Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
Yup, it's a sin alright. See below for more infoOriginally posted by Philip Tanaka
It's funny you brought up the topic of homosexuality, because at the moment where I live there is a lot of raised emotions about them, particularly same sex couples being allowed to adopt children. Do you know where in the bible it mentions homosexuality, whether or not it is a sin?
There is nothing I know of in the Bible that supports pedophilia. If you can find such reference, I should like to know chapter and verse. Whoever used that as a defense, well, I guess I'd hafta say, "consider the *source*"... Don't get me wrong; there's all kinda perversions in the Bible, 'cuz it's a catalog of human behaviors, both good AND bad. What I'm saying is that I've never seen that one mentioned in the Bible in a way that in any way implies that God is/was at all cool with it... As such, there's no muddiness at all over that issue (unless you can find such a verse and then exegete in in such a way as to prove that's what such verse meant. It's important to remember that pedophilia back in those days would've been slightly different from what we consider it today. What I mean is simply this: In ancient Jewish culture, it was normal for a girl to get married as young as 12-13 years old (which is about how old the Virgin Mary was estimated to be, btw). Therefore, what is referred to as statutory rape (or "jailbait") today would've been completely acceptable in that time & that culture. Perhaps that situation is what the "defense for pedophilia" you cited consisted of. If so, it's still a poor defense, since the marital/legal standards of ancient Jewish culture aren't relevant to the laws & culture of the West today.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.".... A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."
...But then I remember when I fought child porn that a defence was made about sexual relations with children because it was in the bible. Child porn, or paedophilia, is definetly illegal, so under the assumption that such a statement is in the bible, it seems to be a little muddy in view of current and past law. On homosexuality, I remember a scandal involving a lesbian who became a minister. A fellow minister was asked about it, how homosexuality was forbidden by the church. (Either Christian or Catholic, from memory). Not quite, said the minister. Homosexual activity, much like abstinance nuns take up.
As to homosexuality/lesbianism, the space limitations here make it impossible to have a thorough discourse on it, but I'll try to make the major points that come to mind.
(1) There likewise exists no scripture in the Bible that supports it. Whenever it is mentioned, it is always in such a way as to condemn it. Again, if anyone disputes this, gimme chapters & verses, and we'll have us a real interestin' convo about it.
(2) That said, it is important to note the distinction between gay orientation and gay sexual activity (for brevity, I'll just use the term "gay" to refer to both "flavors" of it). The orientation is not condemned per se, but the activity most definitely, from Old to New Testament, is roundly condemned. Likewise, all sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage - usually called "fornication" in the Bible - is sin (see below for some specifics of why).
(3) As such, homosexual activity in itself is no greater of a sin than, say, single hetero people having sex. However, greater emphasis is given to gay sex in the Word, prolly because it tends to be more of a "lifestyle" (read: an long-term, ongoing, persistent behavior, highly resistant to change on the part of the person doing it) than just about any other type of sexual sin.
(4) It all comes down to what the Divine purpose was for God creating sex in the first place. The short answer is, He created it for pleasure (thus it's not "dirty" per se), for human procreation, and to bond a husband & wife together in a transcendantly deep and intimate way. However, it is only to be enjoyed within the context of of the bond of holy matrimony (marriage).
(5) As such, since gay folks can't marry (one another), they are ineligible to partake of its pleasures before God. Neither, it needs to be said, are unmarried hetero people eligible UNTIL they get married (and *then* only with one another, natch). Why aren't gays eligible to marry, and why is it so "abominable" to God, you ask? Simple: It deviates from His perfect plan for mankind; thus it is a misuse of the gift of sex that He gave us. Gay folks can't reproduce the species with one another (nor can a "woman mating with an animal" to use the example someone mentioned earlier); promiscuous heteros mating outside of marriage lead to out of wedlock births, thus striking a blow against the sanctity of the institutions of marriage & family, and so on and so forth.
(6) Some Christian denominations (most prominently Presbyterians, if recent memory serves) have been struggling with gay-related issues in recent years (ordaining actively gay ministers, performing same-sex marriages), and that is quite unfortunate; tragic, really, since they are a portion of the body of Christ on Earth, supposed to represent Him to a lost & fallen world, and yet they can cite no reliable biblical justification for it. This serves (much like the recent Catholic pedophile priest scandal in the US) to give God, and His people, a black eye. When you come right down to it, this is just a sad example of what a corrupting influence the culture can have on the church.
Well, that's just a brief treatise on a subject that could take up volumes, but I hope it's helped to shed some light for any of y'all who may've been wondering about it.
Ah, the old "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" debate. Thanx 4 the clarification. All I have time to say about that right now is this: Mainstream Christian thought on that leans primarily in the OSAS direction, AFAIK. A notable exception that I found out personally about is the AOG (Assemblies Of God) denomination. They believe you can "lose" your salvation.Originally posted by Delance
"Once Saved, Always Saved".
I can't think of much more to say about that subject than I've already said, except this: If a person has accepted Christ at, say, age 20, and they live to be 50 yrs old, the pathway their life will take in those 30 years will be, for the most part, one of "becoming a good person"; that is, their lives will show a consistent improvement over time to being a better person than they were at age 20. That doesn't mean they won't sin, or even have periods of time when they get into moral "ruts", of course (As the old bumper sticker says, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"), but their lives will show an overall improvement. If their lives do not show that improvement, you have reason to question whether they ever really trusted Christ in the first place. Just because they said they did don't mean squat; you have to go by the evidence (James 2:18-25, among other places).
The big differences between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations (Anglicans, apparently) views on salvation and the other Christian Religions is, in grand part, about Salvation. The debate is if being a Christian automatically saves someone regardless of their life, or if they have to be good person.
Can't say I agree with you/the RCC on that one, but we already knew that. I will offer you this passage, though, and ask you to thoroughly investigate it (for yourself, but also look into some exegesis on this from RCC & non-Catholic sources) and see if your perspective on it don't perhaps change a bit. Here it is: Romans 1, especially v 18 through the end of the chapter. In fact, the whole letter of Paul to the Romans is an excellent source for anyone looking to understand the basics, and some advanced concepts as well, of the faith.
But I must say you were, in part, right about the Roman Catholic position on this. In the past, there was some debate on this, but the side that says that good people won't go to hell just because they never heard of Christian Religions won.
You asked what I though of some of the Catholic positions you posted, Augustine, etc. I will have to get back to you on that, since it's late and I've already written quite a bit. Maybe tomorrow or this wkend.
Shalom!