, in its fullness, is for the Jews.

I don know if this makes me a bad christian but i feel like Jesus is my law giver not Moses

Eli Islands wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Council of Jerusalem declares that some dietary and all Law on sexual immorality should be followed by gentiles. The Law, in its fullness, is for the Jews.

I don know if this makes me a bad christian but i feel like Jesus is my law giver not Moses

Eli Islands wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Council of Jerusalem declares that some dietary and all Law on sexual immorality should be followed by gentiles. The Law, in its fullness, is for the Jews.

I don know if this makes me a bad christian but i feel like Jesus is my law giver not Moses

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:I don know if this makes me a bad christian but i feel like Jesus is my law giver not Moses

Then listen to Christ: 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

Christ upheld the morality imbedded in the Law. We know what sexual immorality is because of the sexual immoralities declared in the Law: incest, homosexual sex, adultry, fornication and all the litanies that flow from them.

Eli Islands wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Then listen to Christ: 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

Christ upheld the morality imbedded in the Law. We know what sexual immorality is because of the sexual immoralities declared in the Law: incest, homosexual sex, adultry, fornication and all the litanies that flow from them.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 3:23–25 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Eli Islands wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Then listen to Christ: 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

Christ upheld the morality imbedded in the Law. We know what sexual immorality is because of the sexual immoralities declared in the Law: incest, homosexual sex, adultry, fornication and all the litanies that flow from them.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 3:23–25 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Eli Islands wrote:Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Matthew 22:37–39 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
^^^^^
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”