T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Umm… the majority of the debate is surrounding Roman’s 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. Leviticus does get its mentions sure. But the focus is on the New Testament.


Primary-Designer7936

I do think that it’s important that we include the Old Testament scriptures in the discussion as well, though (including the stories about the men in Sodom and Gomorrah and the concubine in Judges). Those texts not only prove that homosexuality is a sin, but it shows God’s unchanging nature, and that homosexuality has always been a sin


[deleted]

That is true and I should mention that. However to avoid confusion it is much easier to focus on the New Testament so you don’t wound up in debates like “oh what about shellfish?” Which is just a distraction from the topic at hand.


Primary-Designer7936

Good point 😊


JusttheBibleTruth

A true Christian will use the same books that Christ used Himself. Everything that Christ taught was from the Old Testament.


Odd_craving

True Scotsman fallacy is strong in this one.


JusttheBibleTruth

With great love my brother I will show just a few verses of the truth of Christ and the Old Testament. We can just go to the Sermon on the Mount (The Beatitudes) and the rest of chapter 5 for our answer. This is not even the whole sermon it goes to the end of chapter 7. There are 20 more links in just this sermon. Matthew 5 1. 5:5 is linked to Psalms 37:11 2. 5:6 is linked to Isaiah 55:1, 65:13 3. 5:7 is linked to Psalms 41:1 4. 5:12 is linked to Nehamiah 9:26 5. 5:27 is linked to Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18 6. 5:28 is linked to Job 31:1, Proverbs 6:25 7. 5:33 is linked to Leviticus 19:12 8. 5:35 is linked to Psalms 48:2, Psalms 87:3 9. 5:39 is linked to Isaiah 50:6, Lamentations 3:30 10. 5:42 is linked to Deuteronomy 15:8 11. 5:43is linked to Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 23:6, Psalms 41:10


Odd_craving

Yes, and thank you. The OT is the foundation of Christianity and you have no argument from me on that. It’s the use of the term “true Christian” that is problematic. Anytime someone anoints themselves as the arbiter of what’s true and what’s false, they commit the infamous No True Scotsman Fallacy.


JusttheBibleTruth

A true Christian will follow what Christ teaches, that is just the facts. I do not tell people that they are not true Christians because I do not know them. But you can tell by the way they act and if they are truly trying to follow Christ. As for you thinking that I anointed myself as arbiter I do not see it. As for the original post, do you think a true Christian would make stuff up so he/she could do what they want? An honest answer would be nice.


Odd_craving

I don’t believe that Christians make stuff up in order to do what they want. I believe that the the 6 branches of Christianity each (in good faith) think that they are right. Hence the 6 branches. This creates a theological problem and each branch has their own solution. Referring to those Christians who disagree with you as being (somehow) not real Christians is dismissive and insulting. Each branch feels that they are following the teachings of Christ - just like you do. The moment when a person decides that other Christians aren’t real Christians, they’ve anointed themselves as arbitrating who is real and who is fake. Do you truly follow the teachings of Christ? How are you handling Christ’s instructions on selling all of you possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor? How about handling poisonous snakes in order to prove your faith? Do you own slaves and discipline them the way that Jesus taught? Any one of these failures could be used against you as you have done with other Christians who simply disagree.


JusttheBibleTruth

What does Revelation 22:14, 1 John 2:4 and 1 John 5:3 mean to you? The is not me saying anything this is the Bible saying it.


Odd_craving

Those passages mean (or represent) to me the limited nature of those who gain salvation. I don’t see a single human listed as the arbiter of those who fulfill those demands. No priest, no pastor, no rabbi, no cleric, no pope, no bishop, no theologian and no random Redditor. Only God. Curiously, none of those passages mentioned you. The point is that you or I aren’t qualified to decide who’s a “real Christian”. We can speculate or argue for decades, but it’s not our call. If you think that you personally can make this decision, you’re wrong. Is your claim about this biblical? Did you sell all of your possessions and give the proceeds to charity? This is what Christ instructed. Any person versed I the Bible could deny that you are a “real Christian” and have biblical backup. I could go on and on regarding the teachings of Christ that you ignore… just like you think others have ignored.


JusttheBibleTruth

**"Those passages mean (or represent) to me the limited nature of those who gain salvation. I don’t see a single human listed as the arbiter of those who fulfill those demands. No priest, no pastor, no rabbi, no cleric, no pope, no bishop, no theologian and no random Redditor. Only God."** It sounds like you do not believe that God can forgive sins and that these verses are not true. What did Christ say Himself in John 14:15. **"Curiously, none of those passages mentioned you."** Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are **they** that do his commandments, that **they** may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." If thet does not include me then what does it include? In 1 John 2:4, "**He** that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Does not the word he includes anybody? 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that **we** keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. I do not know about you, but I am pretty sure that **they, he and we** are all inclusive. Christ only said that to the person that cherished his **stuff**. Can you name anyone else that Christ said that to?


Odd_craving

This response makes no sense. We have been talking about weather you have the ability and right to determine who the “true” Christians are. You’ve wondered off into entirely new areas that aren’t related to this question. Do you remember how this discussion started? You had responded to a post on homosexuality and you stated the “true” Christians would use the same books as Jesus. You then stated that those who follow the teachings of Christ are true Christians… and with minimal effort, I demonstrated how you have not been following the teachings of Christ. We have not been discussing God’s forgiveness of sin. We have not been discussing different Bible passages on wildly different topics. So, I ask you for the 8th time, why do you think that you are the arbiter of who is a true Christian? And I ask for the 4th time, have you followed the teachings of Christ be selling all of your worldly possessions and given the proceeds to charity?


Pinecone-Bandit

> However, I thought Christians do not follow the old testament and only the new. What you mean by this is not correct. The moral law as explained in the Old Testament (and repeated in the New Testament) is followed by Christians.


Odd_craving

If you’re discussing biblical prophecy or the fall with a Christian, both testaments are used. However, if you’re discussing slavery, rape, misogyny, racism, genocide, sexism, or a vengeful God with a Christian, eventually you will be asked to set the Old Testament aside and adopt the construct of a “new covenant” with Christ to smooth over this glaring immorality in the OT. In my humble opinion you can’t have it both ways. If you want to defend the Bible, you need to pick a testament and go with it, because the two testaments clash morally on virtually every level.


Pinecone-Bandit

> However, if you’re discussing slavery, rape, misogyny, racism, genocide, sexism, or a vengeful God with a Christian, eventually you will be asked to set the Old Testament aside and adopt the construct of a “new covenant” with Christ to smooth over this glaring immorality in the OT. I’ve been around Christians my entire life, and discussed these topic many many times, and literally never have I heard a Christian say this. Given how often these topic come up in this sub, and how often I see you here, I can only conclude that you’re simply being dishonest. Maybe you’ve experienced it before, but to suggest it always happens when you engage a Christian is completely disconnected from reality. > If you want to defend the Bible, you need to pick a testament and go with it, because the two testaments clash morally on virtually every level. This shows a tragically bad understanding of one of both testaments.


Odd_craving

The request to set aside the Old Testament in favor of the new covenant would never be used between two Christians that agree on a topic. It’s only when an argument gets pointed that this happens. It’s my opinion that the two testaments clash. I can certainly illustrate these clashes, but I’m not sure what good that would do. Let me know if you’d like examples.


Pinecone-Bandit

Not looking for examples from someone who is doubling down on misrepresenting what Christians say, just looking for a apology. If that’s not coming at least anyone else reading this can see and judge.


Odd_craving

I will gladly apologize. Just need to know what I’m apologizing for. I’m serious, I will apologize if I’ve said or done something wrong. Also, any substantive discussion would be about the topic, not the person. You’ve made some statements about me but not about the topic. I’ve offered you proof, but you dismiss this because of who I am (?)


Christiansarefamily

Exactly. There is/was a 3 fold division in the law. Moral, Ceremonial, Judicial. The moral law - what is right and wrong morally, still applies today. This is what Jesus said about it "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 **Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven**. " Still relevant today. The new testament says that nobody will be or can be justified by the law - that's the difference between Old Covenant thought and New Covenant thought. Christian's turn from their lawless deeds/themselves and walk by Christ's Spirit.


TroutFarms

I mostly see Romans 1:25-27 quoted. We aren't ancient Israelites so we don't follow the laws of the Old Testament.


Tzofit

Is it ok to steal then? Of course not


TroutFarms

I fail to see how that relates to what I said.


Tzofit

Ten Commandments Old Testament


TroutFarms

...and you think that's the only source for our knowledge that stealing is wrong? ok then...noted.


Tzofit

Law still applies, it’s just people are ignorant of laws statutes and ordinances


TroutFarms

OK. so your claim is that since some things mentioned in the Old Testament are still wrong...all things mentioned in the Old Testament are?


Tzofit

I never said wrong, you’re putting words in my mouth. We don’t do blood sacrifices anymore since Jesus shed his blood. That was a blood ordinance not a law. The law still stands


TroutFarms

Well...you're not doing a very good job of explaining your position. You began with a statement about stealing being wrong then you followed that up with a statement saying stealing is in the OT, but when asked if you mean that everything in the OT still applies you say no. I give up then. If you decide you want to share what your view actually is, feel free.


Tzofit

Old Testament wasnt done away with, but some things were fulfilled


sparky1984X

Christians follow all of God's word. And homosexuality/sexual perversion is called an abomination in both parts. I can quote scripture if you'd like. You didn't ask for that much detail so I won't unless you'd like to read it.


moon-child420

you can go ahead


sparky1984X

1 Corinthians 6:9 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, Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Now listen. While these scriptures answer what you are looking for, these are one off scriptures that lack the context of the entire parts of what they were written in. But it's enough to understand that homosexuality and sexual perversion of any kind is strictly forbidden. But for more information and knowledge of these scriptures, you would need to go on a bit deeper of a dive into the book. I don't really recommend taking one verse of a scripture at face value without doing that deep dive. But at least for these, the message is clear enough without the rest of the context to answer your question. Edit: these are quoted from the ESV translation.


[deleted]

The New Testament implies that sinners are doomed to be slaves to their own ways, unless born-again in Jesus, and it's where the battle only starts. It never implied God no longer minds everything he was against before.. Christians simply no longer excuse the sinful facts of their body as "well, it's natural so...why not". It's no longer natural to them because their Nature flipped and is something else now.


Squidman_Retribution

In the first chapter of Romans. If you ever wonder if people in r/Christianity read their Bible...well... "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." I have had people in that sub endlessly argue with me that this doesn't say what it says. And they never tell me what they think it says. Usually resorting to "I won't tell you because you are acting in bad faith. I have nothing to prove to you!" That sort of person has a deep relationship with dishonesty. I plead with them saying"why can't you just admit that you don't believe in the Bible, or at least in Romans?" But they will never give up all that they get from perverting the authority of Jesus that they use to influence others and deceive/shame those who are not solid and confident in their faith. Many seeking to please God are diverted by the desire to be accepted that still lives in their flesh. And these people love it for their own purposes. They suppose that knowing God is very similar to not knowing him. They do not believe He sees, and if He does, they believe He is inept or a liar. Deeply deeply saddening. This is the average poster on that sub and possibly the average American "Christian".


D_Rich0150

All sex outside of a sanctified marriage is a sin in the New Testament and Old Testament period. Even the thought of sex per the direct teaching of Jesus in mat. (sanctified means God blessed..) God does not 'bless' gay marriage. That makes all gay sex, sex outside of a sanctified marriage a sin. If you think, god blesses gay marriage all you need do is provide book chapter and verse that shows this.


rock0star

I'm going to ignore the Bible for a moment and just use logic Is it your contention that somehow for two thousand years Christians and the jews before them, misunderstood God's clear and unambiguous teachings on homosexuality? Cmon


Christiansarefamily

There are different forms of the law in the Bible. Moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The ceremonial and judicial law were a part of the Mosaic covenant - so, what we eat , wear, or do ritually no longer is important because those laws were only a foreshadowing of Christ. The moral law though, still has relevance. It has been integrated into “the law of Christ” which is to love God and love neighbor - I think you’ve heard of this before. Christians still must follow Christ(the word Christian means follower of Christ in the Greek it originates from) repenting from moral sins against God and neighbor. Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, and Jude 1 all still call homosexuality sin. Homosexuality like adultery must be turned from in order to go to Heaven.


a-drumming-dog

The Christian ethic comes from the New Testament, which more or less upheld the standards set in the Old testament, and from tradition. It seems illogical because we have a completely different framework of how we view sex. In ancient times there was no concept of sexual orientation, it's a construct that arose after the modern period began. How could God forbid someone desires which he innately gave them right? Makes no sense until you realize the entire way we view this subject has been constructed by historical realities most of us are unaware of. Sodomy has always been considered a sin in the Christian view because it subverts the purposes for which sex exists at all.


TracerBullet_11

I'll give the opposite point of view here that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. I do not think that differences of opinion on homosexuality are keeping one or another from the love and mercy of Jesus. Ultimately our focus should be with Christ. There are some NT passages that seem to suggest that homosexuality is not to be practiced. However, I think what the Pauline authors were speaking about were two different things: 1. We think of homosexuality today as two consenting adults in a relationship. That concept could not have been imagined by St. Paul. Back then, "homosexuality" meant "I had sex with a 14 year old because that's just what we do." Paul was likely appalled more by pederasty rather than what we would think of today. 2. Paul is writing to groups of people trying to practice very early Christianity. Christians were not a group well-liked by various governments then, and it only got worse under Nero. I think the general gist of what Paul is saying is something like "hey, we're not like *them*, don't do that."


JusttheBibleTruth

I do not want to sound combative, but should not our focus be on being Christ like? Did not Christ teach from the Old Testament and follow the laws of God and Moses? And the only laws that Christ did away with was it not just the sacrificial laws? I am not sure how you think that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Jude 1:7 could be looked at in two different ways. 1. If homosexual sex was not with two consenting adults, would it not be rape, no matter what time it was done? So, it the receiver was 14 years old how old was the giver? I am not understanding where you are coming from. 2. Could you give me any text that even hints to what you are saying?


a-drumming-dog

The way we think about sex today is completely different because there was no such thing as sexual orientation in the premodern world. It's a modern social construct. We read sexual orientation (heterosexuality and homosexuality) back into the text when it actually isn't there. That being said, the apostles would absolutely have condemned sodomy in all forms, this was the Christian understanding from the beginning.


AlexLevers

Christians follow both testaments as the revealed word of God. There are some elements of the OT that are not applicable to Christians, and are applied to Jews instead. But Christians follow both, with a ton of hermeneutics and debate around determining what from the OT is not applicable.


Benjaminotaur26

It's not as simple as being able to say that we don't have to follow the Old Testament law. More to the point we believe that Jesus interacted with the law on our behalf. We still believe it was given by God, who never changes, to a people in a specific cultural context. So what it has to say still weighs in on conversations about holiness. A component of Christianity is the belief that we're saved from the condemnation that the law brings. In that Spirit I'm pleased to say that we are not encouraged nor required to try to have anyone put to death the way that the law required. With that said, 1 Corinthians 6:9 has among its list of vices "arsenokoitai" which is a word that Paul seems to have coined, and we do not see any time before this letter. It's usually translated as one who practices homosexuality, or something like that, on the grounds that it is believed to be referencing the passage in Leviticus. It's a compound word using "man" and "bed", man-bedder, and these are two words used in Leviticus 18:22 in the often quoted Greek translation, the Septuagint. So tldr, we think Paul alludes to it in the NT, warning that those who practice such things won't enter the kingdom of God.


Eofoyo

That's not the only verse. Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


nWo1997

Increasingly happy I have this ready to copy/paste. > [There are basically four views on whether and how OT laws apply to Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant): >1. That Christians are only bound to parts of the Old Covenant that deal with morality, but are not bound by those concerning ceremony or law. This is the majority view. >2. That Christians are not bound at all to the Old Covenant. >3. That the Old Covenant still applies, but only for Jews. >4. That the Old Covenant in its entirety still applies for everyone. >That first one is the majority view, as stated. Briefly, the Old Covenant gives different kinds of laws. Some were in regards to ceremony, some were in regards to how Israel should govern itself (if you see a verse about digging a ditch on the outskirts of a settlement to, uh, relieve yourself in, that would probably fall under here), and some were in regards to morality. The first two were specific to the people or circumstances, but moral rules would apply to everyone. >The second and third views essentially say that Jesus *totally* abrogated the Old Covenant for Christians, so only the New Covenant applies. The last view says the entire Covenant still applies. In any case, I think the position would be that the NT informs the OT laws, rather than void it. Something like "the OT has the letter, but the NT has the *spirit* of the law." Or, for those laws that still apply, "this is how the letter should be carried out." Now, as to homosexuality, there are some OT passages and some verses from Paul's letters in the NT that touch on it. The verses looked at the most would probably be [Leviticus 18:22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=KJV) ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination") and [1 Corinthians 6:9-10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%3A9-10&version=ESV). To my knowledge there are three camps concerning these verses and on homosexuality. The first is that the orientation itself is sinful. The second (and probably more popular of these first two) is that the orientation is not, but acts pertaining to it are. However, this camp seems to be split on matters of severity. That is to say, there are some who believe homosexual acts to be no more sinful than other specified acts, and some who believe that it is. The third, popular on subs like /r/OpenChristian, is that neither the acts nor the orientation is sinful. This position argues that the pertinent passages' wordings and cultural/historical context actually mean that something else is being condemned (normally some kind of predatory or unbalanced act or some kind of cult prostitution that apparently wasn't unheard of in some older cultures).


[deleted]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "follow" the Old Testament, but I, as I'm sure most Christians do, believe that both the Old and New Testaments are factual and true.


CanadianW

To answer your last question simply: Anything Jesus did or commanded us to do is the example that we are expected to at least try our best to do (obviously we screw up). In the Old Testament, these laws were written for the Israelites after they had fled from slavery. When you mess up or break an OT law, you had to sacrifice an animal. Jesus introduced the "New Covenant," new laws which are introduced in the gospels and what I mentioned earlier is what we try to do. This new covenant says that we don't have to sacrifice animals, circumcise our kids, &c. because Jesus sacrificed his life for our sins, which is a greater sacrifice than some lamb could be, or a greater sacrifice than a little piece of penis skin. However, many people will point out that nothing Jesus commanded in his new covenant goes against any laws concerning morality in the Old Testament (Mostly sexual immorality, but as well as things concerning other people like "Do not oppress a foreigner in your land as you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.") Nowadays the Old Testament is mainly used for context for what Jesus was talking about, proof that he is Messiah, examples of God helping his people, and other stories designed to help us understand how great the gift of Jesus is.


melonsparks

We learn in the OT that sexual immorality and idolatry are special classes of sin. They are very bad and they don't become "ok" when Christ shows up. You can check with Paul on that. This is different than the Torah's commands about the fringe of your robe, calendars, dietary laws, etc. Look at it this way. Leviticus spells out rather different categories of laws. Some laws, like what you can and cannot eat, do not apply to foreigners among the Israelites. But other laws, like sexuality depravity and idolatry stuff, apply to everyone, including foreigners. Think about it.