HOMOSEXUALITY REVISITED

[This Vale Of Tears]

I well aware of your churches position on the gravity of different sin, and they will lead you by the hand to the verse in question, but it's not about different sin it's all about the people that sin. To say that one sin doesn't lead to death and another does is a complete injustice other verses.

Romans 6:23
James 1:15
1 Cor 15:22

The only reason I'm posting this is not to change your mind, but to show others to not engage the enemy on his ground.
Being lured into a discussion on the gravity of sins is foolishness.

IMO of course

Especially considering you haven't even clarified your position yet. The hierarchy of sins from most to least grave is blasphemy, abomination, cardinal, venial, and vice. One only need to take a cursory glance at the Levitical laws to conclude that some sins led to death and some didn't.

 

[Rex]

Especially considering you haven't even clarified your position yet. The hierarchy of sins from most to least grave is blasphemy, abomination, cardinal, venial, and vice. One only need to take a cursory glance at the Levitical laws to conclude that some sins led to death and some didn't.

I made it quite clear 1 John 5:16 is not speaking about types of sin it speaking about the type of people that sin
Post 66 http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18559-homosexuality-revisited/page-3#entry203459
and 68

Of course the law governing people has weight or gravity to types of offenses but in Gods economy sin is sin, and he surly doesn't expect us to kill people for stealing food or children for fighting. You understand the point I'm sure.

The Levitical laws would be the equivalent of your catechism or your substitute to the laws given to Moses to govern the people.
It was not a part of the covenant of the 10 commandments, it is placed beside the Ark not in it. In fact Moses said that it would be a testimony against Israel, same probably holds true for yourself and your catechism, your bigger problem is I don't believe God gave you the catechism in the first place.

Det 31
24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; 27 for I know your rebellion and your stiff neck. If today, while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord, then how much more after my death? 28 Gather to me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to witness against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.”

 

[marksman]

I already told you that venial sins are defined as sins that don't lead to death. You don't see the words "venial sins" in the Bible?? Well, you don't see the words "Holy Trinity" in the Bible as well.

Oh dear Selena, what is wrong with you? I know what you told me about venial sin and I know what I said about the word not appearing in the verse you quoted. Until you can, you do not have a leg to stand on. Saying someone called it venial sin is like someone saying my Toyota is a second rate car although there is nothing in print to suggest that.

And for your information, St. Jerome used the word "venial sins." In fact, he used both venial and mortal sin.

My response about Jerome was in response to your question "where did the term Holy Trinity" come from so whatever else he said about anything is irrelevant in the context.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I made it quite clear 1 John 5:16 is not speaking about types of sin it speaking about the type of people that sin
Post 66 http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18559-homosexuality-revisited/page-3#entry203459
and 68

Of course the law governing people has weight or gravity to types of offenses but in Gods economy sin is sin, and he surly doesn't expect us to kill people for stealing food or children for fighting. You understand the point I'm sure.

The Levitical laws would be the equivalent of your catechism or your substitute to the laws given to Moses to govern the people.
It was not a part of the covenant of the 10 commandments, it is placed beside the Ark not in it. In fact Moses said that it would be a testimony against Israel, same probably holds true for yourself and your catechism, your bigger problem is I don't believe God gave you the catechism in the first place.

Det 31
24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; 27 for I know your rebellion and your stiff neck. If today, while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord, then how much more after my death? 28 Gather to me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to witness against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.”

Your interpretation is a stretch at best and defies the most simplistic rendering of the text. "Sin not leading to death" appears three times in this passages so as to avoid confusion. It's certainly a qualification on the sin, not the sinner. Your supplied commentary not withstanding, I still don't know by what exegetical gymnastics you can get around that the sin is being qualified, not the person committing the sin.

 

[marksman]

The Levitical laws would be the equivalent of your catechism or your substitute to the laws given to Moses to govern the people. It was not a part of the covenant of the 10 commandments, it is placed beside the Ark not in it. In fact Moses said that it would be a testimony against Israel, same probably holds true for yourself and your catechism, your bigger problem is I don't believe God gave you the catechism in the first place.

A very good point Rex. Not only the Roman Church which has made an art form out of catholic (levitical) law, the evangelical church does the same to some degree as in you have to do this or do that or be this or be that if you want to be a member of this church.

Before I retired I was teaching in a catholic school. The kids were great but the leadership left a lot to be desired. Whilst I participated in all aspects of the life of the school, I was told I could not take communion because I was not a Catholic despite the fact that I had to attend mass to supervise the students.

Where is that in scripture? Don't ask silly questions. If we say you can't do this or do that, end of story.

One thing that did surprise me. I have never heard such foul mouthed people as the "Catholic" teachers at the school. They turned the air blue every day.

 

[Dodo_David]

Uh, is there a reason why everyone is now nit-picking about the categories of sins? How does such nit-picking pertain to the main topic of this discussion thread?

I may have erred in implying that all sins are somehow equal.


Still, I do not see in the Bible any verse which says that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin that is unforgivable.

 

[Selene]

Oh dear Selena, what is wrong with you? I know what you told me about venial sin and I know what I said about the word not appearing in the verse you quoted. Until you can, you do not have a leg to stand on. Saying someone called it venial sin is like someone saying my Toyota is a second rate car although there is nothing in print to suggest that.


My response about Jerome was in response to your question "where did the term Holy Trinity" come from so whatever else he said about anything is irrelevant in the context.

If you knew, they why continue to ask?? You also can't find the word "Holy Trinity" in the Bible and until you do, you also don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Uh, is there a reason why everyone is now nit-picking about the categories of sins? How does such nit-picking pertain to the main topic of this discussion thread?

I may have erred in implying that all sins are somehow equal.


Still, I do not see in the Bible any verse which says that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin that is unforgivable.

Uh, is there a reason why everyone is now nit-picking about the categories of sins? How does such nit-picking pertain to the main topic of this discussion thread?

I may have erred in implying that all sins are somehow equal.


Still, I do not see in the Bible any verse which says that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin that is unforgivable.

Uh, is there a reason why everyone is now nit-picking about the categories of sins? How does such nit-picking pertain to the main topic of this discussion thread?

I may have erred in implying that all sins are somehow equal.


Still, I do not see in the Bible any verse which says that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin that is unforgivable.

I thought I was maintaining good acquaintance with this thread, so forgive me if I've missed something. Who is claiming that homosexuality is unforgivable?

 

[Selene]

I thought I was maintaining good acquaintance with this thread, so forgive me if I've missed something. Who is claiming that homosexuality is unforgivable?

This thread got sidetracked all because of venial sins. "Sins that don't lead to death" is what some people call "stumbling." If some people here can call it "stumbling", I don't see why we can't call it "venial sins." For some reason, they get hooked on terminology.

Homosexuality can be forgiven if the person says he/she is sorry and repents from that sin.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

This thread got sidetracked all because of venial sins. "Sins that don't lead to death" is what some people call "stumbling." If some people here can call it "stumbling", I don't see why we can't call it "venial sins." For some reason, they get hooked on terminology.

Homosexuality can be forgiven if the person says he/she is sorry and repents from that sin.

And I don't see anyone arguing otherwise. I have noticed that Protestants tend to distrust extra-canonical terms unless it's part of their cherished lexicon. (i.e. "rapture")

 

[Selene]

And I don't see anyone arguing otherwise. I have noticed that Protestants tend to distrust extra-canonical terms unless it's part of their cherished lexicon. (i.e. "rapture")

Yes, "rapture" is a word you can't find in the Holy Bible.....a word they often use. And here they are asking us to find "venial sins" in the Bible?? Jesus said a person should get the log out of their eye first before they attempt to take out a splinter from the eye of their brother.

 

[Dodo_David]

I thought I was maintaining good acquaintance with this thread, so forgive me if I've missed something. Who is claiming that homosexuality is unforgivable?

That is my point. If sex between two people isn't the unforgivable sin, then why single that particular sin out for special condemnation?

If sexually "straight" people are just as sinful as homosexuals, then why dwell on a sin that is particular to the latter group?

If we were to treat all sins equally (except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), then we would treat spiritually-dead homosexuals the same way that we treat spiritually-dead heterosexuals. Yet, in the USA, spiritually-dead homosexuals appear to be on the receiving end of harsher criticism.

I see such unequal criticism of the sins of spiritually-dead people as working against the effort to evangelize people.

In short, evangelism doesn't require us to criticize any particular sin of a spiritually-dead person. Instead, we are to present to all people a message of how to have a life that is abundant and eternal.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That is my point. If sex between two people isn't the unforgivable sin, then why single that particular sin out for special condemnation?

If sexually "straight" people are just as sinful as homosexuals, then why dwell on a sin that is particular to the latter group?

If we were to treat all sins equally (except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), then we would treat spiritually-dead homosexuals the same way that we treat spiritually-dead heterosexuals. Yet, in the USA, spiritually-dead homosexuals appear to be on the receiving end of harsher criticism.

I see such unequal criticism of the sins of spiritually-dead people as working against the effort to evangelize people.

In short, evangelism doesn't require us to criticize any particular sin of a spiritually-dead person. Instead, we are to present to all people a message of how to have a life that is abundant and eternal.

Homosexuality is characterized in Leviticus as an "abomination" which on the hierarchy of sins falls just short of outright blasphemy. The position that homosexuality is on the par with most ordinary sins is just as wrong as saying it's unforgivable.

 

[Rex]

Your interpretation is a stretch at best and defies the most simplistic rendering of the text. "Sin not leading to death" appears three times in this passages so as to avoid confusion. It's certainly a qualification on the sin, not the sinner. Your supplied commentary not withstanding, I still don't know by what exegetical gymnastics you can get around that the sin is being qualified, not the person committing the sin.

View the text through this lens and it becomes clear, but you don't follow the same principles of hermeneutics as I most protestants do.

Mathew 12:31-32
Mark 3:28-29

Both say all sins will be forgiven man,
The sin unto death is the rejection of Christ first and foremost but it can be forgiven. But the sin unto death can not be forgiven.

 

[Dodo_David]

Yes, "rapture" is a word you can't find in the Holy Bible.....a word they often use. And here they are asking us to find "venial sins" in the Bible?? Jesus said a person should get the log out of their eye first before they attempt to take out a splinter from the eye of their brother.

I have no objection to someone using the expression "venial sins", since the expression is in the same category as the expression "Trinity". In short, each expression is a label for a concept that one has seen expressed in the Bible. As long as the concept is in the Bible, why fuss about the label that it has been given?

 

[Rex]

A very good point Rex. Not only the Roman Church which has made an art form out of catholic (levitical) law, the evangelical church does the same to some degree as in you have to do this or do that or be this or be that if you want to be a member of this church.

Before I retired I was teaching in a catholic school. The kids were great but the leadership left a lot to be desired. Whilst I participated in all aspects of the life of the school, I was told I could not take communion because I was not a Catholic despite the fact that I had to attend mass to supervise the students.

Where is that in scripture? Don't ask silly questions. If we say you can't do this or do that, end of story.

One thing that did surprise me. I have never heard such foul mouthed people as the "Catholic" teachers at the school. They turned the air blue every day.

Then lets us praise the Lord for making known a truth. You demonstrate Wisdom, in more ways than simply the quote below
I am not aware of any scripture that says if you tell the truth you are being judgmental.

After your signed in, quote button on the lower right corner of the post you what to reply to. This places the name of the person quoted in view. And moves the post requested into the editor.
Now you can edit the post to focus on the point you want reply to by cutting, deleting or highlighting or leave as is. Simply reply below the personalized quote.

Before posting, you can select another post "from another member" or the same to add below ect ect I hope that helps but thank you for keeping it in mind, at times it's hard to find who your replying to. If you can suffer my poor English skills as a teacher, the least I can do to repay you is to make the effort to find who it is your replying to.

God Bless

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I have no objection to someone using the expression "venial sins", since the expression is in the same category as the expression "Trinity". In short, each expression is a label for a concept that one has seen expressed in the Bible. As long as the concept is in the Bible, why fuss about the label that it has been given?

^^^^ This

 

[Rex]

I have no objection to someone using the expression "venial sins", since the expression is in the same category as the expression "Trinity". In short, each expression is a label for a concept that one has seen expressed in the Bible. As long as the concept is in the Bible, why fuss about the label that it has been given?

I'm English major but I do know words mean things
Most importantly is knowing the speakers definition

The definition is what is in question

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I'm (an) English major (missing comma) but I do know words mean things (missing period)

Most (important) is knowing the speaker's (possessive) definition (missing period)

The definition is what is in question (missing period)

An English major, eh?

 

[Dodo_David]

An English major, eh?

I suspect that Rex meant to say that he is not an English major.