Homosexuality

[heretoeternity]

hav

Sin is sin, one sin is no worse than another no matter how you try to make this worse than any other, all sin leads to death and no one is without sin, not even you.Are you without sin???

You are wrong again!....homosexuality goes against God's very creation..in the beginning He created man and woman, male and female, and said go forth and ill the earth..then in Lev it is mentioned homosexuality isan abomination to God. It was an abomination then and still is an abomination...
Of course you do not realize that because you seem to have a tough time understanding and following His word..you will have to answer for that some day.

 

[mjrhealth]

You are wrong again!....homosexuality goes against God's very creation..in the beginning He created man and woman, male and female, and said go forth and ill the earth..then in Lev it is mentioned homosexuality isan abomination to God. It was an abomination then and still is an abomination...
Of course you do not realize that because you seem to have a tough time understanding and following His word..you will have to answer for that some day.

I have no problem with His Word "Jesus" the bible . well look at where you are and look at all the aruguement here on this forum all using differnt bibles all saying differnt things yet saying it is all teh word of God, even teh Bible decalares that Jesus is teh word of God. But that is another story, one day whe nyou discover the love of Christ you will see things differently, and why it is that Love covers everything. Are you collecting stones to throw at people>>>

 

[heretoeternity]

I have no problem with His Word "Jesus" the bible . well look at where you are and look at all the aruguement here on this forum all using differnt bibles all saying differnt things yet saying it is all teh word of God, even teh Bible decalares that Jesus is teh word of God. But that is another story, one day whe nyou discover the love of Christ you will see things differently, and why it is that Love covers everything. Are you collecting stones to throw at people>>>







As Christians we are to "come against" the evils in the world...we are to conduct our lives in a manner pleasing to God, and when we come against the evils He will listen to us...we come against the evils of the world like homosexuality, abortion, corruption etc in prayer and condemn these activities, rather than sit on our hands and condone such horrendous activities...we come against the activities, not the persons..they can and will repent...someday hopefully.

 

[StanJ]

I find it a little funny that you seem to be judging me and my intent. Do you see the irony?
Also...you seem to have totally missed my point in regards to how scripture tells us to interact with others. So...I refer you back to my previous answer...for all the good it will do.

Mjrhealth is our cross to bear and most have him in ignore. I take him off occasionally to see if he's improved but he never does.

 

[shnarkle]

Juno posted: "One thing that sexologists have since found out, is that our sexual orientation is hugely determined by biological factors. It is most likely something that we are born with and that we can no more change than we can change the colour of our eyes. Think of it as an impairment if you must, but being born homosexual is certainly no more sinful than being born intersexual (people with no definite gender: female genitalia, but male DNA etc.)"

This argument is presenting a false dichotomy in that we're all born sinners. What you seem to be claiming is that in this particular case one is somehow justified in exercising this sin.

There are people who are born alcoholics. Some are born drug addicts and even have to be detoxed immediately after they're born. Some struggle with drug addiction and alcoholism their entire lives. Some may even claim that since they're born that way they shouldn't be discriminated against because of the way they were born.

Granted it may not be something that can be changed, however it is something that can be controlled. Just because one is a drug addict doesn't mean that they have to act upon those urges. Likewise, the same holds true for the heterosexual and the homosexual alike. Many heterosexual people engage in adultery and fornication, but others exercise some level of self control and refrain from these sinful activities. Homosexuals shouldn't get a pass just because they're homosexuals.

 

[shnarkle]

Homosexuality is a sin. Without grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice HE AND HE ALONE made, you are going to hell and will be surrounded by shrimp eaters who wear polyester. But if you accept the Blood attonement, you don't have to quit anymore than i have to give up shrimp.

I agree with everything you posted until you came to this summary. I don't see how what came before would lead you to come to this conclusion. Accepting the blood atonement is ultimately tantamount to being conformed to the image of Christ, and Christ didn't eat shrimp, or wear mixed fibers, or engage in any sinful behavior. For us to be conformed to Christ's image is going to require that we give up some sinful behaviors; ultimately all of them. You could just as easily have said: "you don't have to quit anymore than I have to give up stealing or fornicating with my neighbor's wife." The expectation is that the opposite is true, i.e. we all have to give up sin; all sin.

 

[FHII]

I agree with everything you posted until you came to this summary. I don't see how what came before would lead you to come to this conclusion. Accepting the blood atonement is ultimately tantamount to being conformed to the image of Christ, and Christ didn't eat shrimp, or wear mixed fibers, or engage in any sinful behavior. For us to be conformed to Christ's image is going to require that we give up some sinful behaviors; ultimately all of them. You could just as easily have said: "you don't have to quit anymore than I have to give up stealing or fornicating with my neighbor's wife." The expectation is that the opposite is true, i.e. we all have to give up sin; all sin.

Grace covers all sins of the flesh. Past, present and future.

 

[shnarkle]

mj, I dont think Nathan the prophet was too concerned about David's feelings when he rebuked him for his sin. Nor was John the baptist concerned about hurting Herod's feelings. It is wrong to tell someone they are okay when they are doing things which bring God's wrath and judgment on the world. We aren't judging them, God has already made the judgment. Homosexuality is sin. We are called to repent of our sins and live holy lives, not excuse our sins and use the cross as a means to promote evil.

One final note: God was merciful to prostitutes and tax collectors because they recognized their sin, repented and sought mercy. God did not give mercy to the Pharisees and teachers of the Law because they felt no need for repentance or that they had done anything wrong. We must recognize our sin and repent if we are to find grace in our time of need. How can we expect homosexuals to repent and find grace if people like you tell them there is no need for them to repent of their sexual immorality because they have done nothing wrong?

What you say makes perfect sense, however people differ, even Christians; over what the true interpretation of scripture actually is. So we have debates over whether or not things like the dietary laws, usury, divorce, etc. are still sin, abrogated, changed, done away with etc. So what's my point? The point is that ultimately, and I think you would agree; we have to focus on the gospel. A gospel that has the power to spotlight our sins so we can repent of them and be saved. Simply pointing out that we are sinners is to state the obvious. Pointing out that something we like to do is a sin isn't so obvious to some people so the gospel is the most effective way to make it happen, especially for those stubborn sins that just won't wash out with Tide, or All Temp-Cheer, etc..

 

[shnarkle]

Grace covers all sins of the flesh. Past, present and future.

Well then that is good news! I'm sure that my mistress will be ecstatic to know that we can continue to carry on with our affair knowing that it is all covered. The government isn't going to like this news though as I'm going to be taking all the money I hid from the tax man this year and stuff it into an international trust in the Caymans.

 

[FHII]

Well then that is good news! I'm sure that my mistress will be ecstatic to know that we can continue to carry on with our affair knowing that it is all covered. The government isn't going to like this news though as I'm going to be taking all the money I hid from the tax man this year and stuff it into an international trust in the Caymans.

I'm sure she will be and if that makes you two happy great! I, personally, am not into that sort of thing. I respect my marriage and although I do know what Matthew 5 has to say about even looking on a woman to lust (and I am guilty) I would just assume not cheat on my wife.

But that's just me. I am not going to judge you or your mistress. Grace does cover your infidelity.

As for the gov't... Well, grace does cover that too. But it won't keep you out of jail.

Or divorce court and you have just admitted to adultery and tax fraud.

 

[7angels]

shnarkle you really are something else you make it so i want to respond to your posts. this is fun for me.

What you say makes perfect sense, however people differ, even Christians; over what the true interpretation of scripture actually is. So we have debates over whether or not things like the dietary laws, usury, divorce, etc. are still sin, abrogated, changed, done away with etc. So what's my point? The point is that ultimately, and I think you would agree; we have to focus on the gospel. A gospel that has the power to spotlight our sins so we can repent of them and be saved. Simply pointing out that we are sinners is to state the obvious. Pointing out that something we like to do is a sin isn't so obvious to some people so the gospel is the most effective way to make it happen, especially for those stubborn sins that just won't wash out with Tide, or All Temp-Cheer, etc..

i think you all are missing the point of the Gospel. the gospel is the GOOD news of what Christ has done for us. most of you make the gospel sound like a chore and difficult to understand but it is supposed to be simplistic. the good news isn't that Christ came to show us our sins but to show us a path to joy everlasting. i read many of your posts and it is all about sin in one form or another. how does that bring me joy? if i live by my flesh i can have lots of fun. so why do i want a stuffy gospel does nothing but remind me how bad i am? i am curious to hear your responses.

Well then that is good news! I'm sure that my mistress will be ecstatic to know that we can continue to carry on with our affair knowing that it is all covered. The government isn't going to like this news though as I'm going to be taking all the money I hid from the tax man this year and stuff it into an international trust in the Caymans.

if only Grace were meant to be used that way it would make life no different then how unbelievers live. grace is to be used to help us to keep on the path of God. you all do know that grace is conditional correct? just because you claim grace does not mean you will get grace. it is similar to salvation. salvation is not free either it has conditions attached to it. which is why once saved always saved is a bunch of bull. every promise in the bible is conditional which is why everyone is heading to hell unless they choose to go along with the conditions written in the Word in order to be saved.

btw shnarkle i hope you are kidding about what you posted. opcorn:

God bless

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle you really are something else you make it so i want to respond to your posts. this is fun for me.

i think you all are missing the point of the Gospel. the gospel is the GOOD news of what Christ has done for us. most of you make the gospel sound like a chore and difficult to understand but it is supposed to be simplistic. the good news isn't that Christ came to show us our sins but to show us a path to joy everlasting. i read many of your posts and it is all about sin in one form or another. how does that bring me joy? if i live by my flesh i can have lots of fun. so why do i want a stuffy gospel does nothing but remind me how bad i am? i am curious to hear your responses.
if only Grace were meant to be used that way it would make life no different then how unbelievers live. grace is to be used to help us to keep on the path of God. you all do know that grace is conditional correct? just because you claim grace does not mean you will get grace. it is similar to salvation. salvation is not free either it has conditions attached to it. which is why once saved always saved is a bunch of bull. every promise in the bible is conditional which is why everyone is heading to hell unless they choose to go along with the conditions written in the Word in order to be saved.

btw shnarkle i hope you are kidding about what you posted. opcorn:

God bless

I see your point, but I think you missed the point of my post altogether. I'm basically making effectively the same point you are, it just isn't the same essential point. My point is that the gospel automatically makes us aware of our sins, but some people look at this as a bad thing, a downer, a bummer; it isn't. Especially when it is the power of the Holy Spirit that is revealing it as opposed to some self righteous preacher helping us to understand the finer points of the law. What I'm saying here is that there can be no repentance when one thinks, "Hey I'm a sinner, but I'm not so bad that God can't/won't forgive me". God has a completely different standard of righteousness than you or I. In God's eye's our humble repentance for making mistakes in our lives is a worthless dirty bloody rag. God doesn't provide this revelation without offering us the "gift of repentance" which allows us to believe the gospel. Those who have received the gospel message, not to be confused with the law and sin; then are compelled to spread the gospel which offers all who have ears to hear the hope of a way out from our messed up unfulfilled lives. So we aren't called to spotlight how miserable others may be, but to show the light of Christ in our lives which isn't just attractive to others, but as a sort of side effect, if you will; reveals the darkness within those who truly need Christ in their lives.

So you're right we're not called to point out the sin of others, but this is going to happen anyways simply by turning up the lights. The brightness of Christ reveals sin, and causes darkness to flee, that which remains is cleansed by the light.

 

[shnarkle]

I'm sure she will be and if that makes you two happy great! I, personally, am not into that sort of thing. I respect my marriage and although I do know what Matthew 5 has to say about even looking on a woman to lust (and I am guilty) I would just assume not cheat on my wife.

You do know that those who break the spirit of the law break the letter of the law, don't you? What is in your heart is far more important than the letter of the law. No one cares, not even your wife; that you are able to keep from breaking the letter of the law when you've just admitted that you're essentially a lecherous adulterer. Just to be clear here; we all are. So, unlike you; I'm not going to presume to wish you well with the lusts of your flesh. The fact is that you are admitting that you cheat on your wife; there's no assumptions about it.

Oh, I think what you meant to say was: "I would just AS SOON not cheat on my wife." Which means that you would rather not cheat on your wife. To assume that you aren't cheating on your wife is to make a false assumption as you've already admitted. What you're still saying is that you would rather assume that you're not cheating on your wife, even if the fact is that you really are. So even if you think you meant to say what you did, you're really better off to go with my correction here; not just by the letter, but by the spirit as well.

[quote} But that's just me. I am not going to judge you or your mistress. Grace does cover your infidelity.[/quote]

Not necessarily. This is a big problem with most people who think that Grace covers all sin. Christ came to fulfill the law, i.e. the Mosaic law. This should not be confused with anyone's idea of what the Mosaic law says. For example, one of the most pervasive themes throughout the Mosaic law is that of the distinction between intentional and unintentional sin. Unintentional sin is always and everywhere covered by sacrifice. However, this was never the case with intentional sin. Sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin. Teshuva, or repentance and restitution were what were required for intentional sin. The author of Hebrews reiterates this as well and points out explicitly that Christ's sacrifice cannot cover intentional sin. Perhaps I should say will not cover intentional sin; I'm not in any way suggesting that Christ's sacrifice is incapable of covering sin, but God will not be mocked.


As for the gov't... Well, grace does cover that too. But it won't keep you out of jail.[/QUOTE]
Grace could keep me out of jail. Grace did release Paul from jail. In case you weren't aware of this, Paul broke the law. eeeeee International trusts have been around for a long time, and are a perfectly legal way to shelter money from a tax system that explicitly allows for it.

Or divorce court and you have just admitted to adultery and tax fraud.

Well, technically I haven't admitted to anything. My reply to your post was rhetorical. I was using a figure to emphasize that your points were invalid.

 

[FHII]

I'm sure she will be and if that makes you two happy great! I, personally, am not into that sort of thing. I respect my marriage and although I do know what Matthew 5 has to say about even looking on a woman to lust (and I am guilty) I would just assume not cheat on my wife.

You do know that those who break the spirit of the law break the letter of the law, don't you? What is in your heart is far more important than the letter of the law. No one cares, not even your wife; that you are able to keep from breaking the letter of the law when you've just admitted that you're essentially a lecherous adulterer. Just to be clear here; we all are. So, unlike you; I'm not going to presume to wish you well with the lusts of your flesh. The fact is that you are admitting that you cheat on your wife; there's no assumptions about it.

Oh, I think what you meant to say was: "I would just AS SOON not cheat on my wife." Which means that you would rather not cheat on your wife. To assume that you aren't cheating on your wife is to make a false assumption as you've already admitted. What you're still saying is that you would rather assume that you're not cheating on your wife, even if the fact is that you really are. So even if you think you meant to say what you did, you're really better off to go with my correction here; not just by the letter, but by the spirit as well.

[quote} But that's just me. I am not going to judge you or your mistress. Grace does cover your infidelity.

Not necessarily. This is a big problem with most people who think that Grace covers all sin. Christ came to fulfill the law, i.e. the Mosaic law. This should not be confused with anyone's idea of what the Mosaic law says. For example, one of the most pervasive themes throughout the Mosaic law is that of the distinction between intentional and unintentional sin. Unintentional sin is always and everywhere covered by sacrifice. However, this was never the case with intentional sin. Sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin. Teshuva, or repentance and restitution were what were required for intentional sin. The author of Hebrews reiterates this as well and points out explicitly that Christ's sacrifice cannot cover intentional sin. Perhaps I should say will not cover intentional sin; I'm not in any way suggesting that Christ's sacrifice is incapable of covering sin, but God will not be mocked.


As for the gov't... Well, grace does cover that too. But it won't keep you out of jail.[/QUOTE]

Grace could keep me out of jail. Grace did release Paul from jail. In case you weren't aware of this, Paul broke the law. eeeeee International trusts have been around for a long time, and are a perfectly legal way to shelter money from a tax system that explicitly allows for it.


Or divorce court and you have just admitted to adultery and tax fraud.[/QUOTE]

Well, technically I haven't admitted to anything. My reply to your post was rhetorical. I was using a figure to emphasize that your points were invalid.




Most of what you wrote really isn’t worth replying to. Therefore, I’d just assume (that is, to take or have) that we move on to something more pertinent to the conversation.
Actually, the Bible does not discuss intentional vs. unintentional sin. You can go to places like Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 and see the difference between sinning out of ignorance of the law vs sinning with the knowledge of the law. That is not the same thing as intentional and unintentional. Today and ever since the law was written, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Therefore, it is a moot conversation.
Besides, those laws about the penalty of sinning out of ignorance are still part of the law, which we are no longer under.
You noted that the author of Hebrews warns us against intentional sin. He actually doesn’t if you read in context and completeness, but I feel a Hebrews 10:25 discussion brewing. In any sense, let me expound on the intentional vs unintentional sin discussion. I don’t think it really exists. I’d like for you to give me an example of exactly what you believe an unintentional sin is (outside of the case of an accident). I don’t think there is such a thing – especially because we have been made aware of the law. Just because someone is too lazy to read it doesn’t mean they aren’t accountable to it IF they have been told it exists.
Today I see the issue is more about big sin vs. little sin; sins that are too hard to abstain from vs. sins that are easy ones to abstain from; and ones that give us a lot of glory in the eyes of man vs. the ones no one really cares about. For example: Homosexuality = big sin. Being overweight due to gluttony = little sin. Not wearing clothing of mixed cloth = hard to follow. Not cussing = easy to follow. Giving up alcohol = great sacrifice in the eyes of the congregation. Giving up catfish and bacon = no one cares and everyone loves bacon and catfish, so we aren’t under the law on that one. There are other great examples. If someone lies to you about something you think is important, they are in judgment of hell fire. Tell a little white lie or tell a lie and call it a rhetorical statement…. That’s ok.
All these things are sins (except drinking alcohol and cussing). All will damn you just the same. Yet people treat them differently based on their thoughts and feelings about the subject.
So to summarize: the intentional vs. unintentional sin argument is a farce. All sin is intentionally done aside from perhaps an accident. There is also no more excuse for ignorance of the law. You know there is one and you know where to find it. Now it is your responsibility to follow ALL of it.
Of course, then there is grace which covers ALL sins of the flesh.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, the Bible does not discuss intentional vs. unintentional sin. You can go to places like Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 and see the difference between sinning out of ignorance of the law vs sinning with the knowledge of the law. That is not the same thing as intentional and unintentional.

You might just want to read the rest of the Torah as the distinction between intentional and unintentional sin is pervasive throughout. It has nothing to do with one's knowledge of the law per se; only with whether or not they intended to sin verses accidental harm, e.g. an axe handle coming loose and putting out someone's eye. You didn't intend for this to happen, but harm occurred anyways. There should be no doubt as to the meaning here. Every case stipulates that sacrifice remedies accidental or unintentional sin. With possibly one minor exception, there are no cases of sacrifice being the remedy for intentional sin.

 

[FHII]

You might just want to read the rest of the Torah as the distinction between intentional and unintentional sin is pervasive throughout. It has nothing to do with one's knowledge of the law per se; only with whether or not they intended to sin verses accidental harm, e.g. an axe handle coming loose and putting out someone's eye. You didn't intend for this to happen, but harm occurred anyways. There should be no doubt as to the meaning here. Every case stipulates that sacrifice remedies accidental or unintentional sin. With possibly one minor exception, there are no cases of sacrifice being the remedy for intentional sin.

Yea.... I did note except in the case of accidents. Furthermore, its still the old covenent. Grace covers all sins.

 

[shnarkle]

You are wrong again!....homosexuality goes against God's very creation..in the beginning He created man and woman, male and female, and said go forth and ill the earth..then in Lev it is mentioned homosexuality isan abomination to God. It was an abomination then and still is an abomination...
Of course you do not realize that because you seem to have a tough time understanding and following His word..you will have to answer for that some day.

This is all true, but whenever I hear someone point these things out I'm always inclined to ask if this includes the dietary law, usury, observing the Sabbath, etc.? Usually the reply is that these things are done away with. This is debatable, but more to the point. With the exception of the sacrificial system, to conclude that these are done away with seems to indicate to me that you're worshipping a capricious god. A god who demands observance from one servant while excusing the same open rebellion with open arms in another.

The other argument that usually goes hand in hand with the previous is that no one is justified by keeping the law. Of course this in no way is suggesting that the law is done away with for the salient reason that the law never had this purpose to begin with.

Whatever reason the legalists could have come up with, the response of Paul would have been essentially no different. They could just as easily claimed that fidelity to one's spouse is vital to salvation and Paul would have pointed out again that observance of the law saves no one. He would not have in any way been condoning adultery either.

 

[7angels]

Most of what you wrote really isn’t worth replying to. Therefore, I’d just assume (that is, to take or have) that we move on to something more pertinent to the conversation.
Actually, the Bible does not discuss intentional vs. unintentional sin. You can go to places like Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 and see the difference between sinning out of ignorance of the law vs sinning with the knowledge of the law. That is not the same thing as intentional and unintentional. Today and ever since the law was written, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Therefore, it is a moot conversation.
Besides, those laws about the penalty of sinning out of ignorance are still part of the law, which we are no longer under.
You noted that the author of Hebrews warns us against intentional sin. He actually doesn’t if you read in context and completeness, but I feel a Hebrews 10:25 discussion brewing. In any sense, let me expound on the intentional vs unintentional sin discussion. I don’t think it really exists. I’d like for you to give me an example of exactly what you believe an unintentional sin is (outside of the case of an accident). I don’t think there is such a thing – especially because we have been made aware of the law. Just because someone is too lazy to read it doesn’t mean they aren’t accountable to it IF they have been told it exists.
Today I see the issue is more about big sin vs. little sin; sins that are too hard to abstain from vs. sins that are easy ones to abstain from; and ones that give us a lot of glory in the eyes of man vs. the ones no one really cares about. For example: Homosexuality = big sin. Being overweight due to gluttony = little sin. Not wearing clothing of mixed cloth = hard to follow. Not cussing = easy to follow. Giving up alcohol = great sacrifice in the eyes of the congregation. Giving up catfish and bacon = no one cares and everyone loves bacon and catfish, so we aren’t under the law on that one. There are other great examples. If someone lies to you about something you think is important, they are in judgment of hell fire. Tell a little white lie or tell a lie and call it a rhetorical statement…. That’s ok.
All these things are sins (except drinking alcohol and cussing). All will damn you just the same. Yet people treat them differently based on their thoughts and feelings about the subject.
So to summarize: the intentional vs. unintentional sin argument is a farce. All sin is intentionally done aside from perhaps an accident. There is also no more excuse for ignorance of the law. You know there is one and you know where to find it. Now it is your responsibility to follow ALL of it.
Of course, then there is grace which covers ALL sins of the flesh.

if i have read anything lately that negates about everything i believe this would have be it. no offense meant but what you stated are beliefs and not scriptural at that. you are playing a dangerous game of taking scriptural truths and putting your own version to it. i will post your points that you do this too.

1. Actually, the Bible does not discuss intentional vs. unintentional sin.
actually it does.
A deliberate known sin occurs when a person who knows God’s revealed will written in the Bible or on his conscience or spoken to him by the Holy Spirit, chooses deliberately to disobey. Exodus 21:14, Numbers 15:30, Deuteronomy 1:43, 17:12, 17:13, 18:20, 18:22, Psalm 19:13, Luke 12:47-48, John 15:22 and Romans 7:7.



Unintentional hidden sin. Such hidden sin can take two forms. The first of these is any disobedience to a specific Biblical command when the offendant was unaware of the command. The second form of hidden sin relates to any area in our lives in which we are not like Jesus Christ in character to the degree created beings are able.
Unintentional known sin. This involves an unplanned or unintended disobedience to a Biblical command which the offender knew. He accidentally did evil.
Leviticus 4:1-12 and Numbers 15:22-29 refers to unintentional sin in general.




2. Today and ever since the law was written, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Therefore, it is a moot conversation.
thank God we are no longer under the law the right? according to the new testament the laws have become guidelines that we follow and that they are written on our hearts. thus in my walk with God if i make a mistake i repent and God's mercy and grace absolves me and keep me heading on the correct path. great huh?

3. I’d like for you to give me an example of exactly what you believe an unintentional sin is (outside of the case of an accident).
Genesis 20:1-9 records King Abimelech committed the unintentional hidden sin of taking Abraham’s wife, Sarah as his own.(hidden)



An example of an unintentional known sin is found in Numbers 35:22-25. In these verses we see if someone accidentally killed another person, he was regarded differently by God than someone who intentionally killed another person. Read Exodus 21:14, Numbers 35:16-21 and 35:30-31 to see God commanded that intentional murderers be treated more severely. Joshua 20:1-9 refers to unintentional killings.




4. Today I see the issue is more about big sin vs. little sin.
i believe your looking at this all wrong. we shouldn't be concentrating on what we do wrong but on what is going right in our lives. it is when we concentrate on the bad things that we get all the negative emotions that come. we are free from sin so rejoice and if you happen to fall back into sin repent and start heading towards the good things of God again. those that dwell on the past are doomed to experience it. so look to the future and the bright things that are ahead.

i hope this helps

God bless

 

[FHII]

if i have read anything lately that negates about everything i believe this would have be it. no offense meant but what you stated are beliefs and not scriptural at that. you are playing a dangerous game of taking scriptural truths and putting your own version to it. i will post your points that you do this too.

1. Actually, the Bible does not discuss intentional vs. unintentional sin.
actually it does.
A deliberate known sin occurs when a person who knows God’s revealed will written in the Bible or on his conscience or spoken to him by the Holy Spirit, chooses deliberately to disobey. Exodus 21:14, Numbers 15:30, Deuteronomy 1:43, 17:12, 17:13, 18:20, 18:22, Psalm 19:13, Luke 12:47-48, John 15:22 and Romans 7:7.



Unintentional hidden sin. Such hidden sin can take two forms. The first of these is any disobedience to a specific Biblical command when the offendant was unaware of the command. The second form of hidden sin relates to any area in our lives in which we are not like Jesus Christ in character to the degree created beings are able.
Unintentional known sin. This involves an unplanned or unintended disobedience to a Biblical command which the offender knew. He accidentally did evil.
Leviticus 4:1-12 and Numbers 15:22-29 refers to unintentional sin in general.

2. Today and ever since the law was written, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Therefore, it is a moot conversation.
thank God we are no longer under the law the right? according to the new testament the laws have become guidelines that we follow and that they are written on our hearts. thus in my walk with God if i make a mistake i repent and God's mercy and grace absolves me and keep me heading on the correct path. great huh?

3. I’d like for you to give me an example of exactly what you believe an unintentional sin is (outside of the case of an accident).
Genesis 20:1-9 records King Abimelech committed the unintentional hidden sin of taking Abraham’s wife, Sarah as his own.(hidden)



An example of an unintentional known sin is found in Numbers 35:22-25. In these verses we see if someone accidentally killed another person, he was regarded differently by God than someone who intentionally killed another person. Read Exodus 21:14, Numbers 35:16-21 and 35:30-31 to see God commanded that intentional murderers be treated more severely. Joshua 20:1-9 refers to unintentional killings.

4. Today I see the issue is more about big sin vs. little sin.
i believe your looking at this all wrong. we shouldn't be concentrating on what we do wrong but on what is going right in our lives. it is when we concentrate on the bad things that we get all the negative emotions that come. we are free from sin so rejoice and if you happen to fall back into sin repent and start heading towards the good things of God again. those that dwell on the past are doomed to experience it. so look to the future and the bright things that are ahead.

i hope this helps

God bless

I will take partial blame in that my post was not well organized (even though I revised it three time). However, I have addressed nearly everything you brought up.

First of all, the terms "deliberate" and "intentional" are not in the Bible (I speak of the KJV, so I cannot account for other versions). Some of the verses you spoke of like those in Deuteronomy use the term "presumptuous". I agree: a reasonably close synonym. If you look carefully you will see they are not laws. They are commandments for specific situations. 18:20 speaks of presumptive prophets. All the laws were commandments, but not all commandments were the law.

I spoke about ignorance of the law and that is what Numbers 15 and Lev 4 were dealing with. I still contend they are not the same thing. Your point about King Ambelech taking Abraham's wife would prove that to be so. There was no law of God at the time, but he still understood it was forbidden. However, he still did it out of ignorance (and let's face it: Abraham wasn't telling the whole truth, was he?)

I also spoke of accidents. So the points about murder vs accidental killing... I acknowledged that.

Am I finding legal loopholes? Debating definition of words? Maybe. So if you want to throw the red flag on that fine.

I urge you, however, to consider my arguement as it pertains to this conversation. Again, my post was a mess, but my point is that if you are going to claim unintentional sin due to ignorance of the Law, you have no excuse. We know the Law in that it is written and has been established. It is not God's fault if anyone doesn't know it. In the days of Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 they may have been ignorant. And once again, I acknowledge accidents.

So from this point of view can you really find too many sins that aren't done deliberately?

Again, apply this to the present conversation. Unless I am misunderstanding my opponent, he is claiming grace only covers unintentional sins (and used cases of ignorance to the Law as examples). THAT I disagree with.
How does he do it? By using the Law which we are no longer under and the claim that it was upheld in Hebrews (which it is not).

I spoke of big vs little sin and you said I was looking at it the wro g way. No, I am not because my overall point is the same as yours. Man looks at sins as big or little; God doesn't. He sees them as sins. I have quotes from James 1, Gal 2 (or 3) and Matthew 5 that support that. My point is that grace covers all sins of the flesh and that is reason to rejoice.

I am defending grace, even for homosexuals. I am not urging any sin and encouraging people to stop sinning if they wish (as sin in general affects our human life and could possibly hinder you walk with God. I have scripture on that too... As Paul said all things are lawful but not not all things are exedient, edifying and we should not be brought under its power).

So once again, I may have done a poor job organizing my thoughts, but I stand by them and do so with Biblical proof.

 

[mjrhealth]

You can look at it this way. maybe God wil stand you along side Him, along comes a man, " God asks" this man has sinned what should we do, 'He is a sinner God He must die", than come another and another all condemend because of sin, than God turns to you and says, "and what about you", have you not sinned so what Should I do with you"? But God i was forgiven by grace.. Oh so its Ok for me to let teh others go to hell by your "judgment" and yet now you defend yourself for doing the same thing." What do you think He might do??

Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Luk 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
Luk 12:57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?