How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder?
If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10
When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.
Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)
(I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals.
I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Math 10:15
That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)
I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)
He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.
Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments.
And you could to me for fornication.
I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)
No insult taken. :-)
I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the actual problem, so the proof is essentially unfixable. He did get the first, infinitely simpler case right, though.
As I see it, you are doing many of the same things as a crank. You've got a conclusion--gay people are pretty alright and the Bible is completely true--there's a flaw in that conclusion--the Bible condemns homosexuality very strongly--you notice the flaw and make your reasoning more complicated to avoid it--the condemnation is covered by grace in this particular case--but that only pushes the flaw further back--killing gay people was alright in the past. Next you'll either ignore the flaw by saying that killing gay people really was alright in the past (you seem too empathetic to go this route),
I would say yes before Christ died, the law stood so hence I would say up to that point it was OK to stone a gay to death. I am hypercritical if I didn't mention I am just as flawed for banging girls before I was married, we both would be in the same boat here.
I really hope I dont look like I am applying a crank, This is my understanding of the gospels, I feel it is consistent, even if you/we dont like the harsh penalties for breaking some of the Law, I dont choice what to believe or not like the latest "iGod 2.0". I just try to take all of it in, getting the whole picture. Like how any sin is an hated. Hence I can understand in my way how the bible is against gays and yet because of Jesus we can *love them still. (some people dont read past the stones in the OT)
The "Law" (from God, not man) is the only reason "Gays are wrong". If you believed in evolution then there is no morality hence even killing is ok, but I am just pointing out why up to that point I stand by it's moral code set down by an absolute reference point (God) instead of relative shifting moral point of view (man). If I was atheist then I wouldn't have an logical issue. I should point out you can be gay and christain but I assume you wouldn't be a happy person *unless your aware you can live be faith but not many have that metal ability. * If a christain believes what he does isn't wrong/sin then it isn't a sin
As for Christianity's part in persecuting gay people, why would God allow his own book to be so unclear as to allow such suffering for so long based on a misunderstanding? A single verse like, "and then Jesus said, 'Sodomy is sinful, but with my sacrifice comes grace. After I die, accept gay people as yourselves, do not persecute them, and let my father punish them (or not) as he chooses.'" It seems ludicrous.
It isn't unclear. being gay is still wrong. Him paying for it doesn't change that it's a crime (sin) against the Law.
What people do is up to them, Christians should be against the Sin, not the man. (Yes I know that can come out as hallow in the actions people do :-( ) Some people use anything to justify there actions (homophobes), it's also a hard/thin line at times to follow not being against the man. Also then the murderers/etc... would then complain Jesus didn't say about them.
Every main issue in the bible is spared out thru the bible, this is to stop "hostile jamming". e.g. If you tore out a single page in the bible, you havn't lost a critical thing. If being gay was ok it would be thru out the bible. Yet every verse paints it in a bad light.
I have not accepted that it's right, I still declare it's wrong. I can be friends with gay/les but if asked, I will still say its wrong. Just like how I can be friends with people who carried out abortions (murder), but I will still say it is wrong.
For all your faulty reasoning and rationalization, I suspect you're quite a nice person to be around, for instance.
Thank you. I am also very annoying to be around :-)