Homosexuals

You're right. What in the world was I thinking?!

Who created the dust, and out of what? God is the creator of all things. As in the beginning there was only God, not God and a pile of dust, the pile of dust must also be made directly of God or God is not the creator of all things.

1) If you must do any of these things or your sins are not forgiven, then Jesus' death did not necessarily atone for your sins. But the whole point of Jesus' death was that he died for the sins of mankind. You can't die for the sins of mankind and also not die for the sins of mankind. "Never been a sinner. I never sinned. I got a friend in Jesus."
2) No true follower of Christ believes in this doctrine.

A typical Christian, in my experience, is one who preaches that you have to accept Christ in order to be saved from sin. I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else by describing a typical Christian.

 

Okay, according to the jewish, catholic and Christian Bible, the act of homosexual sex acts is a sin. So in theory, is two "gay" people had a relationship that didn't involve sex, as you mentioned, then this wouldn't neccesarilly be a sin according to the aforementioned texts. I agree, that there shoulnd't be a differance between homosexual and heterosexual premarital sex as I have pointed out to several of my friends before. One of my friends mentioned "But homosexuality is a lifestyle". Good point, but if according to the Bible, only the sexual acts are sinful, then it is no differant than a heterosexual. The sex acts, not the lifestyle, is supposedly a sin if you look at the scriptures.

You actually got your point across COMPLETELY clear.

 

Again, according to Biblical Creation, man was created on the 6th day, God did create other things before that too. Out of what? I dunno, out of being omni-max I suppose and being able to do anything...

First off, the singer/songwriter of "Spirit in the Sky", norman Greenbaum, is Jewish and never was a Christian and never intended to evangalize for Christianity or any religion when writing and singing that song. That being said, it is quite pointless to bring up in this discussion. Secondly, it appars to me you aren't understanding what I am saying about substitutionary atonement. I don't make up the doctrines, I am only telling you about them as far as I know about them. The concept of the substitutionary atonement follows that, yes Christ did die for mankinds sins, but you must accept that he died for your/our sins for your past sins to be forgiven. If you acept that he died for your pastsins, then you feel sorry for him because YOU are the one who nailed him to the cross, so you are pentant and repent. Future sins would be forgiven after you repent too (I think there is a very small percentage of prodestant sects where they believe that once they are saved, they do not sin any longer--I forget what they are called though). He still died for mankinds sins, but they are forgiven only if you repent and believe according to the substitutionary atonement doctrine.
Some readings:
http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html

I don't understand your point #2.

 

Hmmm Is homosexuality a Biblical sin? Here's an interesting theory about the word Eunuch. http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm

 

Yes, God did create other things before man: dust, apparently, if you really believe that man is really created out of dust. That God only has Gods' self to work with is apparent to me, since God created everything.

If by omni-max you mean God has the power even to do that which is impossible, then your belief system falls into a trap: Can God make a rock so big he himself can't lift it? If so he isn't all-powerful; if not he isn't all-powerful. To me omni-max entails only possessing all power that exists, and therefore being omnipotent. Since all the power that existed before all of creation was necessarily God (in order for God to be the creator), everything must be made directly of God.

This avoids the trap I mentioned earlier, which you can feel free to keep falling into as long as you like, of course. You might say, "Oh. Logic doesn't apply to God..." If that is the case, why do you get out of bed in the morning if you desire to be like God?

You weren't in Norman Greenbaum's brain when he wrote that song, and thusly do not know what he intended. What he said was that he had never sinned, because Jesus was his friend. I didn't mean to suggest that this is evangelizing for Christianity, as I don't believe in the religion.

I understand what you're saying about substitutionary atonement, and I know it isn't you who made the concept up. But as you're using it in an argument, my argument is that 'substitutionary atonement' for sins is built on false pretenses. There is no substitutionary atonement just as there is no substitution for Jesus' death on the cross. I'm not suggesting you believe there is.

 

Well i don't beliewve in the bibblica Creation, but by omni-max I just mean omnipotent, omnipresent and such---all the things associated with the Judeo-Christian God. (Thanks for Libertine for coining that ever so useful term)

Ok, you are right, I don't know what he meant by it, but using the things i know about him I (along with a nice wikipedia article on the song) pieced together that it is probobly a satirical song about Christians who view themselves as all high and mighty above other people. If that then is the case, IMO it isn't valid (even as a little talking point) to bring into the discussion about the atonment of sins.

Ok, i understand what you are saying now. I was just frustrated because when I was reading your posts it didn't seem like you understood how the atonement works (you thinking it should be an automatic forgiveness, but doctrine calls for repentance for forgiveness). To me it just seemed like you didn't understand what the doctrine was, and thought that it was once they blieve in Christ and the atonement that they never sin again or that they are automatically forgiven (which isn't true according to the doctrine). But really, you did understand, you just think it is dumb (for lack of better words)

 

Omni-Max is a cool term. Thanks Libertine. I looked for it in the dictionary and couldn't find it, so I kind of just figured.

Yeah, hearing that song to begin with might have played a part in my thinking about Jesus in those terms. I much prefer the idea that Jesus performed a wholly altruistic act...just dying for everybody and not asking for a thing in return. I mean, a guy who would do that is just an even better version of himself.