Greg Koukl - Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality? Part 2 of 2

[smurfboywv]

Leviticus was written for the levites, and has no play in todays world.

[doobersmanster]

Leviticus is such an incredible book in the Bible...

[MrAnagern]

Is god the truth?

Yes

Can the nature of truth change? For example, "it is true for me and not for you."

No

So, truth will function the same within any timeframe?

Yes

Then, why do you, Mr. Koukl, permit that god's command satisfies only the Jewish time period, but does not apply to ours? Does this not go against the nature of the truth which you claim?

This would be my line of questioning. Responses?

[smurfboywv]

@MrAnagern A lot of Bible verses were written for a specific people at a specific time in life. Its obvious this man doesn't like gay and lesbian people, so i'm not saying anything else. God surely would not allow men or women to be gay if he seen it was doing harm to the population, then again the planet is so over-populated we can't feed everyone.

[MrAnagern]

@smurfboywv So is the bible nothing more than an organized social construct, that only applies to the time frame in which the construct was in place?

[smurfboywv]

@MrAnagern The bible is constructed of stories about the good, the evil, and the wicked, we're supposed to read the book and learn from the mistakes of those in the past.

[MrAnagern]

@smurfboywv ... When did I even allude to not liking gay or lesbian people? Umm, and how do gays "harm" the population? Could I get some evidence for this claim? All I see right now is your Christian paradigm imposing its beliefs upon reality, not allowing reality construct your paradigm.

[smurfboywv]

@MrAnagern I'm guessing you're too young to understand anything.

[MrAnagern]

@smurfboywv Yeap. Obviously.I have the absolute capacity to understand nothing.

[OneEyedJack1970]

@MrAnagern Ancient Israel was a theocracy. We're not. We're to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but aren't explicitly commanded to incorporate its penalties into our body of law. We can if we want to, but we don't have to, and most people throughout history haven't been in much of a position to dictate their nation's laws anyway.

Furthermore, some of the OT laws are symbolic, and only apply to Israelites or a specific subset thereof (such as Levites or members of the priesthood).

[OneEyedJack1970]

@MrAnagern Ancient Israel was a theocracy. We're not. We're to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but aren't explicitly commanded to incorporate its penalties into our body of law. We can if we want to, but we don't have to, and most people throughout history haven't been in much of a position to dictate their nation's laws anyway.

Furthermore, some of the OT laws are symbolic, and only apply to Israelites or a specific subset thereof (such as Levites or members of the priesthood).

[MrAnagern]

@OneEyedJack1970 How does one separate the "moral teachings" of the bible from the insidious indictments commanded from the New Testament? Christians must believe that the word of god is absolute; once people begin to cherry pick the bible, its truth is no longer absolute, but now being interpreted through the paradigm of values of the particular individual.

Furthermore, just because Israel was a theocracy doesn't mean it was kosher to enslave prisoners, rip out the unborn, claim virgins for

[OneEyedJack1970]

@MrAnagern I don't understand your question. What "insidious indictments commanded in the New Testament" are you talking about? Do you mean the stuff about loving God and loving your neighbor?

[MrAnagern]

@OneEyedJack1970 Pardon, I meant Old Testament.

Even as terrible as the Old Testament was though, it still did not condemn people into everlasting fire. Only until Jesus comes into the picture is this grotesque theme introduced. This idea has been the source of fear-mongering, bullying, etc. Not exactly the humble Jesus one learns in Sunday school, wouldn't you say?

[OneEyedJack1970]

@MrAnagern You do realize that Jesus' description of hell is likely metaphorical, right? The imagery He was using was that of the local garbage dump. I think it would actually be worse than anyone can imagine.

[MrAnagern]

@OneEyedJack1970 themselves.

[milsimaustralia]

BTW I think the bible teaches an immoral set of values, I am an atheist, and I do find Greg's meandering style of explanation more than unsatisfying. If you go to his video about Richard Dawkins you'll see in the comments how Greg's logic actually and thankfully undermines Christianity. Greg likes to hear himself speak and luckily usually gives himself enough rope to swing from. Cheers Greg.

[milsimaustralia]

pt/2 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 5: 17-20 for the whole passage. I cannot for the life of me see how this is figurative speech.

[milsimaustralia]

pt/1 After a rambling and incoherent 17 minutes Greg finally tells us that Jesus explicitly states that the OT God and Jesus are the same god that laid out the laws in Leviticus and that Jesus affirms in Matthew that those laws are valid. So the guys question was answered by Greg...yes Christians should execute gay people. Why? Greg assumes as the basis for his logic that OT law doesnt apply to Christians?? Where exactly is that laid out in the NT by Jesus..that is said by Jesus and not Paul.

[queenrage1]

Haha! What a good reply! I am defining going to remember all this!

[sirluce]

I think it is about time that people on both sides of the issue begin to treat this as a debate rather than a personal vendetta. Simply because I take the stance that God condemns homosexuality as wrong does not make me a hate monger foisting my prejudices on other people. It might just be that I truly believe the bible actually condemns it as wrong and I have no malice toward homosexuals. I know that is hard for the other side to believe, but it is true.

[sirluce]

Jesus' silence on the issue of homosexuality, at least in the written record, point in favor of those that would say that the bible condemns homosexuality. Jesus as a Jewish rabbi knew very well the condemnation of homosexuality written in Deuteronomy among other places in the OT. He as a good Jew held to the rights and wrongs as delineated in the OT. So if he had no problem with homosexuality, he would have said something. His silence points towards agreement with OT law, not against it.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce oh that is the most backward bunch of BS I've heard you say yet! That somehow Jesus' silence on the issue means he was against it? Are you out of your mind? Jesus disagreed with a huge portion of traditional Jewish law, that's why Christians today feel they can eat non-kosher and not do ceremonial handwashing just to name a couple things. But then you say he was a good jew therefore he must agree with jewish anti-homosexuality? This is your bigoted, fundie delusion, not reality.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger Did Jesus know about the death sentence placed on homosexual practices in the OT? Yes. Did he say anything that condemned that understanding about homosexuality? No by your own admission. So if he knew that the OT understanding about homosexuality was out there, and he didn't say it was a wrong interpretation, as far as we know he agreed with that understanding. I'm not sure how that isn't automatic?

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce that is not in the least bit logical. You are making assumptions based on Jesus' silence on the matter? Jesus didn't address slavery either, are we to then assume he supported slavery? You live in la-la land, buddy.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger The OT allowed for bonded indenture which was for a set period of time to pay a particular debt and then the person was to be set free. In addition, there was the year of Jubilee that was supposed to happen every 7 years setting everyone free that was in indenture. This was a far cry from what we call slavery today and it was specifically designed for people to pay a debt. Did Jesus say that was OK? By his silence, I would say yes he didn't have a problem with it. I am consistent.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce real slavery existed in those times and the OT supported it, have you even read all of leviticus? and "bonded indenture" was a kind of slavery, and if you believe jesus' silence indicated support for it, you have proved yourself a complete nut. jesus was silent on many political issues not because he supported the status quo, but because his mission was spiritual, not political.

jesus did much to upset the status quo, so it's silly to assume he supported whatever he was silent about.

[Lampala123]

@kern0099 Well those you're defending = just a bunch of gay people trying to prove a god they don't even believe in doesn't mind their sexual preference.

[Lampala123]

Our criteria is if (a) it was mentioned by God outside of Jewish law or (b) it has been proven to be destructive. And yes, God does condemn homosexuality outside of Jewish law especially in his description of marriage, and yes, homosexuality is known to have real personal and societal consequences. Stop calling people names you don't even seem to understand (hypocrite? how so?).

[jwallbanger]

@Lampala123 how so? I've explained it over and over here. If you pick that one thing out of the long list of rules in Leviticus as valid, but ignore the rest as just old, outdated jewish law, then you are cherry picking that rule to justify your predjudice against homosexuality. And the fact that homosexuals have special problems has nothing to do with this (you aren't out condemning smoking based on scripture.) That's a whole other debate and has more to do with the social stigma of being gay.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger The vast majority of christians consider Paul's writings to be just as much a part of God's Word as the OT and the gospels. Paul very clearly condemns homosexuality as wrong in Romans and other areas. So to say we're cherry picking when Paul condemns it just as much as the OT is ridiculous. If you don't like what Paul has to say about the matter, that's your problem. Once again, we are consistent in condemning homosexuality because the bible is consistent in condemning it.

[kern0099]

Buncha straight people trying to make sense of a class of people they misunderstood for political gain then, and then claim the same right now. You need some ethics to practice, as you say you practice gods law in your life. Jesus can't give you these ethics, he didn't offer any explanation or description of a "gay identity", since it didn't exist. Your "reason" is counter productive on semiotic grounds. Unless you're a cynic, which is how I am leaning. Xtians MUST scapegoat, it's your law.

[jwallbanger]

another smug, fundamentalist jerk cherry picking leviticus for the old anti-gay laws, but ignoring the laws about not eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics or the right to kill your child if he/she insults you.  GREG KOUKL you are a HYPOCRITE.

[Yesica1993]

And you are ignorant of the Scriptures you rail against, otherwise you'd know about the OT dietary laws given to a specific people, at a specific time.

But you have no interest in learning anything. All you know how to do is call names and rant on about what you have zero knowledge of.

[jwallbanger]

If I had zero knowledge of it I wouldn't even be able to mention it (exaggeration is much more indicative of an ignorant person.) And my point, yet again, is that those OT dietary laws are on the same list as the homosexuality law, given to those same specific people at that same specific time. Therefore, if you believe the homosexuality law applies to people today, but the rest are just old jewish laws, then you are cherry picking, and you are abusing old OT laws to rationalize your bigotry.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger: Paul condemns homosexuality just as strongly as the OT does so your point is meaningless. Even if we were to erase the entire OT from the pages of the bible, the bible would still condemn homosexuality as wrong.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce the argument at hand is the OT, specifically Leviticus, because that's what that jackass Greg Kookl is talking about in his smug little anti-gay speech on this vid. If you want to talk about Paul, that's a whole other can of worms. It basically comes down to the difference between people who believe every word of the bible is somehow the direct word of God and people who know better. Fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon, btw.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger We can argue about fundamentalism all you want, but condemnation of homosexuality within the church has been next to universal up until 50 years ago. Regardless of what you think about fundamentalism, you are simply fighting against the whole history of the christian church and its scholarship when you try and suggest God doesn't condemn homosexuality as wrong. So if we are talking about new developments, your side is much newer than fundamentalism.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce what's new about it is that you are saying it's the word of God, not the word of people claiming to be inspired by God. That's what's new, even if the christian church has always been homophobic. And Jesus did not establish any institution based on his teachings, the Christian church is the hybrid of the old hebrew religion that Jesus at least partially rejected, and Jesus new gospel.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger Calling us names like homophobic just shows your vitriol for people who disagree with you. And the christian church condemned homosexuality universally because the case against it was so overwhelming, not because they had a vendetta. Your tendency to judge men's hearts based on their beliefs is sad.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce I do have vitriol for bigots, and I'm not ashamed of that. Beliefs are fine until they are used as a reason to hurt people, then they need to be judged to defend the victims of those who believe in condemning people that did nothing to deserve such treatment. your trying to convince others that jesus was a bigot like you is what's really sad here.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger Someone is not a bigot if they honestly believe God condemns a particular activity through His word. If you disagree with that opinion, you disagree. But let's not degrade the debate into a childish name calling contest because we have a difference of opinion on what God teaches.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce The bible condemns many activities that Christians mostly ignore, why do they focus on homosexuality? The only logical conclusion a rational person can come to is that Chrisitians have a deeper dislike for homosexuals just like ignorant rednecks. Chrisitans in the south used to justify black slavery with the bible too, and later used the bible to justify Jim Crow laws, because blacks were supposedly "the cursed descendants of Ham." Christian bigotry is nothing new.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger Christian don't ignore anything. That is a pathetic caricature. I have given you plenty of explanations for why they believe something different than you. Does this mean that I should be calling you a christian bigot and a christian homophobe because you stir up hate and fear of any christian that dares to disagree with your interpretation of scripture?

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce a christian bigot/christian homophobe is what you are, what you are attempting to call me is "bigoted toward christians" or "afraid of christians." it's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand the basic mechanics of the english language.

all i've ever done here is respond to christian anti-gay hate speech. i am only defending homosexuals, because they are persecuted by christian bigots like you, much the way early christians were persecuted by pagans.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger Your corrections are petty and juvenile, but I'll disregard them for now to stick to the topic at hand. What you have done is had a debate with someone who has a different point of view than you do and have implied hatred and bigotry where none exists. I have never hated homosexuals nor have I feared them. I simply believe the bible to be the final word on what is right and wrong and unequivocally condemns homosexuality as wrong. Your insinuations are unfounded.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce maybe you personally haven't persecuted homosexuals, but fundamentalist christians in general do. they get anti-gay intiatives on voter ballots quite often, some of which do pass, that give employers and others the right to discriminate against homosexuals openly. in some states sodomy is still a felony, but only for gays (most sodomy is committed by heterosexuals.) and that's just the mild stuff from recent history. there's a long, violent history of christian persecution of gays.

[566791967]

you cant understand because you are not able to divide with the moral law and the ceremonial laws....You must be gay so cant divide from what you do and who you are....its a problem you might be having...

[jwallbanger]

You must be an idiot to assume I'm gay for one, and you must be an idiot if you can't understand what I extensively explained as obvious hypocrisy. So you get to pick and choose which laws are just outdated ceremony to be ignored and which laws are to be obeyed out of morality? Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite. What is your criteria for determining that homosexuality is immoral but eating shellfish is just an old ceremonial consideration? That same list rejects both equally, you hypocrite.

[uraine7626]

Where did God codemn homosexuality also? Once again when it say God consider homosexuality as an abonimation still was man.

[Yesica1993]

I love your program, Greg. But I do think people these days are simply not capable or willing to think any topic through rationally and logically as you've done here. You can see that by the comments left!

[uraine7626]

Yeah I look at the video but he say Jesus thought he was God, then why would he praise to his father. Never did you see that? It not I ruling to kill or judge other unrighteous.

[Asylumescapee69]

This is not rational thought. This is biased and unethically forced religious belief. EXPLAIN TO US HOW CONSENSUAL GRATIFICATION BETWEEN TWO ADULTS IS IMMORAL!!!! WHERE IS THE RATIONAL OF THAT?

[mikeywikeybikey]

Love your enemies figeratively means dont make judgements about people. Everyone should be treated with respect. Seriously why would "jesus" make a comment on homosexuals. The bible was written so maybe those whoe wrote it have included some aspect which they wanted?? Why is there so much contradiction in the bible

[Yesica1993]

Where do you get the idea that "love your enemies" is to be taken figuratively? And how do you take that to then mean that we can't make judgments? Jesus made judgments. Why would you care what Jesus said or did anyway?

Show me the contradictions in the Bible. I'd bet money you don't even have a Bible, much less have ever cracked it open.

Oh, and learn how to spell.

[uraine7626]

As simple-minded as people like you are their a different between ones that the prophets mention and what Jesus mention. You can take the words people such as paul mention with a silver spoon because it not the words of our savior. It is a different if you say God doesn't like something then God saying he doesn't like something. That's common sense.

[Asylumescapee69]

Since you want to be obstinate, lets look at what you call the word of God himself.

New Testament:

Let's start with Timothy, 2:11-12

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." No female teachers, and you are not allowed to speak to me as you have.

Deuteronomy 22:20,21 FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT!

[uraine7626]

About time someone see how fake this people of the earth is, how many people pick and choose the things they want to talk about which aren't sins at all but don't mention other sins such as eating pork.

[jwallbanger]

so everything in the bible is the word of god then? do you even care about the history of this book? who put it together? what was left on the cutting room floor?

any thinking christian will take the writings of paul with a grain of salt. unlike with the works of jesus, there are no verifiable witnesses of Paul's alleged conversion on the road to damascus, he in fact refuses to name anyone he claims was there, and he changes his story too. i believe the gospel of jesus, not the gospel of paul.

[uraine7626]

thank you

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger What ridiculous nonsense. Paul's writings and ministry have been overwhelmingly accepted by the vast majority of christians Protestant and Catholic for the entire history of the christian church. Because some fringe scholars in the vast minority of christian theology choose to call into question his writings 1500 years after the fact doesn't make his writings any less a part of scripture than the rest of the NT. Saying your position is the "thinking" one is slightly arrogant.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce they weren't the first to question paul. the apostles THAT ACTUALLY KNEW JESUS also rejected Paul and his BS conversion story. The fact that he was better at bringing in converts is the only reason his letters were included. Oh, and how did he bring in converts? By renaming Pagan holidays as Christian holidays! He also faked persecution by the Roman government to stir up sympathy for himself. Paul was a charlatan, just because he's in the bible does not make him the spokesman for God.

[Asylumescapee69]

2 Corinthians 2:7

"Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort, so that (he) will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow."

Your judgment only serves to lessen man's sense of worth in God's eyes.

Galatians 2:11

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

Even disciples of Christ can be wrong.

Philippians 2:3

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves."

Just as Christ would do.

[Kalexandrian1010]

jesus was different from the god previously known...much more loving and forgiving...like by becoming human he knew we were so fragile, and imperfect...

i conclude that jesus probably didnt like it, but was "tolerant" in a sense that he was going to treat it like a normal or lesser sin, not something like the murder of the innocent or causing dissention amoungst brothers...

i consider jesus an update on gods views, b4 man, being alone for eternity didnt give him alot of social skills

[uraine7626]

One thing to remember it's man such as paul who give their bias on homosexuality.

[Yesica1993]

What bias would that be?

[uraine7626]

Paul had a strong dislike for homosexuals, more than other prophets.

[Yesica1993]

That is an outright lie. Paul never mentioned any homosexual people and said (or even implied) that he disliked them.

The Bible is clear and consistent all the way through in its views and teachings on homosexuality. Teaching against homosexuality the behavior does not equal "dislike" of the persons themselves.

[Asylumescapee69]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:24-32

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the...

[uraine7626]

The bible didn't say nothing about Jesus accepting or condemning homosexuality, so either it wasn't important enough to mission or it must not have been a sin.

[dtower76]

Jesus didn't mention bestiality, incest, or pedophilia, either. Does that mean that they're not sins? Doesn't this mean your argument has a problem?

[uraine7626]

No it means that maybe the sins that man consider so demeaning isn't as demeaning to Jesus as it is demeaning to man.

[jwallbanger]

@dtower76 the obvious flaw in your reasoning is that the three things you just mentioned all have victims involved, as in, they are actions that hurt other people (or animals) consensual homosexual behavior has no victims, you object to it because you find it repulsive, like most straight people do. But then you abuse scripture to justify your bigoted attitude toward gays. Gay people are regular folks who happen to have different sexual preferences. they have no victims therefore no sin.

[sirluce]

@jwallbanger The main reason conservative christians have a problem with homosexuality is because God condemns it. Your psychoanalysis of millions of people you have never met is ridiculously arrogant and unfounded. It is about time you learn how to stick to the arguments they make and tackle those rather than demonize people who you don't know the first thing about. I can guarantee you I know more conservative christians than you do, and their motivations are pure.

[jwallbanger]

@sirluce I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I listened to my family go on and on about alleged militant homosexual groups that were indoctrinating youth and turning them gay, which was their justification for the anti-gay laws they were fighting to get on the ballots year after year.

You seem the one that doesn't know the history of your own religion. Christians used to KILL homosexuals by wrapping them in a bundle of sticks and setting them on fire. Hence the term, faggot.

[Yesica1993]

Did you even BOTHER to watch and listen to this video? That's what the whole thing was about!

How it burns me to see people spouting off nonsense in response to a video that they did not even bother watching or paying attention to!

[Asylumescapee69]

And what of the problem with Jesus only applying levitical law to Jews. He certainly did not enforce the law upon gentiles or Romans.

Is it not reasonable to deduce that Jesus today would encourage that Americans follow and respect their own laws! What moral basis is there for condemning homosexuality?

I can appreciate your seemingly open approach to this problem, and respect your point of view. But logically thinking in terms of what morality is for and about, how does it apply here?

[Asylumescapee69]

If we take the levitical law literally, then MAN should not LIE with MAN. You cannot apply "homosexuality" or imply loving relationships. It sounds as if the law was addressing pagan behaviors and lustful drives. The truth is we don't have enough information to interpret this law.

[Yesica1993]

Man should not lie with man as with a woman.

What part of that is not clear to you? Good grief!

[Asylumescapee69]

You didn't even answer the most important question I asked. "How is homosexuality immoral?"

And should not? You should not throw stones in glass houses either. Good grief... 2000 year old law that applied specifically to the tribes of Moses. It was as our laws apply to us. And it is unconstitutional and a heinous inequity of our basic human rights to outlaw personal consensual interaction which does not harm others. You are parroting a 6000 year old text written by MEN. How are you not bigoted?

[dhamamy]

this man neither understands Jesus or the concept of Grace

[Yesica1993]

Good grief, did you even listen to anything he said? Clearly not!

[dhamamy]

yes Charlie Brown I listened and he has obviously missed the point of Jesus life and ministry

[Yesica1993]

Take your ridiculous "Charlie Brown" comments elsewhere.

Read your bible. It's very clear on the subject of homosexuality.

[Asylumescapee69]

It's also very clear about stoning you to death... but I'm sure you wouldn't like to know the 13-27 laws you have broken nearly your whole life which require death on your part. You have no place even speaking here, especially not in the manner in which you are.

[BlessedPrincess81]

Very well presented!! Thanks! :-)

[james46888]

part2 (cont)...but IMO it's still a good passage to use.

[james46888]

Greg - Great video. Another passage that maybe could be brought up is Matt 11:23-24 where Jesus says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be punished on judgment day. Since the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, this clearly shows Jesus believed homosexuality was wrong. Of course I am aware that since the 1950s or so some liberal scholars have challenged the accepted view that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, so maybe that passage won't carry quite as much force as it once did, (cont)...

[dhamamy]

the Sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, have you ever read your Bible? ignorance abounds on this thread

[james46888]

As I pointed out in my original comment, there have been some scholars since the 50s who have sought to argue it is about something other than homosexuality (gang rape, inhospitality, etc), but this goes against what the Bible clearly teaches IMO (not that homosexuality was Sodom's only sin of course).

[dhamamy]

i suggest you reread the account of Sodom and related scriptures in Isaiah and Ezekiel...... what you are saying is nonsense and quite possibly hateful.....it is most definietly perilous to squeeze the scriptures to fit our ideals.....let the scriptures speak for themselves

[james46888]

You're entitled to interpret it differently from me of course, but where I have to strongly disagree is where you use the words, "...and quite possibly hateful." I believe rightly or wrongly that homosexuality is wrong. Does opposition to an action or behavior of a person equate with a personal hatred of them? If a Christian says they believe theft is wrong would you assume that they have a personal hatred towards someone who stole from them? (if they did, they would not be following (cont)....

[james46888]

part2 (cont)... Jesus' example) If not, why assume that a Christian who simply says they believe homosexuality is wrong therefore has a hatred towards gay people?

[dhamamy]

if you are a Christian I should not have to explain, think about it...more importantly pray about it

[james46888]

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be argumentative or contentious, but I really have no idea what you mean there. I just don't see how opposing a form of behaviour practised by a given person has to also equate with having personal hatred towards that person. Every Christian surely tries to live this way (without hatred towards others) everyday. Sure, I know that almost all non-believers oppose (for example) lying & adultery, but many I know also have animosity towards those who have (cont)....

[james46888]

part2 (cont)... perpetrated such sins against them; however, as a Christian, you know that we are not to live that way & I certainly have no hatred towards gay people & simply have no idea why you'd infer I would.

[dhamamy]

i did not mean to infer that you are hateful, however that your words could be construed in a such a way

however my point continues to be that many "christians" have taken up this unscriptural fight against homosexuality, and they use faulty conclusions from accounts like that of Sodom to prove their faulty points...i would encourage you to stop trying make scripture say what it does not say........instead live the life Jesus encouraged us to lead....as he lead his life

God Bless

[james46888]

"i did not mean to infer that you are hateful,"

OK. Fair enough :). On the issue of whether my words could be misconstrued as hateful, I'm really in a no-win situation in that all I said is that I believe the Sodom & Gomorrah account shows homosexuality is wrong (not that this is the best example in the Bible), & in doing so I have not used inflammatory language as some preachers do, so if that could seen as hateful by others, there is simply nothing I can do about that other than (cont)....

[james46888]

part2 (cont)...to stop talking about homosexuality altogether, and that is something I'm not be willing to do as long as I see it as sinful.

[james46888]

Just to clarify, is your argument that you don't believe the Sodom and Gomorrah account in the book of Genesis condemns homosexuality or is it that you don't believe any biblical scriptures condemn it?

[dhamamy]

i think i made my point, stop forcing scripture to say what it does not say.

my own personal views are irrelevant, i do not read the the scriptures to glean out what behaviour God endorses or condemns........we all sin, and will continue do so, we have Grace from God,

i enjoy the soothing and redeeming words of Christ about Love, mercy and forgiveness. this was what Jesus viewed as important

if Christs lives in us we do not need rules, we do nett need endorsmnent or condemnation

[james46888]

Yes, we all sin, but obviously one reason we read scripture is to find out what is right and wrong and how we, as Christians, should behave so as not to hurt our creator.

[dhamamy]

if Christ's love lives in you, you will know what is right and what is wrong....it really isn't complicated

Matt 23:23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

[dhamamy]

if you love your neighbour as jesus commanded, you will not murder him, you will not steal from him, you will not sleep with his wife.............we are frail and sinful and will fail.....we have Grace.......

[dhamamy]

exegetic arguemnts about law are sometimes stimulating but are fruitless

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

[dhamamy]

Titus 1:15

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

[AndSheSmiled89]

...continuing on from my below post, the term used in the Bible was something like: a man laying with another man as with a woman. That is the correct phrase to argue; not homosexuality (which refers to men and women who are sexually oriented towards members of the same sex). The Bible is clear as to who it mentions and doesn't mention -- a branch off of thought, the OT doesn't mention a woman laying with a woman, as such we really cannot use the word homosexuality.

[BlessedPrincess81]

I'm sorry--but I think you are making an argument over "words". While it's true that the Bible doesn't translate any words a "homosexuality"-yet by your own admission, it does address the matter of a man laying w/ another man. Remember Romans Ch.1 and it's description of both male and female participation in sexual relations that are against nature. It is a perversion and condemned in the Bible.

[BlessedPrincess81]

Remember the way the whole law was written, most of it was addressed to the men (perspectively speaking) for they are the head/leaders-that doesn't mean that the women were not held accountable for the same things. Lev.18:6 says, "None of you" and then proceeds with the details. Most are toward a man (in perspective) yet it doesn't mean that the women were exempt from those laws or judgments should they have been initiators or willful in violating such laws.

[AndSheSmiled89]

I'm curious to know how we can use the word "homosexuality" in the Bible when the word wasn't coined until the late 19th century... You can argue what the Bible says or doesn't say, but you cannot argue what it says based on words established thousands of years after the Bible was written. It's like talking about cars in the Bible -- the concept cars and the word cars wasn't around, in the same light, the concept of homosexuality as we know it and the word weren't around back then...

[obietom]

Is he being willfully obtuse? The question "should this be taken literally" implicitly means, "should this be applied today" - not "was this meant to be taken literally in its original context."

It is interesting to me that he spends so much time on how we cannot infer from Jesus' silence that he was pro-gay (5:40), while his 3rd point at the end (8:12) is that since Jesus was silent about gay relationships in reference to marriage, we should infer that he opposed them.

[funboy7979]

This guy seems like a creepy boy toucher.

[tonzimala]

This guy seems like a repressed homosexual to me. Just sayin' ...

[Triploblast1]

One thing Jesus did repeatedly preach against was divorce - how many divorced Christians are leading the charge to ban gay marriage?

Also, the verse against homosexuality in the Old Testament is surrounded by a verse banning two types of linen to be worn at the same time and two types of crops to be grown in the same field. Nothing like some Iron Age advice to make our lives better...

[girzwald3]

fail, jesus didnt say it was a sin, or against the rules to get divorced.

[Triploblast1]

Try again friend, just one example is found in Matthew 5:31 where Jesus says:

"And it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Seems pretty clear to me....

[girzwald3]

Failed. You didn't mention infidelities, all you said was divorce.

[Triploblast1]

You say that Jesus didn't say it was against the rules to get divorced? Let's try this again - here's Jesus in Mathew 19:3: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." And later, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The fact that there might be a special circumstance in which divorce is permissible does not take away from the fact that divorce, in general IS against the rules as he laid them out.

[girzwald3]

You are just made of fail. Sorry, you repeating the same passage wont change the facts.

[SeraphsWitness]

You said, "jesus didnt say it was a sin, or against the rules to get divorced. "

He showed you that Jesus DID say that.

That means he proved your statement to be incorrect. I know it hurts the pride, but it's true.

[RobertBaral365]

Darkened and ghastly our demons shall fly. Flittering of the macabre under a cold moon. Decadent worship of black magic and sorcery. God is in the womb of the devil's dungeon. You can see your god writhing in agony. Necrosis is festering in his face. Venomous pins sticking in the skin. The poison prepared by our demons. God will be drawn and quartered. His skull will be chained to your head. We fold the life-less body to fit it in a casket. We shall then cross out the crucifix.

[freestuffffff]

So many fantastic Spanish gay guys I have met are named Jesus, and those Jesuses LOVE homosexuality.

[criscpop]

so if I understand his argument correctly Jesus accepted all the old testament laws because they were essentially dictated by himself (ie God) and therefore he implicitly disapproves of homosexuality but also presumably approves of all the other strictures of the old testament, so no to eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fibres but yes to slavery, child sacrifice etc or have I missed something in this argument?

[obietom]

No, because you see, slavery, child sacrifice, no mixed fibers were only the rule under theocratic Israel - according to Koukl.

I'd be interested to hear what Koukl has to say about the various departures Jesus made from Levitical code in his own right - healing on the Sabbath, undermining kosher law, etc. Why would he do such things if, as Koukl implies, Jesus completely affirms the Law?

[tomopotamus]

Healing on the Sabbath isn't part of the Levitical law. It was part of Pharisaical law.

How did Jesus undermine kosher law?

[rancantrell]

greg koukl is a very good biblical teacher.

[funboy7979]

... for me to POOP on.

[wkusam123]

how in the world is this rambling and semi-literate double talk? He seems pretty clear to me. You can disagree, and he may be wrong, but i fail to see how this is hard to understand or dumb.

[PlanetoftheAtheists]

does anyone understand this guy? He loves to hear himself talk obviously.He exists to make uneducated christians think they have some rogue scholar on their side...fine with me

[veritaslogos]

if you're the only one that can't understand him, could you be the unintelligent one?

[freestuffffff]

This rambling, semi-literate doubletalk adds up to the same old superstition-based hate mongering, couched in modern almost reasonable-sounding passive-aggressive whining. If Matthew Chapter 5 states the "Jesus" character's conviction that Old Testament laws are forever in force, then the psycho "god" of the Hebrews' commands to kill nonbelievers, gays, adulterers & insolent children, etc. are still on the books. What cynical propaganda! The Judeo-Christian death cult is a curse on the world.

[AkeemJamalRollins]

When it says "Lay with" do they mean that literally? Like the way I lay with best friend in his bed? Is that wrong? And I'm not being a smart ass, I want to understand. Please?

[philochristos]

The reason a person might raise the issue of whether Jesus condemned homosexuality or not when that person isn't a Christian isn't because THEY care what Jesus thinks, but because they're trying to reason with a Christian who DOES care what Jesus thinks.

[SpeedyBruin]

I find that my lack of religion makes it surprisingly easy to get along with people of diverse backgrounds. Much less complicated and I'm not compelled to kill anyone.

[Yesica1993]

And your statement has... what to do with this 9:31 video?

[randyhelzerman]

I think a more interesting question would be did Jesus endorse Leverite marrage, in contradistinction to John the Baptist.