Yeah, but those aren't Christ's words -- those are Paul's.

Nonetheless, Romans seems to be where everyone goes when talking about how the bible condemns homosexuality.

---

Jesus was very wise and cool. Paul has some major league issues.

---

Paul also has interesting thoughts on women in church. feh. not having this discussion.

Steph, gotcha - didn't mean that to sound or feel like an attack., I hear what you were saying. I know we are throwing our hands up at the same people.

hmm, Kat, perhaps you are right, I should just say that we netted X amount.

---

I feel really odd pointing out scripture since I'm an atheist. I've just had a fair amount of exposure.

---

My sole point in that post had nothing to do with homosexuality, or Christ's words (or lack thereof) on the topic. My point was simply that when people ask, "Why don't people who claim to be bible-believing Christians actually obey the Old Testament laws?" the answer is that they don't have to.

One caveat, that's more confined to the ritual purity laws. You're unlikely to hear anyone say we are not to follow the 10 commandments, for example. The true gist of the teaching is that it is not the law (any of it, not just the purity laws) that saves. Christ's sacrifice saves. The law points out where we do sin. Regeneration (which comes through faith in Christ) is the only way people can be made holy (and living a good life is the fruit of that salvation, not to the route to it).

but where in the NT does Christ speak against homosexuality?

Romans, I'm not sure of the exact passage.

Yeah, but those aren't Christ's words -- those are Paul's. And Paul isn't quoting Christ, either. That's all him.

You're right, it's not Jesus. But the argument that Jesus didn't say it isn't particularly convincing, because there are plenty of things he didn't talk about, that are common sense he wouldn't condone. The passages in the NT where homosexual acts are discussed include Romans 1; I Corinthians 6; I Timothy 1

---

Yeah, but those aren't Christ's words -- those are Paul's.

Nonetheless, Romans seems to be where everyone goes when talking about how the bible condemns homosexuality.

That is true, absolutely.

I just have this thing where I think that a faith called "Christianity" should focus on what Christ said and taught, and NSM on what Paul said. Because he was a bit of a nutter.

People who want to focus on Paul, go start Paulianity. Good luck to you.

Because Christ's message, overall, boiled down to "Hey, love each other, right? Take care of each other, duh." There was nothing in Christ's message about God hating fags.

Man. I like God, I'm good with Jesus, but what people do in their names is just a travesty all too often.

---

I just have this thing where I think that a faith called "Christianity" should focus on what Christ said and taught, and NSM on what Paul said. Because he was a bit of a nutter.

People who want to focus on Paul, go start Paulianity. Good luck to you.

Wrod. And take your quivering fear-of-the-other with you.

---

One caveat, that's more confined to the ritual purity laws. You're unlikely to hear anyone say we are not to follow the 10 commandments, for example. The true gist of the teaching is that it is not the law (any of it, not just the purity laws) that saves. Christ's sacrifice saves. The law points out where we do sin.

Absolutely -- I was going to mention all that, but I was afraid it would become a dissertation on salvation, and ain't nobody wanting that this morning.

---

In an addenda to Paul's interpretations of Christ's simple words, it just struck me as interesting that the 10 Commandments are fairly simple, yet the huge construction of Talmudic law was put together when people said, "but how does that apply to X?" Paul strikes me as doing a Talmudic interpretation of Christ's seemingly straightforward statements, trying to nail them down to cover every contingency.

---

hmm, Kat, perhaps you are right, I should just say that we netted X amount.

I think as long as you acknowledge which one you are using, it's fine. Or you could say $X raised with a net blah blah blah (don't know the term) of $X. Which is what I've seen LLS do.

---