Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex, swearing). Paul was talking about vastly different subjects (lust, guilt, boy temple-prostitutes, metaphors & bad translations). Most importantly to Christians, Jesus never said a solitary word against gays, and in fact constantly preached acceptance of others - so why do some Christians use the bible to justify their hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner strictly agape quasi-acceptance, to Catholic denial, and unabashed Westboro-esque bigotry?
Understanding that more and more churches are accepting of LGBTQ Christians and clergy each and every Sunday; how can more be compelled to follow the teachings of Jesus and accept those that would accept Him, rather than casting stones?
That's a tough question. Christians are not unlike anyone else. The society they grew up in is perceived as right. If they are religious, that right is perceived as right in the eyes of their god, or gods. Christianity has, historically, been a hot bed of debate on issues surrounding what is right in the eyes of God and has slowly accepted each premise which allowed people to be more accepting and all inclusive. Both sides have given reasons why God said what; but the general population within Christianity, after being presented with both sides, eventually chooses the side that is more in line with what you perceive as Jesus's message. Religion was used to push, and fight, ideas on slavery, the equality of the races, the equality of women and other social issues. It is a positive and negative force in the fight for LGBT rights, as it was on other issues.
Think about the upheaval of the sixties. Compare it to society today. The old school within Christianity is the vocal minority and will be pulled forward on LGBT issues just as it has been on other issues. Society can't change overnight. Beliefs aren't changed overnight. That isn't the way of society in any other venue. Why should religion function differently?
Christians are unlike anyone else? Try living as a homosexuel in Iran.
Are you saying Christianity is the less of the evils?
Read the whole post, or don't take offense. I didn't imply, or say, that.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by Catholic denial?
Initially I was thinking that the Catholic church is somewhere between Westborough and agape quasi-acceptance on the scale, so I wanted a single word to characterize that.
Denial came to mind, and perhaps denial wasn't the right word. I was thinking more about papal response to the Catholic church's in-house sexual issues (which I think largely eminate from the celibacy requirement), in relation to the whole "gay lobby" thing et al.
It was a clumsy attempt to compare Catholics favorably to Westborough, without leaving them completely off the hook. And considering their pedophilia problems, maybe that premice is incorrect.
Regrardless, I was thinking specifically on the subject of homosexuality, and then I chose a word that didn't entirely fit that.
See, bad choice of words - and good question.
Thanks for the clarification. The official teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is different from the Evangelical belief and teaching in that the CC teaches that no certainty exists as to the genesis of same sex attraction. The Evangelical teaching tends to be very cut and dried. It's sinful and therefore evil and an abomination. Rather than attempting to re-program, or rehabilitate or whatever it is some of those ''programs'' try to do, the Church accepts homosexuals for who they are. Where the problems exists is that sexual activity outside of marriage is prohibited by the Catholic Church - and the Church does teach that marriage is only sanctified between a man and a woman. Therefore, any single man or woman, whether hetero or homosexual is to remain celibate.
That being said, as regards the pedophilia issue. Not every human being who chooses celibacy, and certainly not every human being of a same sex orientation, is a pedophile. That's an incredibly important point to keep in mind. I in no way excuse the cover up of pedophilia and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but it must be pointed out that many protestant and evangelical ministers have been found out as having committed sexually immoral acts with members of their own congregation. I personally know an evangelical youth pastor who was convicted of several counts of child molestation. The history and inviolability of the Catholic Church has served as a wonderful hiding place for men who are sexual deviants - and that is what pedophiles are - sexual deviants. God willing, now that the cover has been ripped away, and those men exposed for what they are - perhaps the Church can begin to help the victims heal, and maybe heal a bit on its own.
Pedophilia is a disorder. Monogamous homosexuality is not, nor is celibacy. These two things are a choice, just like monogamy among heterosexual people.
Am I making any sense?
Right up to the celibacy. To say that homosexuality is OK but only if the person is celibate seems a major cop-out. Much like "hate the sin, love the sinner". Lip service to what is right, but ending there with no action.
Particularly as voluntary celibacy is practice ONLY by homo sapiens. Of all the animal world only humanity has come up with that one, and virtually always for religious reasons. Other animals can be homosexual, they can rape, they can practice inter-species sex. But none are celibate, and that makes it a disorder. Deviant behavior, although without the negative connotations of that word.
I'm not saying that I agree with the celibacy directive, wilderness, was just pointing out what the teaching is. But, one can choose to be celibate. One can choose to be monogamous. If it can be chosen, I do not believe it is a disorder. And, keep in mind that the Catholic Church teaches that any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong - gay or straight.
And, as far as priestly celibacy goes, there really isn't any precedent for it. Priests, hell, even popes, have been married in the past. But there are men and women with no religious proclivities whatsoever who go through chosen, deliberate periods of celibacy. That doesn't make them pedophiles or deviants.
*Edit - and I want to point out also that the youth pastor I mentioned above was married with multiple children. So, what was his excuse?
Be careful, Motown - to be a pedophile may or may not be a choice - to act on that desire is most definitely a choice. That doesn't make it any less of a disorder, though. And I didn't mean to insinuate that your explanation was also your personal take on the subject - I've read too many of your posts to think that of you.
Understand about Catholic teachings about extra-marital marriage - to a large degree they come from a 4 century deviant bishop who stuck in all kinds of weird requirements. But adding the marriage to be male/female kind of of cements what I said - giving the OK to homosexuality is just show with no substance.
Didn't mean to say that the only celibates are religious, though most are, or that celibate men/women are pedophiles. There is no connection there that I'm aware of.
But deviant doesn't mean just pedophilia; it means any difference from accepted norm, and that includes voluntary celibacy, or at least a lifetime of it. Many young men and women are still celibate until marriage, but few remain that way much past 25 or 30 years of age.
Thanks, wilderness, you make a good point - deviant is just something that's different from the accepted norm. Here's what I think from everything I've been taught or learned on my own about my faith. Anything that happens sexually between two consenting adults who love each other is fine by me. I have my own personal issues with polyamory, polygamy, etc. I believe that any romantic relationships should take place between two adults. Sex is not a team sport, nor a spectator sport, IMO. If there is any major difference between humans and others in the animal kingdom, that's it. I think that we are the only species for whom sexual intimacy is about procreation AND bonding. God knows I could be wrong, but I've seen little in my life to disprove that.
I have VERY - V E R Y - strong feelings about anyone who defiles a child through any sort of sexual activity. I believe that any intellectually sound adult (not necessarily mentally sound, obviously) who sexually abuses a child will find a very special place in the hell I'm not so sure I believe in.
Again, I'm with you nearly all the way - that's why I didn't see your post being your personal views. Just explanation of Catholic views in general.
That "almost" comes as a result of knowing that quite a few animals mate for life. I believe that there is a bonding there, just as there is in us - they are "in love" just as we are, in their own way.
The rest, I'm pretty much the same. "Poly" marriages, whether multiple males, females or both are fine - for someone else. Not for me. Same for same sex marriages or celibacy - fine for someone else.
And children - those defilers need to find that hell soon. As in when the proof is in and the verdict is handed down. They don't need the inside of a jail cell. I understand that there are very gray cases (the 16 year old that seduces an 18 or 19 year old for instance) but the rapist of a 6 year old doesn't need their life any more.
My sister and I argued this point years ago - she was of our opinion then, and I was a little blurry as to what I thought. As I've gotten older, I've become less forgiving and less blurry about my feelings about the whole thing. It stirs an anger in me unlike anything else, and I am grateful that I'm not the one who has to decide their fate. I'd find it hard to show any sort of mercy.
God is the potter, we are the clay. If God hates homosexuallity, why does He make them Gay? Gay people dont choose to be gay, they choose the day to step out of the closet, and good for them.
While being homophobic is not right, the Bible doesn't record Jesus saying marriage is also for members of the same sex.
and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
He didn't say, "...or two men or women..."
So while I do not have a problem with gay people it does not appear to be supported by Jesus as what God finds ideal.
Which is, of course, totally irrelevant to the discussion of why Christians justify homophobia (fear/hatred of homosexual people).
Unless they have the same attitude towards anyone doing anything that Jesus didn't specifically condone? Drinking distilled spirits or living a celibate life maybe?
I was not trying to say it justifies homophobia. I was just responding to the claim that Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality. He is saying marriage is reserved for straight people.
Funny. I've read the gospels and I missed that particular point. Did Jesus actually say 'marriage is for straight people'? And, did he ever say that his followers were to go forth and judge those who weren't his followers? For that matter, did Jesus say you were supposed to sit in judgment on anyone's actions? You guys spend a lot of time attempting to make others feel guilty about their choices. Apparently not as much time is spent understanding who Jesus was and what he stood for. That's a pity.
Jesus said marriage was for a man and woman. It's there in the scriptures. I'm just pointing out what's in the Bible since homosexuality and scriptures are the topics at hand. Who said I was judging? I don't look down on gays.
Please point me to that particular scripture where he says, exclusively, that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This might help.
1It happened when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2Great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.
3Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?' 6So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart."
I think this is pretty self-explanatory.
Sorry. That is only self explanatory for the issue at hand at the moment he spoke. It doesn't say anything on the subject of homosexuality.
A question. This addresses the question of marriage for a man and a woman. What of his conversation with the woman at the well? Was there any condemnation? Any statement to go forth and sin no more? If not (and there was no condemnation) then why?
If Jesus meant marriage to include gays then He would have explicitly said so. As for the women in the well, He came for us sinners, Jews or other, to teach us and not to the so-called righteous. He knew her history, that she was a loose woman and had been shunned by the community. It was an opportunity for Jesus to reveal who He was and that He wasn't only for the Jews. Do we not get eternal life because our sins have been forgiven? Jesus asked if He could have her water despite knowing she was very thirsty. Of course this didn't bode well with also because of the fact that He was a Jew. He said He could give her living water so that she would never thirst again. He told her that she had five husbands and was living with a man who was not her husband. This caught her attention and she finally realized who He was.
"Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did." John 4:29
She spread this news without drinking any water thus putting Jesus first in her life.
When he left, the people told the woman, "... we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42, ESV)
Jesus was using this woman's sin as an opportunity to reach out to the Samaritans despised by the Jews.
Having been touched by Jesus, I'm sure she remedied her sin.
Jesus most certainly would not have condoned her committing adultery.
You're also not helping this minority by hiding behind scripture (if it exists) by attempting to point it out and thereby judge rather than doing what Jesus most likely would have done (according to the bible) which was spend time with them and except their differences as he did with others.
Good point. It's irritating when they say 'Jesus said' when he didn't say, but they aren't judging you by saying it.
What makes it worse is we don't really know what was said 2000 years ago. Time to start thinking for themselves. What's right and what's not right rather than a 2000 year old book says that someone said...
The Bible is one of the only ancient books that we have original copies of. How is it that people can believe the words of Plato or Socraties yet there are no original manuscripts ever found of their "alleged" works.
Oh my goodness...isn't this forum about scriptures and homosexuality? It's nothing about me judging. It's just pathetic for you to say that. Homosexuals can do what they like. I'm not there to persecute them. They can get married in court but just not in church because that is not what Jesus condoned.
I understood what you meant Clara... there is no debate. Homosexuality in the Bible is a sin and Jesus made mention of man and woman being made for each other in the context of a conversation about divorce. If the debate is whether or not the Bible condones homosexuality then it's a slam dunk. It doesn't. To say that it doesn't is not evidence that one is against homosexuals. I could tell you what Hitler said about Jews in Mein Kampf and from some of the comments around here you would expect to be accused of being a Hitler admirer. There is a lot of emotion about the topic but lets let the chips fall where they may and the truth is the truth.
Claire, I think it's possible that some of us may have just misinterpreted the intention of your post. I thought you presented information that was helpful to the conversation. Thank you! Funny, btw, I was just thinking of you and praying for you the other day, and here you are! Hope you're well.
Wilderness. This entire string is base on a question about "what the Bible says". Therefore the Bible is extremely relevant in this string. Just because you do not believe in the inerrant Word of God does not give you the right to slap down Claire for quoting Scripture. If you do not want to hear what the Bible says in a discussion of "What the Bible says" then exit the discussion.
Eh.......first of all I neglected to mention that your title is misleadingly accusatory. How many Christians do you think believe the Bible "justifies homophobia"? .......Because "homophobia" is an invalid term anyway.
What most Christians believe is that the Bible justifies the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Matter of fact, the word of God is the main source for that belief. You seem to want to divert from the truth when you hint that the Bible justifies an issue that's invalid; your argument proceeds from a false assumption.
Not at all, most Christians just go to church and believe what the preacher tells them. Most churches are part of a larger church family - be it four-square, catholic, or what have you - that the church answers to.
There is a hierarchy with bylaws and the like.
Church is a business - and there are plenty of competitors perfectly willing to extract 10%+ from a congregation of locals.
The bigger donors also have a say in what the message is, there are church politics. My father was a pastor, I got to see plenty of that.
The entire point is that over time the church has reinterpreted the bible in order to push their own moral agenda. The bible as we know it was put together by old men a thousand years after it was written by authors who never even met Jesus. They picked an chose what to include and exclude.
The church survives by reproducing more Christians, and gays don't generally assist quite as much in those regards.
As has been pointed out, the bible can be used to justify anything from slavery to the abolition of slavery.
If you or your church chooses to use the bible an excuse to justify bigotry and suppression - then I'm here to point out how extremely unChrist-like that behavior is.
How many? Westborough Baptist comes to mind.
How many? Look at all of the churches breaking up because the homophobic members are unwilling to accept their gay brothers and sisters.
Look at Pope Francis and his paranoia of a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.
Look at all of these fabricated notions of what "traditional marriage" means as an excuse to exclude and demean people they don't believe are equals, when history (the bible included) tells an entirely different story of women as property, polygamy, incest, taking of brothers wives etc...
The founding family of Western religion (Adam & Eve, et al) is not only the first family ever - but also the first family to quash the "traditional marriage" argument by way of rampant incest!
Look at the lies they tell themselves, exclaiming that LGBTQ want "special treatment", when all they are asking for is equal treatment by the state - not by the church.
Look at the conflation of marriage and weddings to feign religious oppression - failing to understand that marriage is a legal status between couples and the state, while a wedding is a religious ceremony of couples before "god".
I don't have a huge amount of time today - but I wish to pose this question - if God has such an issue with it, why did he not have a problem with the relationship between Jonathan and David in the book of Samuel?
Before you write it off as "but they weren't explicitly sexual in the Bible, they were just mates." - look at the verses. "Johnathan made a covenant with David as he loved him as himself.", "that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David." and on Johnathan's death - " I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women".
One can be in a romantic relationship without being sexual. Homosexuality is NOT all about sex (and funnily enough, it's the NON-Homosexuals, and USUALLY the ANTI-HOMOS who think about homo-sex more often than those who are actually homosexual do...fixated much?>??). A romantic relationship doesn't need to have sex explicitly described in it - think of your friends - you know they are in a relationship, yet have they explicitly told you they are doing the "horizontal mambo'? No, but it doesn't make their relationship less does it?
So if God has all these apparent issues with homos - why not these two? Or is it that the interpretation of the translator has become the 'word of God" when it's actually not what was originally said? Also - Paul writing much of his anti-homo stuff - NOT God, Paul. Man is fallible, remember - yet so much stock is put into Paul's word. Would that not be considered worshipping a false idol - putting so much energy into quoting Paul's Corinthian scriptures as evidence of God's dislike for the gays?
One more - divorce - are there not something like 12 verses admonishing divorce? Yet this is PERFECTLY alright. There are SIX, yes SIX verses admonishing the gays, yet this is wrong? Don't get me started on the 300+ verses admonishing the sexual practices of HETERO's.
So, David and Jonathan....
It looks like the respondents to this issue have failed to see the real agenda of the LGBT community.
I urge you to read Janet Folger's book " The Criminalization of Christianity".. In it she details the long range plans the LGBT folks have for our society. LGBT really focuses on the basic tenet of God's Creation: Marriage.
This is not an argument of what Paul or any of the gospels say about Homosexuality. Look at the first book of God's Word and see that He created Man in His Image and Likeness, and He then Created an equal and sexually compatible Mate for Man: Woman. He united them within the natural order of the universe He created.
The LGBT community hates this argument because it does not really directly argue against the things they want to achieve: Homosexuality; pedophilia; Incest; bestiality; any sexual interaction that goes against the time honored one man one woman institution of marriage Ordained by God. They want you to believe that their forms of sexual behavior are the same as any monogamous marriage, with just a slight twist.
If the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 and the other part denouncing DOMA. What else will our society accept. It is one step closer to allowing the sexual activity listed above. Will your personal liberal views accept a man who marries his daughter or his son? There is no end to the practices which marked the ancient pagan world. Will we willingly go back to Molech, Ashur and Baal and the worship rituals which required the sacrifice of burning new born babies to these pagan gods. [or are we there now with people like Dr.Gosnell baby killings fresh from the womb?]
I don't think I've seen a bigger pile of crap in any forum in the three years I've been here.
I would have given with a reasoned response until I got to the third paragraph. That one is so far out of line it makes the entire post into nothing but a hateful rant with not a useful word in it and the last, basically equating the "gay agenda" to the burning of infants goes downhill from there.
You might take your hate rants to the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church or other radical Christian group - they welcome such trash with open arms.
Thank you for saying what needed to be said, with such restraint, Wilderness.
You did not understand the explanation I gave of the ancient Pagan society the Jews were surrounded by 3000 years ago. The pagan practices faced by the Jews was being likened to the same societal changes Christians face today. Today we still kill [abort]babies as a sacrifice to our own egos, and as a show of disrespect for God's creation. Further, your angry response and name calling was fully expected . I don't see how calling me "trash" "KKK and a "Christian radical" furthers the discussion. Have you ever read the GLBT agenda that was offered at the Democratic National Convention? Gays have couched their agenda as a Civil Rights Movement, but what about the Civil rights of a 110 year old organization like the Boy Scouts of America [BSA]? Do they have the right to remain "Morally straight" as has been in their Oath since 1910? Marriage between Man and Woman was instituted by God when He created humans. The general population supports DOMA. The case before the Supreme court is there because one judge challenged the 14 million people of California who voted for DOMA. Do we honestly believe that 12 people in Black robes are more powerful than God Almighty? DOMA and the BSA are the two most targeted moral issues GLBT want to destroy. That is because DOMA and Straight sex is the prevailing attitude of an orderly society and have been since God created Adam and Eve. The Gay community comprises about 4% of the population. Do we really need more "tail wagging the dog" legislation and court rulings. Gays can already marry legally in 12 states and D.C.( naturally). So what GLBT wants is not approval they want acceptance and the expansion of this practice more widely spread into the general population. Now if you have no clear discussion to the contrary just spew out more name calling or don't reply !
I must be out of the loop, but no one ever gave me my "gay agenda handbook" when I came out of the closet at 17. Who knew that me and other gays were just out to take over the world?
Sheesh. You sound like my mother.
Hint: this is sarcasm.
Your admission that you have a mother is a strong argument against gay male couples. You see McFarland. Men cant make children. God made it that way. As for taking over the world, why do gays want a Supreme court decision to marry when it is already legal? The want it have acceptance and practice not just a nod from the Justice of the peace.
Gays actually feel out of place in our society. Therefore, they are pushing the other 96% of us feel bad for them and accept them and to justify their actions. They want this from "Straight People" because they cannot feel comfortable in their hearts about the way they live and act. Forcing others to accept them and teaching youngsters this is normal makes them feel less uncomfortable about what they are doing. As to A movement, it is clear that the homosexual community wants special Class Protection under the cover of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Let me add excerpts from an article by Dr. Jay Lee Jagers, PhD on Steve Sternbergs studies on Homosexuality. This focuses on the idea of Homosexuality as a Civil Rights movement :
"It is a telling commentary on our society that it often requires tragedy and brutality to move us to self-examination. As a university community, it is important to be confronted with the “real world” so that we can seek to prevent the kind of brutality and violence that took Allen Schindler’s life.
Gay Awareness Week at SMU gave the campus the opportunity to evaluate information that the gay community desires to have us know. The topics of discussion did not of necessity coincide with those made during Dorothy Hajdys’ visit to SMU but we would do well to closely and critically examine three frequently made claims that arise during discussions about homosexuality (Daily Campus, Oct. 21. pg. 1). They are: “10% of the population is homosexual”; “homosexuality is genetic (it is something you’re born with)”; and, “homosexuals are not asking for special rights.”
Each of these claims, however, is misleading and false. We must remember that homosexuals do not number 10% of the population, that there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic and that homosexuals are asking for special rights (so-called “gay rights”).
First, numerous independent studies have shown that homosexuals do not number 10% of the population but rather between 1%-3% of the population at most (Univ. of Chicago study as reported in TIME). Even though the myth of 1 in 10 has been known for a long time, this erroneous statistic is nonetheless repeated, uncritically reported and often accepted without question. However, it simply isn’t true. No matter how often 10% is claimed, 1 in 10 is not a homosexual.
Second, there are no scientific data that support the claim that homosexuality is genetic. While the studies by LeVay, Pillard, and Hamer, which claim a genetic link to homosexuality, have raised interesting questions, the results of these studies are inconclusive at best. The National Cancer Institute’s press release of Hamer’s study stated, “the findings do not permit determination of an individual’s sexual orientation . . . . because complexities of sexuality cannot be fully explained by a gene or genes.” All of the above studies have received wide criticism within the scientific community. Charges of researcher bias have also arisen. Hamer himself gives the impression of being somewhat of a “spin doctor.” He told a P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) group that sexual orientation is like being left handed and “if you tell the press what to write about a scientific study, they’ll write it.” In addition, he ignored the Byne and Parsons’ study (Columbia Univ.) which confirmed that “there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory.” No matter how often genes are cited, there is no evidence to support a genetic link to homosexuality.
Third, homosexuals are asking for recognition as a class with full protected class minority status and privileges (under the Civil Rights Act, 1964) based on their homosexual behavior (or mere desire) alone. The special protected class status and advantages (special rights) homosexuals are seeking are not the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to all Americans under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizens may benefit from all fundamental rights and protections without possessing special, protected class status, which is reserved for truly disadvantaged, politically powerless and obviously distinct minorities, under strict court established criteria (Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973; SAISD vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Mass. Bd. of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Ctr., 1985; Jantz vs. Muci, 1991). Not all “minorities” are eligible for protected class status. Even members of the gay community acknowledge that they are not educationally, economically or culturally disadvantaged, are not politically powerless and are not an obviously distinct minority. Therefore, as a group, homosexuals are not a true minority but rather a very powerful special interest group. Nonetheless, full protected minority class status and the special rights that go alone with it are being sought. No matter how often it is denied, “gay rights” are special rights.
Keeping this in mind, the goal of “Gay Awareness Week” was to change the campus’ perception of the GLBSO from reactive and negative to positive and proactive. I, for one do not consider the GLBSO as either reactive or negative. However, it seems to me that “Gay Awareness Week” was just another indication of the SMU gay community’s goal to have their sexual behavior/preferences confirmed or legitimated and not just tolerated. This is the point of contention. This strategy includes many activities, for example: AIDS Awareness Week, Joseph Steffen and Dorothy Hajdys, not to mention, jeans and T-shirts, Log Cabin Republicans, Thanksgiving Dinner, and an AIDS Canned Food Drive. These activities are both proactive and positive. However, these events or activities are unrelated to sexual behavior/preferences or “out and proud.”
Pirates and priests can wear T-shirts; Pimps and Philanthropists can vote Republican; the KKK and Kindergartners can collect cans; Pilgrims and Prisoners can come to Thanksgiving Dinner. Homosexuality is about sexual behavior, as is adultery, “free love”, a one night stand, serial monogamy, open marriage, and marriage fidelity. Homosexuality is not about jeans, cans, Republicans or Thanksgiving any more than it’s about gabardine, bottles, Democrats or Labor Day.
The gay community defines itself by their sexual behavior/preferences. Levis and turkey only divert one’s attention from the “main thing,” which is the goal of the GLBSO education: the ‘normalization’ of homosexual behavior/preferences and attaining special, protected class status (i.e. special rights) for homosexuals.
If the GLBSO desires to take a positive and proactive step, let them cease perpetuating the 10% myth, the genetic myth, and the myth that “gay rights” are not special rights. If the GLBSO is serious in its attempt to educate the campus community then truth telling and not myth making should be a part of their message. 10%, a genetic link, and “gay rights are not special rights” are myths and neither proactive or positive.
The GLBSO should continue to have canned food drives, encourage people to vote, support friends and acquaintances and continue bringing speakers to campus. However, these activities have nothing to do with homosexuality. For the observer to confuse the two is to lend credence to myth and forget the truth."
I was wrong. the statements did get dumber and more full of absolute garbage.
Has it ever occurred to you that it doesn't really matter how one arrived at the acceptance that they are homosexual...we should be accepting? What good comes from hate? Doesn't everyone have a basic right to be happy, without others judging them?
No, evolution made it that way. And, since evolution is completely indifferent to the results of it's process, we can safely say that love and making children are separate concepts. Hence, two people in love don't necessarily have to make children.
Evolution also made it such that some women and men are sterile, hence two loving Christians (man and woman) couldn't have kids, anyways. Did God make it that way, too?
They wouldn't need any protection if you'd just left them alone.
No, they're just folks who don't want to hear homophobic bigotry from religious zealots.
Yes, that would be misinformed bigotry.
I too would be troubled if I were still espousing a dead theory from a non-scientist in the 1850's. The current crop of molecular and genetic Secular Scientists have so greatly disproved Darwinism as a fraud and pseudo-science that it is laughable for people to still lean on the hollow non scientific musings of a "Naturalist" who drew some very lovely birds and reptiles along with wild conclusions of how complex life forms grew out of an undefined and undiscovered primal "ooze". When I think of two people loving each other, and I agree that that need not take place only between man and woman, I still find the natural need to procreate in order to further future generations who too will desire love and affection.
However, no matter how you slice it, it takes the workings of male and female biology to produce those loving beings. The long term and wide spread practice of male homosexuality would lead to the extinction of homo sapiens. Therefore, Darwin was on to something in his theory of natural selection. Man naturally selects a woman for a mate in order to procreate the dominant species. Those are the biological facts; not bigotry or religious zealotry.
In fact it is interesting that you selected Darwin as the straw with which to hang your string on. In 1871 Darwin wrote " The Descent of Man, In Relation to Sex." again, Darwin's speculation on the desire for colors and scents the opposite sex must subtly employ in the "natural Selection [mating]" process suggests that he was more of a homophobic than any accused commentators in this string to date. [BTW he started out early in life as a devout Christian]
I have no answers as to why God does things. Man cannot comprehend fully his Creator. God does things His way, and we mortals can only observe in Awe the Mysteries of the complex system of relationships and environments God has given for us to enjoy, and sometimes fear, and rigorously study. It is so captivating that God has given us so many wonders to muse upon.
Ah, so you admit to not knowing anything about evolution. That's typical of most believers who attempt to discredit it but have no idea what they're talking about.
It's unfortunate believers are compelled to lie about science, but that is all they have to work with in the first place, lies.
YOU find the need? Why should those who love each other care about what you need? What does that have to do with anything? Do you decide how people should live?
You mean, like creating life in a test tube, for example?
That is entirely false and silly to say the least. The entire male population of the world is not homosexual. In fact, the world population is out of control. You have little to fear in that regard.
But, what you're talking about most certainly is bigotry and religious zealotry. You also said the theory was dead? Curious how you now bring it up?
So what? Pretty much everyone was a devout Christian, or Muslim or Jew, or...
Yes, we know, no one has any logical or reasonable answers regarding their gods.
Then, by your own words, you most likely are wrong about homosexuality.
Yes, he acts immoral and unethical, that is His way.
Yes, that's the religious nonsense.
sorry, This is just an unconnected string of comments and name calling. It makes little sense.
Do you know what name calling means? No one called you a name in this post - or any other, as far as I've noticed.
Ah yes, the typical excuse from believers who constantly play the victim card.
So, what name did I call you?
Good evening, Mr. Rodgers. There is one point on which I am skeptical.
While I am aware of many studies that disagree with Darwin on some issues, I know of none that has been embraced by the majority of today’s scientific community for having “so greatly disproved Darwinism as a fraud and pseudo-science that it is laughable.” I would greatly appreciate your naming just one that concludes all of Darwin’s theories were “laughable.” I am looking forward to reading it.
Thank you, Mr. Rodgers, for making the time to reply. A name or a link to just one study would be greatly appreciated.
If one, then refuses to accept the possibility of a genetic component to homosexuality - in short, accept that homosexuals are born homosexual, then they must also reject that everyone is actually born heterosexual and just chooses to be gay. See the catch 22 there? Like you said, the results of the study are inconclusive at best, but they really seem to say to me that if ''the complexities of sexuality cannot be fully explained by a gene or genes,'' then neither than can they simply be explained away as being a matter of choice. AND, if you want to simplify it even more by using this argument, then ultimately everyone's sexuality - straight, gay, or otherwise - is simply a matter of choice.
So, which is it?
You did know that this is 2013, not the Jewish society of 4,000 years ago? Not the society that kept slaves, stoned people for minor offenses and made sacrifices to mythological creatures in the sky? What those barbarians did or thought has little meaning today. We've grown up, or at least some of us have.
I did not call you "trash" - I called your hate filled rant trash. Because it is and because the KKK and Westboro welcomes such rhetoric.
That the BSA requires all scouts to be "straight" doesn't make them "morally straight"; it makes them insincere in following the Golden Rule. The straightest morality ruler there is and the only one nearly universally accepted. Except, of course, by religious radicals that think only they have answers.
Doma. You mean the law that has been found unconstitutional by 8 federal courts (including the 1st and 2nd court of appeals), that the President has refused to enforce and that the founders now say should be repealed? That Doma? I'd have to say that if gays want it repealed they're in pretty good company.
Certainly 12 people in black robes are more powerful (and morally right) than your imaginary creature that instructs in how to keep slaves. You want to discuss gay rights (or anything BUT mythology) you need to keep your personal myths clear of your responses. They don't add anything.
As there was no Adam, no Eve and no god to create them, I guess it's fair to straight sex is the prevailing attitude since then. On the other hand it was certainly not the prevailing attitude in Rome - a country and culture that was far older than the US is.
Yes, we definitely need more tail wagging the dog. Anytime a minority is abused and "disallowed" because some people want everyone else to accept their false myth as truth we need more wagging. Learn some tolerance, accept that your beliefs are no better than anyone else's and give everyone the same rights you have. You will be a LOT closer to being "morally straight".
Nothing I said was hate filled. I just disagree about homosexuality hiding behind Civil Rights. Also, I do not have to be tolerant of beliefs that offend me and my God, nor do you. Yes, I agree that Gays are a minority, but their lifestyle is not and should not be protected under the Constitution. From your comments, I sense that you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you seem to rely less on the Freedoms defined by our Constitution. However, like many in your mind set you would not openly and as strongly take part in this string if the question was "Why do So Many Muslims Believe the Koran Justifies Homophobia.?" Christians are not out to change anyone's lifestyle. We are here to help people see there are alternatives which result in the reward of Eternal Life with God, a belief you call "Mythology". I have proselytized many, many folks who still do not believe. However, I nor does any other Christian ask the Government to pass a Law to protect me from my detractors. Christians are now becoming a part of the minority in the US as Secular Humanism expands. We know that, and know that the other "Agenda" from the Muslim Believers is to institute Sharia Law. It is happening in many communities in America, and Europe is close to full envelopment by 2030. The Word of Jesus is Freely offered and freely accepted. Grace and acceptance costs you nothing. Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it, thanks. People, Christian or otherwise, that attempt to force their lifestyle (heterosexual marriage, for instance) onto the rest of society aren't typically people I care to be around. I find that I'm a much happier and better person for accepting people for what they are, not what I think they should be.
Wilderness. The only people I see forcing their lifestyle on others is the LGBT's . I am not going to the Supreme court saying that all Americans must believe what I believe. Christians are more live and let live than you seem to think. The Homosexual community wants to fundamentally change society's long held belief that marriage is between man and woman. It is the Gays trying to change the belief that 96% of the population holds. So don't tell me I'm forcing my belief on the 3-4% who wish to live a non-standard life style. I do not want to live that life style for whatever reason. Therefore, I find it offensive that I am being told to accept it as the norm. I will not.
Further, you are not ," accepting people for what they are.' you have posted a long series of strings telling me and others to shut up and you call us names because we do not believe the way you do. I believe people should be what they want to be, but when you force my children to read books like "Jimmy has Two Dads"; you invade a solid organization like the Boy Scouts to infiltrate them with YOUR ideas of what is normal; you forcefully move bills through Congress and the Supreme court that redefine traditional Marriage. Then you are not practicing your liberal "Live and let Live philosophy; you are infringing on the life style of a majority of Americans. The time for Political Correctness is past.
I especially liked the part about "I believe people should be what they want to be". When we can all accept and believe that people wanting to be married to the one they love should be married to the one they love we'll be a better culture. At least we have a small start here, with just one person espousing that right.
The rest of it may be just nonsense (96% of people won't let gays marry, gays are forcing others into their lifestyle, making up definitions for "traditional" marriage etc.) but that one small step does show promise.
You know I don't look at it that way. People do have the right to be whatever they want, as long as their "rights" don't infringe on others' rights WITHIN the acceptable moral standard that's already established. Many gays do not play political games, do not harrass conservatives, etc. But indeed a bunch of them do! And they are doing wrong; yes, we both know they're trying to change the established norm and change everyone's view of right and wrong, and in so doing they are infringing upon the rights of most people. It infringes upon the rights of traditional married couples to be in that particular group, even. Yep, it re-defines marriage. That's just wrong, period.
I'm still appalled at how liberal-minded people are trying to label conservatives and Christians as bigoted and all, even going so far as to make them look sinful and immoral. That is just not the case in this issue. People do not have the moral right to insult someone who stands up for conservative views.
But it would appear that some people have the moral right to insult those who do not stand up for conservative views.
The immoral practice is what's insulting to everyone.
It's not harrassment nor a personal attack to label immorality for what it is.
Actually, it is. To label someone else, not harming anyone, as immoral, that is. It is an attack, it hurts, that hurt is intentional, and you have no right to cause that hurt. It is, at the root, an immoral act to do so, particularly as it is also slander. They are not, after all, immoral by their own lights - just your personal sense of what is right and wrong. You may be in the majority (or may not - that is debatable), but the majority has quite often been very, very wrong in what is the moral thing to do.
Indeed, the majority is not always right.
Just as the minority isn't always right.
Morality is morality, and it's based on conscience, and in America it's always been based on laws that are based on God's laws. As I said, America changed the slavery issue, set the slaves free because America realized slavery was wrong. America is one Country that does try to correct the wrongs it does.
This new push for special rights is mostly driven by vengeance from the activists who keep perpetuating it. Even true civil rights issues like black "rights" has been taken off onto a wrong tangent. Blacks and whites are equal. The NAACP and other strictly-black groups are no longer useful nor right. I've seen the reverse prejudice that's been (and being) incited by those groups. Gays have had the same rights as everyone else for a long time now too. And now the most recent instigators are the political activist liberals who want to overturn what marriage is.
Enough is enough.
Yet apparently the majority of people will not admit that. And if the majority of people do end up condoning gay marriage also, then the majority is wrong.
I know they're reveling in tipping the balance scale, but they're in the wrong. Just as it wasn't funny nor something to be proud of when blacks were oppressed, it's not funny nor good now that conservatives are being oppressed by liberals.
Listen to yourself!
"...and in America it's always been based on laws that are based on God's laws" and
"America changed the slavery issue, set the slaves free because America realized slavery was wrong"
America used God's laws in declaring slavery to be moral and later realized that God's laws were wrong. So they changed God's morality to something more in line with what is actually right - equality. Time to do it again.
You have claimed several times now that gays want "special" rights. What might those be, bearing in mind that "special" wrongs need "special" rights to correct them. Example; you don't need a law saying you can't lose your home for being white, and didn't request one. Blacks DID need such a law, requested and got it. With that thought in mind, what special rights do gays ask for?
To marry their Significant Other? To get spousal medical insurance from the job of their life partner? To receive death benefits when their partner dies? To have rights from cohabiting with someone for 20 years? To have rights in a hospital setting as "next of kin" to their partner? To have their possessions automatically go to their partner upon death?
Which one is "special" in that you don't already have it and want it? Which one will be reserved only for gays?
But it is not immoral to everyone so how can it be insulting to everyone?
To impose your judgement and your morality on others is harassment and a personal attack.
Tell that to the liberal activists. If you're among those, tell that to yourself as well.
I'm sorry, Brenda, but when you demand that morality never change you do the world a great wrong.
If it never changed, we'd still own slaves and women/children would be little more than roperty, ours to do with as we wish. We would still be stuck in old testament times, stoning people for minor offenses or in the middle ages, torturing and burning people for no other reason than we want them to conform. We've grown far beyond the way we've treated others in the past, but have a long way to go yet.
It is time - no, past time - to take another small step towards accepting people as they are whether they fit in the mold we want them to or not. It's not comfortable, but it is the right thing to do even if it means a small change inside us, in what we are willing to tolerate in others. Differences in other people will always cause a little discomfort but we as a people are big enough to overcome that in ourselves if we try.
In America at least, all that did change. Our laws reached a place of equality. On race, on all issues (even though other issues aren't even in the same category as the fight for gay marriage).
All are free, all are at liberty, all have been given equal rights for a long time now. To go further and press for special rights for a select few is just wrong and opens the door to utter nonsense being put on the political table. I've watched the liberal movement tip the balance scale for several years now. There comes a time when the scale should stay even, not become tipped again at the hand of a radical agenda.
No, you know better than that. Leaving the marriage of a loved out of the equation, gays are NOT equal legally. Example; an article in my local paper informs me that state legislature is trying to draft and pass a law that will negate laws of surrounding towns that make it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Or kick them out of their home for being gay. That's hardly equality, but it doesn't stop there. I know you have read of a gay partner denied access to the hospital room of a dying loved one they've lived with as a couple for years because they're not "immediate family". Or losing all rights when a couple breaks up. Or losing death benefits when their partner dies. You know of these things; how can you possibly claim "equality"?
They want no "special" rights - just the ones you have for being heterosexual instead of homosexual.
In America the ones listed changed - the unlisted ones have not. America is not equal yet, and probably never will be totally equal, but we can prod her along a little. We can provide more protection for children, regardless of income or race. We can improve the work field for women, in pay and opportunity. We can do the same for the white male - he's been stomped on for years now to pay for the sins of the fathers. We can do better in equalizing our schools regardless of race or income. And we can give gays the same legal rights that heterosexuals have whether we personally find their lifestyle abhorrent and evil or not.
And you are attempting to invoke your religious views on a secular society.
Why must you insult others and then claim no one should be allowed to insult you?
And how exactly is same sex marriage infringing on anyones rights?
It's not just me, and I think it's not just Christians either.
Why don't you ask an ex-practicing-gay? There are those people around. If you can find some who aren't oppressed by the bullying and name-calling by liberals, some who aren't afraid to speak up......
Oh yeah.........they get mocked and insulted just like us Christians & conservatives do. If they aren't willing to be used by the liberal agenda, they're cast out. But if you really want answers, I'm telling you to listen to people who've been in the pit of homosexuality and came out of it.
Incidentally, speaking about "ex gays", you heard that exodus international issued a very public apology for all of the harm they've caused with their so called conversion therapy and they are officially closing their doors, right? You've referred me to then previously.
It's because I'm a gay atheist, who by default MUST be trying to take over the world with my evil agenda for *gasp* equal rights* I bathe in awesome. Duh.
(this, incidentally) was also sarcasm.
Yea, what ever happened to that all people are created equal stuff? Is your sexuality affecting me or my family? Ellen DeGeneres says she went to all her neighbours and asked them if her marriage was affecting them in any way. They all said no.
Whenever I get into the "gay" conversation in person, I ask two questions. 1) if you're so convinced that homosexuality is a "choice", when did you actively, consciously "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex and be straight? and 2) How is my marriage infringing on your rights or diminishing your life in any way?
The answer to 1) is always a stutter, and the answer to number 2) is "its' not, but..."
That's way to funny. Perhaps you're unaware of the news that Exodus chief Alan Chambers issued an apology and Exodus international is disbanding. Chambers admitted that his attractions to men never went away and all he did was cause pain and guilt to others. Homosexuals can no more change who they are attracted to than heterosexuals can and I still have no idea why you would want to get involved in what other adults do in the privacy of their own homes.
How is giving the homosexual community the RIGHT to marry their loved one infringing on your right to do the same? How is it imposing their belief on you?
Is someone forcing you to marry another woman? Forcing you to divorce your husband, and await allocation of your same-gender spouse? No???? Then how is it infringing on your rights? If you are being forced to do this, then therein lies an issue.
You still have the same rights as you always have - you can marry the man whom you love (I am assuming that you are Brenda a woman, that is). You do not HAVE to marry the same gender, but if you were attracted in such a way, it would be open to you if you were in a state which has marriage equality.
By reason of the fact that you are NOT your husbands property means the definition of marriage has already been re-defined OVER and OVER again - you can't trade your daughter for a goat, you are not your husbands property, you can charge your husband with rape should he force himself on you (at least in NZ you can), you may own your own property. etc etc etc etc.
Shall we insist that marriage go back to the ORIGINAL method? As a woman myself, I surely hope not.
But with the infringing on the rights - you have the seperation of church and state, and the consitutional right to freedom of religion - that goes for all people - your religion does not make the law for EVERYONE. What you deem moral in your life may be one of the most immoral things in a devout Muslim or Hindu person's life - yet you don't see the Hindu or the Muslim INSISTING that you don't do that in a country of the Free that the USA apparently is. Because they realise that their faith is for them, and only them, not everyone.
Gays aren't telling you you have to have a gay marriage. They aren't saying they alone can define marriage.
Why is it that people who pride themselves on being in the land of the Free, the great USA, with it's Founding Fathers who strove for Freedom of Religion due to persecution in their previous country - founded a country where it was designed to be that you could be the faith you were regardless of what it was, because you had that freedom - and wrote a Constitution that ensured that one religion did not rule them all (like the previous countries had done).....why is it that those people who are saddened to see the way the USA has gone due to marriage equality don't realise that if their dream of Christianity ruling America's laws is going against EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers were trying to do?
So proud, yet trying to change the country against the Founding fathers' dream for it?
So the government is forcing everyone to be gay, now?
News to me.
But gays aren't telling you that they, and only they, can define marriage. They aren't forcing all marriages to be biblical. They aren't even telling you that your own heterosexual acts are evil and sinful, sending you to Hell. They are leaving those calls to God, while you are the one judging them and trying to force them to live as you do.
You're proabably right in that only a few percent of the population is gay, but you are very, very wrong in claiming that 96% of the population believe that ONLY hetero marriages are acceptable; the votes are coming in much, much closer than that and as you know 1/4 of the states have already made a total lie out of the statement. A great many people, gay or not, are willing to live and let live; they recognize that allowing their neighbor a same sex marriage does not force them to do anything at all.
No one is forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality as "normal" (presumably meaning over half the people are hetero); just that they need to accept the abnormal as OK - something we all need to learn. That the gays are far ahead of too many Christians in this basic facet of morality says something about both.
Interesting that you declare traditional marriage as one man and one woman. Throughout history mankind has tried nearly every possibility under the sun and most of those are in use somewhere. Some 4,000 years ago the nation of people we now call "Jews" used polygamy as the "traditional marriage" - marriage that was sanctified and approved of by God Himself. What in the world gives you the right to change that much older definition from what God decreed? That you wish to force your own idea of "traditional" on a nation doesn't make it.
Gay marriage does NOT infringe on your lifestyle one tiny bit, except perhaps to deny you the ability to control others quite so much. You are still free to marry as you choose. That you claim it does simply exhibits the bigotry and intolerance of the radical Christian, much in the same manner the radical muslim community forces their will on the surrounding population.
Calling you names - I have not called you anything. Should you see yourself in some of the groups I have described as bigoted, intolerant or immoral (the far right radical Christians, specifically) it is you making that call, not I. Only you can put yourself into any group - no one else.
Nor have I told you to "shut up"; you have the right to speak as you wish, whether reasonable conversations of care, kindness and love or hate filled rants at anyone not of your religious persuasion. Just as I have the right to call you on it.
Would that I could bleach my eyes.
I thought people who fell in love with someone of the same sex just had a plan to be in a relationship with that person. Shows what I know.
(You have quite the imagination.)
Why do so many Christians believe the bible justifies homophobia?
The Bible can be used to justify pretty much anything. It was used to support slavery, and to end slavery. It was used to support racial segregation, and to fight against racial segregation. It has been used to justify mistreatment of women, and to support gender equality. It has been used to divide, and to unite.
There is no way for anybody to conclusively demonstrate that their specific interpretation of the Bible--whether pro-gay, anti-gay, or anything else--is the objectively "correct" one. Thus the problem is not with a specific Biblical interpretation per se, the problem is with the use of the Bible as a basis for moral reasoning in the first place.
The main thing Bible readers overlook is the secret to understanding Scripture. If you are not aware of how the Bible tells people how to understand it, then please read I Cor2: 14:
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."
One of the Bible's many, many cop-out verses. Paul was clearly a hipster.
"You think it's dumb? Well, that's just because you don't get it, maaaaan."
So, in other words, "if my interpretation differs from your interpretation its clearly because the spirit likes me better than you and I can be justified in calling you stupid because of it"
Its the biblical equivalent of "nanananananana"
By virtue of the fact that they need to remove verses from their cultural and historical contexts, not to mention even the context of the surrounding chapter, they are cherry-picking their way through the Bible to justify what they want to say.
To use the Bible to say "Oh, no, it's not hatred or bigotry, the Bible says it", to hide behind the Bible instead of owning up and taking responsibility for their own hate, they are as far from the person Jesus or God would want them to be.
If you hate, dislike, don't understand something - be it homosexuality, race, the eating of shellfish, etc etc - come out and say it. Take responsibility for your own emotions, your own thoughts and feelings on things. If you are filled with hatred - OWN IT.
I have more respect for the character of a person who states "I hate this, because of this" rather than "You shouldn't do this, cause my God says so" - at least the first example OWNS their emotions, thoughts and ideas.
Justin, outrageously wonderful! How many Christians are being un-Christian? You could ask the same question about how many presidents are being un-American -- signing legislation that betrays their oath of office and shreds the Constitution. It's all ego -- selfishness.
Jesus didn't care about the lusts of this world, so long as the person was humble and wanted spiritual awakening. That's why he accepted thieves, prostitutes, lepers and likely even gays. The arrogant Pharisees (and others) who thought they were already saved could not be saved. Sounds like many Christians, today. They're lazy, arrogant and think they know it all. I've made a few discoveries, but it only teaches me that I know very little.
You said, "Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality." Bravo! In fact, I suspect that God smote both Sodom and Gomorrah because of a reason very similar to that of Noah's Flood -- the genetic survival of humanity.
Both destructions were acts of love. Many people don't readily get this, because they think of the deaths of so many bodies. But God created His children in His own image and likeness, and He is not Homo sapiens! Let that thought sink in for a moment.
If the church had always been about Christ's teachings -- Love -- then we would not have had the political machinery set up by Constantine and Justinian. We would not have had the condemnation of an early church father (Origen). We would not have had the Crusades, the murder of the Cathars, the burning at the stake of so many intelligent thinkers, the Spanish Inquisition, the house arrest of Galileo and the persecution of Native Americans and their cultures.
Such crimes were borne out of ego -- the antithesis of Christianity. So, we've had a religion which has been spreading lies along with the truth.
How many popes have walked on water? Only one, it seems, and Peter likely never thought of himself as Catholic. And he walked on water for only a few moments before doubt set in. He almost had it.
I tend to think that it's because many Christian's have the bible wrong. Read the gospels. Jesus pretty much says to follow him you have to do two things. Love god, and love your fellow man. That's it. Later organized religion and other books added all these extra rules to the religion, because let's face it, a religion that says you just have to love man and god is simple, sweet and not really requiring of a church. But one that ignores the "Great Commandments" and focuses on the evils of man (and not loving them) would require a church to guide the sheeple (cross breed-Father of man and Wife of stupid sheep ;-).
The OP is right would Jesus cast a stone at homosexuals or would he try to hangout with them?
My perspective is different than yours when it comes to a homosexual lifestyle. The King James Bible use some strong language when referring to this act. As I recall Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd for their sexual pleasures rather than giving them the guests in his home for their pleasure.
The other visitor, who was the Lord, stayed behind. He revealed to Abraham that he was going to destroy the cities because of the evil ways of their people. Abraham, a special friend of the Lord, began to bargain with God to spare the cities if there were righteous people in them.
http://christianity.about.com/od/bibles … morrah.htm
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 172 helpful votes
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV / 93 helpful votes
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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/man_sh … y_with_man
So God's okay with lesbians, then? And bisexual men? And those who are genderqueer and don't fall into any particular group?
I had this long winded explanation on how historical and cultural context explains all that.
But, then I thought "Actually, this guy is the PERFECT example of cherry-picking bible verses".
SpanStar - SMH. Own your dislike of homosexuals. Don't hide behind religion. Or if you insist on doing this learn two things: The historical, cultural and chapter context of the verses you use to defend your dislike AND Find out what Jesus (He who should be followed, who we should strive to be like etc) himself said about homosexuality and homosexuals.
Actually, in a less than long winded way I can help you with number two - Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality.
Whatever your prejudgment of me is about is irrelevant.
It is my belief that some people are under the impression that they are waiting to be judged which will occur but not in this reality.
NOTE: Everyone is already on their way to Hell and only by accepting Jesus AND Repenting-(Changing Our Ways) will we avoid that final destination of Hell according to the Judeo-Christian belief.
I believe Jesus said I do my father's will-I am in the father and the father is in me.
Funnily enough I'm not prejudging you. I'm looking at the information you gave and responding to it. Whether you believe that my pointing out your inaccuracies in using said verses to serve your point is judging is your business. I merely asked you to learn your history and stop cherry picking.
It's exactly what was done with slavery and the bible - cherry picked verses were used out of context to biblically condone slavery. Do you still think cherry picking works? Do you disagree with the apparent Biblical condoning of slavery? Because if you do, because they were cherry picked verses, then why do it with this?
You also didn't read the original question - why do you think the bible justifies homophobia? Instead you provided the verses used to promote homophobia. I'd like yr answer not the one you've been taught to give.
Judging? Nope I don't assume I am. I merely responded to your producing of the verses. I didn't assume you were judging - merely cherry picking - why? Because I am living the life that I was destined to live, by the God I know. We are all made in his image - even the gay ones. If he didn't like us, why'd he make so many of us? (So not getting into the 'choice' discussion - at least not here)
Anyway - each to their own. I'm just suggesting a bit more education is all.
jlpark you said, "Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality."
What did Jesus say about pedophilia, incest, and polygamy?
Do you consider pedophilia, incest, and polygamy to be morally acceptable behaviors?
Pedophilia doesn't include consent between two adults, so putting it on the same level as homosexuality is a fallacy.
On the other hand, incest is how the Bible says we all got here, and polygamy is encouraged by the Bible in many places, most prominently the Old Testament. You hear that whistling sound? That's your argument falling out of the sky.
I merely asked two questions in my post, both addressed to jlpark, in reference to what she said. You chose to respond to me, but not directly to either of the questions.
Now, based upon what you did say, I could speculate about what your answers to the questions might be, but I don't want to do that, speculate.
So I'll ask you directly: Do you consider pedophilia to be morally acceptable behavior? Do you consider incest to be morally acceptable behavior? Do you consider polygamy to be morally acceptable behavior?
As Zelkiiro said, paedophilia does not involve consenting adults and so mentioning in the same debate as homosexuality is a distraction.
Some cultures accept incest and polygamy as morally acceptable but again they are just a distraction from the topic.
Do you see a connection between those three things and homosexuality?
John Holden and Rad Man, I specifically addressed the statement that "Jesus said NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about homosexuality."
If someone makes the point that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality to justify the morality of homosexuality, then why can't someone make the point that Jesus said nothing about pedophilia to justify the morality of pedophilia? Perhaps someone from NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).
But the discussion was about homosexuality, not the other three things you chose to use as a distraction.
You are using the bible to justify the immorality of homosexuality.
Straw man argument. We are discussing homosexuality here. You are bring up completely irrelevant things.
The person I initially addressed on this thread brought up eating shellfish. The OP just said in his last post, "Leviticus lists homosexuality the same, an "abomination", as eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabics."
Polygamy was mentioned several times before I used the word.
I guess it depends on what side of the debate you are on whether these other subjects are distractions and irrelevant.
I read your post where you demand someone answer an unrelated question as if it relevant to the topic.
I demand you tell me what in the hell you are talking about, exactly.
I suppose demand was a little over exaggerated. However your questions are completely unrelated to the topic.
I suppose it's all Greek to you.
A short time ago I asked a question about arsenokoites. I hope that meets with your approval.
Jack - I can't say right this minute what Jesus said about paedophilia or incest. This is because I am at work and answering this on a mobile in my break. And don't have a bible at hand.
However comparing homosexuality - which is sexual relationship between two consenting adults - with incest or paedophilia - which is sexual abuse of non consenting Children - is both a distraction from the argument at hand, and insulting.
I do know that the use of Gen 19 Sodom and Gomorrah to support condemnation of homosexuality is also a condoning of the other acts in the chapter. To use this chapter is to condone rape, and incest at the same time as condemning homosexuality. So, it would appear that people who use this chapter have more of a problem with two consenting adults having sex than with daughters being given over to an angry mob to be raped, and a father having sex with his daughters (Lot).
To compare homosexuality with the abuse of children shows that those who compare these have no understanding of the concept of CONSENT and ADULT - which I find disturbing.
Jack - ill answer your question properly when I get a chance when I get home.
"Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
So... pretty much almost everybody. Sounds like Hell is going to be crowded! Lol.
Exactly. Which means most are railing against themselves. Isn't that the nature of judgment though? Those who do usually hide behind the exposure of others doing the sane thing. Hoping that by diverting your attention you won't take the time to notice them.
What if I'm not a Christian and I don't agree with homosexuality, am I homophobic? If I disagree with you am I being judgmental? What about other religions that don't agree with homosexuality are they homophobic? Live Your life I'm not judging you. Please allow me to live mine without being judged because I disagree with you. Let's agree to disagree without the derogatory name calling.
I think what the homosexual community should realize is while Christianity is the largest religion in the US, Islam is the fastest growing religion and while the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God nowhere in the Bible does it mention killing homosexuals. Read the Kuran.
I am a Christian. I don't hate you , why do you hate me. Yes I disagree with your lifestyle and obviously you disagree with mine, but I don't hate you. If I want to believe in my God and His holy word, allow me to do that without calling me homophobic. I pray that the love of God finds you through His Son Jesus Christ...Be Blessed
That's a lie.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall beupon them.
Haha, once again, the nonbelievers know the Bible better than the believers themselves.
Here's atheist Penn Jillette on how reading the Bible is the quickest way to turn atheist:
http://bigthink.com/videos/reading-the- … an-atheist
I can honestly say I completely forgot about LEVITICUS.I apologize, I was w wrong. But one of my points was why do you only call Christians homophobic What about other religions?
My main point is why is it ok for you to live your life the way you want, but because I disagree I'm homophobic?
Live your life, but please let me live mine without the hatred simply because we disagree.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally:
"But one of my points was why do you only call Christians homophobic What about other religions?"
Oh they most certainly are! Islam, Judaism and Hinduism have plenty of homophobia.
"My main point is why is it ok for you to live your life the way you want, but because I disagree I'm homophobic?"
It depends what you mean by "disagree." You are free to live as you wish. But if you believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, then you are simply incorrect; it is not.
You personally may not have negative feelings towards gay people, but millions of Christians do. Thus homophobia is a major element in Christianity. Many Christians who argue against gay rights do not just "disagree"; they actually hate them.
Why would they argue against someone else's freedom if they did not hate them or think them inferior?
This hatred is why there continue to be hate crimes and violence against gay people around the world. Often committed by Christians.
"Live your life, but please let me live mine without the hatred simply because we disagree."
I agree completely. Live and let live. Which is why marriage should be allowed for homosexuals just as for heterosexuals. Do you agree?
Yep. We project onto others our own shortcomings and insecurities. This is actually a bona fide phenomenon recognized in psychology.
Question to Justin Earick regarding the question and a somewhat personal matter.
Justin, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
In my view, it is clear that homosexuality is considered to be a sin in the Bible. To me it's obvious. That doesn't mean that I agree because I am for the legalization or what have you of gay marriage. But if you're narrowing the dicussion to the Bible, then it's a sin and it is the same as adultery then and though Christ did preach about not throwing stones he also told the woman to sin no more. So there is theory about "serial" sinning. If a Preacher commits adultery believe me, he gets judged by the Church. It may be that he repents and they give him a chance, but if he does it again and again, then he becomes a serial sinner. In that case, I'd say the Church would send him packing. So, unfortunately, an gay person is a serial sinner IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH and they would put a gay person in the same category as a someone who repeatedly commits adultery. So the question could have been asked another way, "Why do so many Christians believe the bible justifies oppressing adulterers."
Again, this is an academic discussion on what the book say's.
"In the eyes of the church" is the entire point - they are getting it completely wrong.
Your premise of homosexuality equalling adultery is straw-man. Leviticus lists homosexuality the same, an "abomination", as eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabics.
Romans (Paul) uses the same term "natural" to describe men with long hair (when mens hair grows long by nature, but custom dictates short hair) in his larger points about lust and Gentile (Greek Christians specifically) guilt over abandoming the old-covenant, ceremonial Levitical code - which Paul later describes as a yolk of slavery.
Sound familiar, guys?
Corinthians and Timothy are modern (in the the last 75 years) misinterpretations of arsenokoites and malakos. Paul is describing soft + bed (passive orientation), and abuseres of one's self with mankind, specifically with hints of monetary and likely sexual exploitation. In other words; boy temple-prostitutes, and their abusers. Nothing consensual about it.
There are only six verses out of 30,000 that some Christians falsely use to condemn monogomous and consensual same-sex relations, while there are countless instances of adultery, lust, and incest shout-outs that no one uses to condemn all of heterosexual relations.
They are just cherry-picking the bible to justify their personal beliefs and uncomfort with others.
Exactly. There are 360 plus verses admonishing heterosexuals and their practices - it's not that god doesn't love straight people, it's just they require more supervision (borrowing a quote from Lyn lavner)
Anyone that has sex in any other position than missionary should really read up - they could be sinning!
Justin Earick, you said, “Corinthians and Timothy are modern (in the the last 75 years) misinterpretations of arsenokoites and malakos. Paul is describing soft (passive), abuseres of one's self with mankind, specifically with hints of monetary and likely sexual exploitation. Boy temple-prostitutes, and their abusers.”
Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that arsenokoites was misinterpreted from the time Paul coined the word until around 75 years ago? So finally 75 years ago somebody got it right? Is that what you are saying?
That is nothing even remotely close to what I said; Up UNTIL the last 75 years, the interpretation was "abuser's of one's self with mankind", FOR the past 75 years that established definition has been changed into homosexuals and sodomites.
They changed the words in the bible to fit the church's preffered narrative.
Same as they did with cellibacy, the rapture, papal infallability...
That is what I was saying.
I'm not wanting to change the focus of this, just wanna ask if you'll please make a distinction between the Catholic Church's beliefs and "the Church" in general. Many denominations (like Evanagelicals and Baptists) are worlds apart from the Catholic Church when it comes to belief in Papal infallibility, attributes of Mary, transubstantiation, even some aspects of salvation itself.
yet without the catholic church and their preservation of ancient documents, it's highly unlikely that there would be a christianity today, and therefore no religion for you to believe in. While you're free to disagree with their doctrines or dogmas or teachings, they are responsible (almost solely) for the existence of christianity today. Without them, the christian belief would have died out over a thousand years ago. It's something that bears keeping in mind.
Here I go being foolish again.... I always thought that the RCC is the mother of ALL Christian denominations which use the canon as its foundation. I thought that the NT and OT is the foundation of the RCC ???? The bible says we must respect our parents.
I read someplace that Martin Luther accused the RCC of being the beast as described in Rev 13.
Therefore through this movement "Some" church doctrine was changed and Protestants were born. They then had children who changed some doctrine and these children had children who did the same thing …etc. etc.
Does this mean that God and Jesus does not exist???? No it don’t! And don’t prove that they do either. However I believe they do exist due to my own personal reasons.
no, the RCC was not the "first" christianity, but they were the most prolific. From the beginning, there was a split between the Gnostics and the Eastern Orthodox church - but the RCC condemned the gnostics as heretics and destroyed a large portion of their writings while the Eastern Orthodox church was all but extinguished by the origin and spread of Islam in the East.
The biblical cannon as we have it today was debated and decided in a series of council meetings as a direct response to a "heretic" who was building his own bible and deciding on his own cannon, so the church fathers decided to make their own - and that's the one we have (for the most part, plus or minus certain books) that we have today.
The base fact of the matter is that without the Catholic church, we would have no cannon, and no religion called Christianity (at least not that could be recognized as similar) to the one that we have today. When constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome and made other, lesser pagan cults illegal, the church gained a political foothold - and that's what allowed it to continue. Without it, christianity would not exist today.
Does that make god real or not real? No. Absolutely not. Truth is truth regardless of circumstances, but while you have had personal experiences that make you believe it's true and that's evidence enough for you, I disagree and think it's more likely that it's not. It happens. Nobody agrees on everything all of the time.
Hello julie or JMcFarland sorry it took so long to reply.
You may not agree but I think we are saying pretty much the same thing only you said it better. And I'm seeing the shadows differently.
I never thought thr RCC was the first , just that if we were to build a family tree for Christianity as we know it today, most ALL christian denominations will find that they are but limbs and branches which springs from the RCC. The RCC rose to power by eleminating all of the other conflicting theologies that existed at that time, in the Roman Empire.
As you said, Organized Christianity owes their existance to the RCC. I would go as far as to say that the RCC IS the Mother of all forms of Organized Christianity (as we know it today).
I don't feel particularly compelled in that respect - few if any Christians care about the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or Rohingya Muslims.
I take your point on papal infallability, but evangellicals (I would submit) are more proactive in their condemnation of gays overall.
They both shun the agnostic gospels and espouse the fallacy of the rapture.
Also, Christians and Muslims are fairly equal in their suppression of women and gays, though Muslim nations generally practice more strictly orthodox theocracies than Christians.
Beyond that, the variances are few and far between in those regards - just look at this gay-marriage debate and the constant conservative attacks on women's ownership and choices regarding their own bodies.
The religious right simply refuse to separate their own personal religious beliefs from the governing of society on whole - and repeatedly claim that this is a christian nation, when nearly all of the founding fathers professed otherwise.
Whatever. You can try to lump all who claim Christianity into one category if you wish. But that won't make it a true description.
There are no conservative attacks on women's bodies, unless you're talking about the (probably-few) people who think rape victims shouldn't have some recourse. Other than that, all that is evident is the constant attack by liberals on children's right to live, and the constant attack on anyone who stands up for those children's rights.
To be a little more fair, Brenda, when most people refer to the Bible's specific wording, they use versions like the KJV, the ESB, etc. None of those versions is used by the Roman Catholic Church, nor have they ever been. As a matter of fact, the protestant versions of scripture used by the average protestant or evangelical church today are not now, nor have ever been used by the Roman Catholic Church. I understand the depth of your desire to be in no way affiliated with the "Catholic" Church, but keep in mind that there was no such thing as a difference between the "catholic" Church and any other until the 11th century.
Yes, there was.
The "churches" that the Apostles set up. It's my understanding that those were basically meetings in homes, etc.........
When Paul wrote letters to the different "churches", I don't think those were RCC churches!
It doesn't matter which denomination or church brought the Scriptures to the public; it only matters that it was brought. I believe God had His hand in that; that He saw to it that the Gospel would be available to all of mankind, and He used people to accomplish that.
I've said before that I have respect for some of the Catholic Church's doings, but there does need to be that distinction made between "Catholic" and "Protestant".............Matter of fact, just the fact that anyone outside the Catholic Church is called "Protestant" is a separation, a distinction that I assume originated with the Catholic Church! They also call believers like me "separated brethren". I find both terms a bit offensive, but I'm trying to believe that they don't mean to offend by those terms. Because, you see, I feel that way about the Catholic Church. I believe they formed an entity that was supposed to mimic the original ways of the Apostles, but that it veered off onto a different tangent in its setup and interpretation of Scripture.
I have friends and family who are Catholic. I love them! I have just found that they're sometimes very defensive about the Catholic teachings, but that they don't consider that us "Protestants" may have a sensitivity about what THEY call us or how they view us. They don't want to be considered just Christians, is my understanding; they want it to be known that they're Catholic. Well, not only is it fair that we also make that distinction, but it is important in how nonbelievers view the different denominations; the Catholic Church is so big and powerful that its doctrine is often taken as the epitome of the doctrine of all Christians, even viewed that way by sinners.
I'm a Christian, first and foremost. And when someone asks me, that's what I tell them.
It has been my experience that most Catholics, when asked if they're Christian, will say yes they're Catholic.
Am I not telling you the truth? Catholicism is considered a "Faith" in itself, isn't it?
You see, I don't see Baptist or Methodist or any denomination including Catholicism as a "Faith".
Christianity is the Faith, or should be, no matter which denomination a person claims.
I was just making the point that the Christian Church existed as a whole until the 11th century. That's when the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today came into existence. That was all. And, yes, I tell people I'm Catholic when they ask about my 'religion' because that is the religious tradition that I follow. If someone simply asks me about my faith, I say I'm a Christian. But I don't think it makes much of a difference since I've always been a Christian whose denomination is Catholicism.
I've just heard so many people including Catholics who refer to it as the Faith.
It's just that we all forget sometimes that just because we practice according to the tenets of a specific denomination, or religion, as it were, doesn't mean that our faith is in tact. Sadly, we all tend to focus so much on those who embarrass the Church (as a whole, not the RCC), that we lose sight of those practicing their faith who don't ever mention their preferred denomination. You know that I'm Catholic, I know that you are, in general, non denominational in your observance of Christianity. But I also know that you are my sister in Christ, no matter how you choose to publicly or communally practice that faith.
There are big jerks among Catholics - big jerks among Baptists - big jerks among Methodists, etc. My mother was both a Presbyterian and a Methodist at various points in her life, but she was always a Christian after she came to know Christ. He never cared where she worshiped, and neither did she. And she didn't bat an eye when I told her I was becoming a nun. As a matter of fact, her entire response was, "Well, of course." She knew that I had a deep love for tradition and history, and that I always felt closest to Christ through a sacramental expression of faith as can be found in the Catholic Church. But I enjoyed accompanying her to church whenever I had the opportunity to do so, and she always looked forward to visiting me at the convent.
Now, just to take a minute to put my responses back on track for this thread, I would like to point out that the only difference between the Roman Catholic take on homosexuality and that of many - not all, but many - Protestants and Evangelicals is that the RCC has simply said that we do not have absolute proof as to the biological origins of homosexuality. We still teach the same things that all the other denominations do in terms of an active homosexual lifestyle and same sex marriage. Just a different take on where it starts.
Justin Earick you said, “Not is nothing even remotely close to what I said; Up UNTIL the last 75 years, the interpretation was "abuser's of one's self with mankind", FOR the past 75 years that established definition has been changed into homosexuals and sodomites.”
What do you think “abusers of one’s self with mankind” means?
The King James translates arsenokoites to “abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Douay-Rheims, which is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate published well over 400 years ago, translates arsenokoites to “liers with mankind.”
What do you think “liers with mankind” means?
So, several hundred years ago you had English-speaking Protestants using the King James and English-speaking Catholics using the Douay-Rheims. Do you suppose they had different understanding of what arsenokoites is translated to in 1 Corinthians 6:9?
I expained very clearly what it means, and what it meant to the church up until the past 75 years; boy temple prostitutes, and their abusers.
Homosexuality is a modern revelation - before that, people who practiced same-sex relations were simply considered to have an excess of lust in those days.
Paul is talking about sexual/monetary exploitation and abuse, not consensual and monogamous same-sex relationships.
How could Paul have been describing something (sexual orientation) that wasn't recognized in Christian society until nearly two thousand years later?
And why would you use such an assumption to justify poor treatment of strangers - which was in fact the sin of Sodom (Matthew 10:44)?
Justin Earick, you've heard of Martin Luther I assume? He said:
"The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature."
Do you think he is talking about the poor treatment of strangers?
Paul isn't describing an orientation. He is describing a willful action -- males having sex with males, and it isn't limited to boy temple prostitutes.
How do you think Paul came up with the word arsenokoites?
Just a thought...Paul didn't come up with that word. It's Greek. Paul was Jewish and Roman. Hence, he would most likely have been using Aramaic/Hebrew and Latin to teach the dictates of Christianity.
Just sayin'. Obviously, I could be mistaken, but there are others here who could correct me if I am wrong...Julie, what say you?
It's a tricky word - so much so that it's been translated to mean just about anything - according to the particular translator's bias.
Arsenokoitēs (αρσενοκοίτες) is a Greek word found in the New Testament, specifically in some verses that are generally considered a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a portmanteau of arsen, the Greek word for man, and koite, the Greek word for bed, echoing the phrasing of the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 18:22.
The verses in question are in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, both part of Paul's writings. In context, the lines say "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor manbedders..." and "and immoral men and manbedders and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching..."
Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible. Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE. That claim is in fact, false. The context in which it is used in Corinthians is not enough to determine the original meaning. As such, the translations of this word into English and other languages are little more than guesses. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other.
"Malakoi", (as used in 1 Cor 6:9 just prior to "arsenokoites") means literally "squishy." Linguists generally understand this word to be a form of showy effeminism; it may also indicate cowardice. Malakos is used in Matthew to describe the unnecessarily fine and showy clothing of the King. Unlike "arsenokoites," malakos is word is seen in other writers of the time, indeed as an indictment of cowardice, or sometimes vanity, or other "feminine" vices; the sexual sense of effeminate is typically referred to not by this word, but "kinaidia."
Over the centuries, there has also been a range of interpretation of how best to translate "arsenokoites" into the different European languages.
The medieval Latin translation in the Vulgata Clementina was "masculorum concubitoribus," implying concubinage or pimping, not homosexuality specifically. Martin Luther's 1545 German translation employs the word "Knabenschänder" (from "Knaben", boys or young children), implying that "arsenokoites" was interpreted as pedophilia as early as the 16th century. A modern German translation speaks of "Kinder sexuell missbrauchen" ("to abuse children sexually"). The 1649 Giovanni Deodati Bible in Italian refers to "quelli che usano co' maschi". The term "maschi" can refer either to men or boys, but has a more general sense of boys, as in the traditional Italian expression "Auguri e figli maschi" (literally, "Congratulations and may you have many male children.")
Though certainly no European translator before the 20th century approved of homosexuality (least of all Martin Luther), the rendering of the word "arsenokoites" into modern European languages clearly does not imply a clear consensus on whether this specific term covers homosexuality in general. Yet the avoidance of the term "homosexual" may also have been merely to provide euphemisms for something considered "unspeakable" by many, and thus may have been a form of mere bowdlerism on the transators' part:
Ah, thanks, my friend. I figured you'd have the skinny...lol
JMcFarland, thank God for RationalWiki, eh?
Why didn’t you copy and paste what followed the colon you left hanging? This part, which indicates how various Bibles translated arsenokoites, and when:
Danish: "Syndere imod Naturen" (sins against nature)
French (Martin, 1744): "ceux qui commettent des péchés contre nature" (those who commit sins against nature)
French (Ostervald, 1744): "les abominables" (the abominables)
French (Louis Segon, 1910): "les infâmes" (the infamous)
Spanish (Sagradas Escrituras, 1569): "los homosexuales"
Spanish (Reina Valera, 1909): "los sodomitas" (sodomites, a term that in itself is open to wide interpretation)
Swedish (1917): "för dem som... onaturlig vällustsynd" (those who sin unnaturally)
English (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Challoner Revision, 1749): "them who defile themselves with mankind"
Now why does this matter to me? Because it provides rather strong evidence that the OP Justin Earick is way off base in saying, 'Up UNTIL the last 75 years, the interpretation was "abuser's of one's self with mankind", FOR the past 75 years that established definition has been changed into homosexuals and sodomites.'
Lol, you think rational wiki is the only one with that information, or that I didn't check it against my Greek concordance or strong's or my Greek new testament before I just "copied and pasted" in the forum? You clearly don't know me. How long have you read Greek, where did you get your degree in biblical studies and how many languages do you read the Bible in exactly?
Is true none of the translators approved of homosexuality in the middle ages. There was no such thing as a "homosexual" exclusively. Everyone was expected too get married and produce children, regardless of how they felt about it, so any homosexual behavior was considered immoral.
Motown2Chitown you said, “Just a thought...Paul didn't come up with that word. It's Greek. Paul was Jewish and Roman. Hence, he would most likely have been using Aramaic/Hebrew and Latin to teach the dictates of Christianity.
Just sayin'. Obviously, I could be mistaken, but there are others here who could correct me if I am wrong...Julie, what say you?”
The article JMcFarland didn’t really address what you said here.
Paul was from Tarsas, a large trade center on the Mediterranean. Greek was extensively spoken there, and Greek was the most common language spoken in many Gentile places where Paul went to spread the Word. But before he did that, he went to Jerusalem to study, so likely he was also fluent in Aramic and Hebrew.
The manuscripts Paul most likely used were from the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, because that is the language most common among those he was preaching to. Also, the Gospels were first written in Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew, which may have been first written to some extent in Aramaic or Hebrew.
JMcFarland questioned whether I agreed with the article she posted in response to you. The statement “Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek – so rare, there is no other extent use predating or contemporary to the Bible” makes sense to me.
So it appears that Paul was the first to use that word. I personally believe he made the new word arsenokoites by combining two words he found in the Septuagint.
Where in the Septuagint do you suppose he found those two words he used to make arsenokoites?
Please note: I didn’t copy and paste what I said above from anywhere. I just made it up.
Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah. The bottom line here is that the word in question was not familiar at the time, nor is it familiar now. If he wanted to condemn homosexuality across the board, there are dozens if other well known words he could have chosen from that would have been instantly familiar. He didn't. All you have - no, correction - all anyone has is a guess, and saying that your guess is the best one does not make it true. Positing an assertion with no verification, backup or sources does not make it true. Again, I'll ask you - where did you get your degree in Greek, Hebrew or biblical literature? In other words, why should we give what you say any weight at all - especially when you come right out and admit that you did not look for sources or information to back up your claim, and you just made it up?
JMcFarland you said, “Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah.”
It is interesting that you would take the position that Paul was not fond of Greek. Many LGBT advocates emphasize Paul’s knowledge of all things Greek, particularly Stoicism, the school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens, to support various points they attempt to make.
A study entitled “The Septuagint in the New Testament” by R. Grant Jones examines whether quotations given in the New Testament from the Old Testament came from the Masoretic Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint.
Here is the link:
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Sept … xecsum.htm
The author of this study is not examining the question of whether the New Testament authors utilized the Septuagint; that appears to be quite evident. He is examining whether the Masoretic Hebrew is superior to the Greek Septuagint.
Please take note of the following statements in the study: “The New Testament authors show a clear preference for the Septuagint over Masoretic readings” and “That Paul relied upon the Septuagint is made strikingly clear from Romans 3:12-18.”
It is relatively easy for anyone who is interested, whether they know Hebrew and Greek or not, to consider a quotation in the N.T. taken from the O.T. and determine whether it is from the Masoretic Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint.
I did not say he was not fond of greek. I'm saying when quoting the Torah, there is no reason to suspect or suggest that a former Pharisee would use a greek translation of the Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew.
No, you don't have to be a bible scholar to understand words. But I find it humorous that in all of my years studying theology and biblical literature in my endeavors to enter into the ministry/missionary field as an adult that was never really brought up or discussed in depth by my Theology PHD holding professors.
I can find a website that says just about anything I want to. That does not make it true. All that you're doing is guessing (or taking other people's guesses, since you DID actually try to find a source this time and not just "make something up" on your own) and saying that everyone else's guesses are wrong.
I'm not saying that Paul didn't speak or write in Greek. I'm saying that there's no need he would quote his own former scriptures in Greek when he had knowledge and access to the original languages. Anything more than that, or any assertions (whether yours are mine) are just that - assertions and opinions.
JMcFarland, so you chastise me for not providing sources or information to back up my claim, and then you totally ignore the information when I do? And what I did provide I would hardly call someone’s guess.
Okay, then let’s try some common sense. Let’s see how that works.
I’ve been to Mexico, and I have relatives there. Let’s say I’ve been asked to give an eulogy at a funeral. I’ve done that before, although not in Mexico.
So I take an English translation of the Bible and a Spanish translation. I want to quote from the Old Testament, from Psalms or perhaps the first several verses of Ecclesiastes 7. Now, half of these people in Mexico I’m talking to don’t speak English, and the other half do, but are not what you would call fluent.
Am I going to pick up the Spanish or English translation to read those verses in the Old Testament from?
Paul spent several years in Greece (Corinth, Ephesus, et al) preaching to Gentiles whose language primarily was Greek. When he wanted to quote from the Old Testament, would he pull out some Hebrew to read to Greeks or would he pull out some Greek to read to Greeks?
If you're going to imply that i have no common sense because I don't agree with you and I don't have the time to delve into what amounted to 4+ years of college-level study within a forum discussion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about. Common sense is a two way street, and so is respect.
Wilderness, take a +1 for everything you have written and everything you are likely to write in this rather odious thread.
Hah! You're just trying to give me a heart attack so I won't beat you up in some other thread.
It is rather odius, isn't it? While the OP may (MAY!) have been a reasonable question it didn't take long to degenerate.
Are you suggesting that MLKs views were concurrent with the those of the hierarchy of the church in his time? Interesting.
Not to conflate him with Malcolm X, but MLK was considered a radical in his time - just ask the FBI.
Dr. King was a hero, but that does not mean that I am not allowed to disagree with him on any subject at all. He was a reverend, and he was espousing his (and the church's) view on a particular subject at that time. I have no doubt that he believed fully in what he said, but...
I like Obama, but disagree on surveillance and counter-terrorism overall; I like Corey Booker, Barney Frank, and Harold Ford, but disagree on the financial sector; I like Rand Paul, but disagree with his views on minorities and the poor; I like Hillary, but largely disagree with her relatively hawkish foreign policy.
No one is infallable, and thus I could not agree with any person on every single issue.
How many of our founding fathers owned slaves while claiming that "all men are created equal"?
I don't believe the comment was about MLK, but about Martin Luther. A catholic priest around 1500 AD.
My mistake, and even better. Martin Luther holks no sway with me. But he seems to be channelling St. Paul and the common theory of lust ie "the fire of natural desire" leading to excess; it seems to be a reprisal of Romans 26,27 - which I've already explained.
We are going back to the way "natural" is used and I would suggest that Martin Luther was using the term the same way Paul was i.e social norm (men with long hair, when hair naturally grows long).
And I am not at all swayed by the "willful action" gay-by-choice, hate-the-sin style argument.
Nothing new here.
Justin Earick, did you read what JMcFarland posted about arsenokoites?
Specifically, "Though no European translator before the 20th century approved of homosexuality (least of all Martin Luther)" is of interest.
And regarding Martin Luther King Jr., what did he say about homosexuality?
Probably not much. In his personal life, he was far more concerned with adultery to give much thought to that which didn't affect him.
I really couldn't care less if MLK had anything to say about it, and I've already explained why - so I'm not sure what your question is.
And once again, homosexual orientation wasn't a thing that was recognized until recently (Martin Luther included) - sexuality was guaged by passivity or aggression, and on a range of lustfulness. Same-sex acts were simply considered to represent an excess of lust, and likely boredom with conventional relations that were easily attained, in comparison to same-sex conquests.
That doesn't mean that prudes never looked down upon people who practiced such not-so-prudish lifestyles - I think we can safely asume that they did.
St. Paul serving as a fine example.
Even regardless of the fact that I cross-referenced and double checked, you don't actually disagree with anything I posted, from rational wiki or anywhere else, so that tends to make ridiculing the source a tad ridiculous.
Claire, if I misunderstood your intent I apologize. I didn't read what precipitated your post. To be honest, this desire to insist a deity is the author of hatred is disappointing and rather shameful. I thought you were giving one more tragic explanation.
I don't have a desire to insist a deity is the author of hatred unless he is Satan. My God is certainly not hateful because of homosexuals.
You appear to be the minority Christian voice on this thread. It appears Will Rodgers believes he worships a homophobic God. Brenda Durham appears to be walking hand in hand with Will. Why do you think their God is homophobic and yours isn't?
Neither Brenda or Will believe in a "homophobic" God, nor have they said they do. That is your choice, to use the politically charged and disingenuous buzzword to apply to God. Smoothly interjected though.
I'm sorry. This was not intended to offend. It's a simple disagreement. Is God the author of hate? I think Jesus answered that question quite ardently. If there are those who call themselves Christian, who choose not to follow his example, it shouldn't be glossed over. If there was one who apparently understood the will of God who is pointedly ignored when attempting to argue the intent of God, whose opinion takes precedence? The opinion of Jesus, or an opinion couched in fear and hatred?
Thanks I see no fear or hatred in this discussion only misunderstandings of individual positions. I only Fear God, and I know what the Bible says and the many stories of what happens when man turns his back on the One True Living God Who has given man life and Who offers us Eternal Life with Him.
I wouldn't presume to argue that there are parts of the Bible which tend to lead one to believe that homosexuality was not preferred by the Jewish people. My problem is that there is no clear mandate from Jesus's words to condemn this lifestyle as anti God. You use everything else. While ignoring his words and his example. I think this speaks volumes as to your agenda.
Emile R you said, “My problem is that there is no clear mandate from Jesus's words to condemn this lifestyle as anti God. You use everything else.”
I assume you and others who say Jesus said nothing about homosexuality are seeking some statement like Leviticus 18:22, which states: “Thou shalt not lie carnally with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”
What did Jesus say about bestiality? The verse right after the one quoted above is: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Did Jesus say “No pets allowed!” when speaking of sexual matters? So because Jesus did not give what you consider to be a clear mandate pertaining to bestiality, it is not sinful behavior?
What about incest and polygamy? Did Jesus give what you consider to be a clear mandate that these are sinful behaviors? How about pedophilia?
Jesus did give a clear mandate. Claire Evans pointed you in the right direction of Matthew 19 as a starting point to understand that. A marriage blessed by Jesus is a monogamous one between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, a man or a woman and a dog, a man and a boy, or a man and two women, or Mr. Ed and his owner. I’m sure I can come up with other examples that Jesus would not regard as appropriate. But like I said, Matthew 19 is but a starting point.
Does all marriage have to be before God? I get that your belief has led to your homophobia as the original question asks as you are arguing against the human rights of homosexuals. But why do people oppose gay marriage in a secular society? We have laws against the other things you mentioned and some countries have laws against homosexuality, is that the direction you'd like the U.S. to go?
Rad Man, before I discuss with you same-sex marriage strictly from a secular perspective, you said, "your belief has led to your homophobia."
How do you define homophobia?
What did I say that you consider to be homophobic?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few times now you've linked Homosexuals with pedophilia and bestiality and you seem to use the bible as reason to discriminate against these people. Just a look at the title of this forum (Why do so many Christians believe the bible to justifies homophobia) while not very well constructed asks the question which you seem to be attempting to justify using the bible. Now if I'm incorrect and you are not arguing that the bible justifies homophobia I certainly will apologies, but if you continue to supply scripture to discriminate against homosexual you are, as the title that you arguing for justifying homophobia. Now are you actually going to answer my questions or were you just avoiding them?
Rad Man, what you just said is exactly one of the major problems I see with this issue.
You and gay activist crowd want to label a person who exercizes his/her right to express his/her opinion pertaining to homosexuality in a legal manner as homophobic.
You said, “but if you continue to supply scripture to discriminate against homosexual you are, as the title that you arguing for justifying homophobia.”
Because I offer Scripture that in my opinion establishes that homosexuality is sinful behavior, according to God, I am discriminating against homosexuals? And I am justifying homophobia?
Oh yeah, I can see the Christians who don’t approve of homosexuality on Scriptural grounds being fed to the lions on this one. So then supplying Scripture that establishes homosexuality is sinful behavior becomes hate speech and illegal? That is the ultimate goal of you and the gay activist crowd?
I figured you wouldn't answer the questions. That's what I thought. No need to use your brain, just stick to stuff written a few thousand years ago to support (homophobia) as the original question asks. Does scripture justify homophobia is the question being asked and one in which you are supporting. Be brave young man and either come out from behind your bible or support your fellow humans in their quest for equality.
Can we say that according to scripture, sexual relations outside of a committed relationship is a sin?
Now, is a written letter of aproval from the state required to satisfy the biblical defination of a comitted relationship? I believe that if corperate America chose to send out a different propaganda, Gays and Lesbians would be granted a letter of aproval from the state. But I could be wrong???
From the legal platform, this is an ecconomic issue, which did not exist 2000 years ago. I wonder what Jesus would have said to the insurance companies about this issue, way back then if they had existed? Maybe ? give unto "Czar what is Czars" or something like it.
At the same time, the state does not have the power to say what is and what is not ordained of God. From my understanding, a preacher does have the right to not marry a hetrosexual couple any time they choose not to (as it should be). So now both sides of this issue can be angry with me, OH Well! I'm used to it.
The discussion was on homophobia. There are a lot of things Jesus didn't weigh in on. I think pit bulls should be banned for breeding, but the guy never said a word about it. Go figure.
I think, what you are missing is that you aren't a child who is unable to put two and two together. You aren't a child who can't look to the words he did speak and the example of his life; in order to come to conclusions as to how he would respond on this subject. If you stop and think, you will see how ridiculous your argument is. If you aren't willing to think, all we would do at this point is go back and forth.
As to the woman at the well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that if she didn't perceive it as sin, neither did he. See how opinions work?
Emile R you said, “As to the woman at the well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that if she didn't perceive it as sin, neither did he. See how opinions work?”
Emile R, I’m not sure who you are addressing this to. I have said nothing about the woman at the well. You said this, “A question. This addresses the question of marriage for a man and a woman. What of his conversation with the woman at the well? Was there any condemnation? Any statement to go forth and sin no more? If not (and there was no condemnation) then why?” and Claire Evans responded to you.
Like I said, I have no clue why you addressed this to me, and I do not understand what point you are attempting to make. If the point is about condemnation, then I would point to what about what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery in John 8:11? “And Jesus said unto her: “Nor do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.’”
Jesus said he didn’t condemn her. The Old Testament condemned certain sinful behaviors. The penalty was death. Under the New Testament no one is “condemned” for sinful behavior because Jesus gave us all the opportunity to repent and reform such behavior.
If you are making some other point, and you are addressing this to me, please clarify exactly what it is you are talking about.
Since you are confused about who you discussed the woman at the well with, I think you may be confused about what my argument is that you consider to be ridiculous, if in fact you are even addressing me.
If you would care to state exactly what you think my argument is, and why you say it is ridiculous, I would be happy to respond.
I apologize. I must have read another post in the comment about the well and thought it was part of yours. Very strange.
Anyway, your argument appears to be that there is somewhere in the gospels to support your anti gay rant. You did say that Claire had pointed out an appropriate passage. All I'm suggesting is, be anti gay if you choose. But, own up to it as your own problem. Don't offer insulting arguments about bestiality or pedophilia to support your anti gay rant.
It's silly to think a god would create people who truly are gay, only to hate them for being who they were made to be. Maybe, God made people different to give those such as yourself the opportunity to grow and learn, not to give you the opportunity to attempt to make people who aren't hurting you in any way feel bad about themselves.
How many of all the things called sin in the Mosaic laws have fallen to the wayside over the years? Why have they fallen? Because we've learned why they aren't sin. How many things which were once considered acceptable in God's eyes are now accepted as wrong? Why are they now accepted as wrong? Because we've learned they are wrong.
If you can't imagine yourself in the shoes of another and imagine the emotional pain you cause by attempting to speak for a god and condemn them for being exactly who they feel they were made to be, you shouldn't speak. Not until you have done that.
It isn't sin because you say it is. And even if it were, so what? Exactly who are you to cast stones? You hurt people by your words. What gives you that right?
Emile R, I will take your rant paragraph by paragraph, and not all at one time.
Paragraph 1, no reply necessary. Your apology is accepted. I’m expecting a few more.
Paragraph 2. You said, “Don't offer insulting arguments about bestiality or pedophilia to support your anti gay rant.”
So then, adultery and incest and polygamy and pedophilia and bestiality should not be mentioned in the same breath as homosexuality?
You have a serious problem with the authors of Scripture then.
Leviticus 20 puts male-male sex alongside adultery, incest, and bestiality. The vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 refers to adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, and more.
Most state laws have restrictions placed upon obtaining a marriage license pertaining to incest, polyamory, and same-sex.
I see some possible analogies here, don’t you?
(To be continued)
I have given you the only apology I think you deserve.
Think man! Think! For yourself. Don't go behind what Jesus said. Don't go after what he said. Go by what he said. He came to fulfill the law. How did he do that? By telling you that you possessed the tools to understand. What did he say you had to think about to understand if you were functioning within the law? What are the parameters? If you understand that, then you understand where you've strayed. All of the other things you listed hurt people, physically or emotionally. That is wrong. You can't use those as reasoning why two adults can't enter into a loving relationship.
Your words against gay marriage hurt people who aren't hurting you. Who is the victim here?
Okay, Emile R, let's talk some specifics about what Jesus said about the law.
What did Jesus say about the law pertaining to immoral behavior?
What did Jesus say about the law pertaining to eating shellfish?
You said, "You can't use those as reasoning why two adults can't enter into a loving relationship."
What do you say about two adults who are brother and sister who enter into a loving relationship?
What do you say about one man and two women who enter into a loving relationship?
But we aren't talking about incest here are we? How do you feel about a secular marriage between same sex people? Are you using religion to perpetuate homophobia in a secular society?
If you think about it. He said the law was made to serve Man. He said love God and love your neighbor as yourself. You don't need to ask any of the questions you asked, other than to think......think.....think....will this cause harm to anyone or anything. I suppose it harms the shellfish, but we have to eat, so we do it as humanely as possible. Yes?
What is immoral? It changes over time. Yes? So a marriage that includes multiple people is immoral by your standards, but it wasn't immoral during biblical times. Why?
We know the chance of birth defects is higher if brother and sister marry. That harms a child. So, it is wrong. Because of that.
Tell me. Who is harmed if two of the same sex love each other? You? Me? Who?
We must differentiate between homophobia and not condoning homosexual sex. God does not feel contempt for homosexuals, they can't help being born that way, but he most certainly does not condone homosexual sex. I know you aren't going to like this but the practice of homosexual sex is extremely important in Satanism, one being Baal worship, along with casual sex and perverted sex.
In fact our world leaders are so obsessed with homosexual sex that Washington DC proudly erects Baal's penis which is the obelisk. At the ground level, the obelisk measures 555 feet which is 666 inches.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 … ati/dc.htm
As in ancient pagan practices, homosexual orgies were practised by pagans. It's not different to our world leaders. Many come together at Bohemian Grove in July to practise gay sex with boy prostitutes.
Richard Nixon comments on the activities at Bohemian Grove:
Get help Claire. I'm not going to grace that disgusting post with any rebuttal other than to say if this is honestly how you think and you aren't simply an atheist attempting to pretend to be a crazy Christian (on second thought, either way) you have my sincere sympathies. Your mind is apparently stuck in a gutter.
I don't need help. I'm just stating facts and just because it isn't palatable to you doesn't mean I'm wrong. Why shoot the messenger? Do I need help for saying casual sex is wrong?
I'm not hear to butter people up. I'm here to state facts. You didn't seem to mind to agree with someone who said Jesus was the result of God raping Mary. How dare you point fingers.
You are delusional Claire. I've never participated in a conversation as to the moment of the conception of Christ.
You aren't a messenger. You aren't stating facts. What you are apparently doing is attempting to use your imagination to justify some seriously flawed conclusions. And, embarrassing the name of Jesus in the process.
Are you lying to me? This is the conversation I had with you, you responding to Mark's comment made a while back on Mary being raped by God.
Claire:It doesn't say much for you if you respect for Mark. Do you? He has been very inflammatory in his lambasting Christianity.
Emile:I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone being banned for that comment. Is it offensive to your sensibilities? Of course. Is it casting that part of the story in the worst possible light? Of course. However; think about the story Claire. If you omit the encounter with the angel Gabriel prior to conception (which most retellings do); that isn't such an outlandish take on the events.
Claire: Wow...you've let yourself down badly. You are not worthy of respect if you think it is okay that obscene comments like that were made. I'm telling you, if someone made a comment about you being raped, you wouldn't be happy.
Ask yourself why Motown didn't find it acceptable.
Emile: If you cry foul every time you've allowed your sensibilities to be offended, people will see it as insecurity. It isn't your job (or anyone else's for that matter) to defend the name of God against foolish interpretations. The value of the message resides solely in what effect it has on the heart.
Claire: Actually, I don't. I've used the report button once for obscenity and after I was banned, I used it twice to test the moderators' consistency.
There are ways of articulating things and saying God raped Mary with the sole purpose to rile me up and upset me is unacceptable. He made no attempt at being constructive.
Remember now? So did you write these things or not?
You can call me delusional. I'm hardly going to sob.
You appear to have reading comprehension problems. I didn't participate in the conversation, by that information you posted. I simply commented on whether or not a person should be banned for it. Different people think differently, Claire. He didn't think he was being offensive and there was a way to look at the account which allowed him to see it that way. That was my point.
So, you still appear to be delusional. You are imagining things in order to be offended. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Jesus. You do not represent anything that resembles his example, or his message, with this behavior or any of your posts. I really wish you would be more honest.
Stop lying to me!
What story did you think was cast in the worst possible light? Why did you say it wasn't an outlandish take on events? If you were not referring to Mary being raped by God then why didn't you correct me when I said how would you like to be raped?
You have no respect for Jesus because you said it wasn't such an outlandish event. How can you respect Jesus when He claims to be the son of God? Doesn't that make Him a liar to an agnostic?
You're sick and I'm really angry.
Can I suggest perhaps making a thread on this topic, rather than going off tangent on someone else's thread? If you wish to discuss who said what to whom about Jesus, perhaps a thread about that would be better, rather than a thread on homosexuality - unless of course, it's about homosexuality. Then, you are welcome to ignore me.
You obviously lack the ability to comprehend the written word. Please seek help. And, don't go to the Bible in order to seek help because you obviously lack the ability to comprehend the written word.
Dodging my questions, I see. I ask again, what story did you think was cast in the worst possible light? Why did you say it wasn't an outlandish take on events? If you were not referring to Mary being raped by God then why didn't you correct me when I said how would you like to be raped?
And why would you respect Jesus if He lied about being the son of God?
I'm not ignoring your question. I answered it. Probably more than once in the exchange you pasted from and once here. If you can't comprehend, what purpose does it serve to keep explaining?
My point, in defending the person who was banned was that reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable. You, obviously, do not possess the ability to be reasonable. I have not insulted Jesus. I have simply allowed the possibility that another could have another opinion on the story of the immaculate conception.
Yes, I know you said another can have an opinion and that is only half of your comment. I'm asking you what you meant when you said it wasn't such an outlandish take on events? What events are you talking about?
And when I commented how obscene your comment and would you like to be raped you didn't deny that you meant God raped Mary.
You do not have comprehension problems. You know the truth about what you meant but don't have the courage to admit it.
And do you think Jesus was a liar when He claimed He was the son of God?
My comment had nothing to do with Jesus' claims. They had to do with the Hubber's comment. Think about it. If someone made a claim that you didn't believe, you would attempt to come up with an alternative explanation that was plausible. This is what the Hubber did. You can't deny that the scenario presented was plausible. Was it truth? I don't think so. If it were, it would have been known and addressed somewhere. Can I prove this? No.
But, Claire. Come on. This need you display to see offense to your sensibilities every way you turn is not normal or healthy. Do you honestly believe a deity wants its followers to be so paranoid?
So you think that the scenario God raped Mary was plausible? You actually think the Jesus could be the result of rape? You claim to respect Jesus yet is it possible to you that He praised a rapist Father and is one with Him? If you think that is even remotely possible then you have no business saying your respect Jesus. How can you say it's plausible when the definition of rape is the forced insertion of the penis into the vagina? Has God got a body?
And you never answered how you can respect Jesus when you don't believe it when He claimed to be the son of God.
I think you need help.
Get a life Claire. My opinion of who, or what, Jesus is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. My opinion is my opinion. However, I'll share. I think the gospel accounts are true on some levels. I think the tragedy is that these accounts are wrapped around a philosophy such as yours and those of many sharing opinions which have such a low opinion of humanity.
Do you think it's reasonable to ponder wether Jesus ever spoke those words. After all the writers never met him and were writing 30 to 100 years after Jesus was gone. It's reasonable to assume that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were lies as they vary in their description. It's then possible to assume that if 3 out of 4 were lies than the possibility of the 4th to be a lie is greater than 75%. So we have no idea what anyone Jesus said or did.
Prove the gospels are lies because of variation. Are you telling me historical accounts never vary?
If you have two separate accounts of an event, at least one is not the truth.
Or both could be true (or false) depending on vantage point
My mama always told me....
There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth. And the truth always lies in the middle, and contains elements from each other side.
At least that's what my mama said.
A few people are standing by a Rock with 4 people observing them at the same moment in time. Each of the observers are asked how many people are standing against the rock.
1st person says 2
2nd person says 3
3rd person says 4
4th person says 5
Who is right? All or none?
What happens when the observers name the people and claim God gave them the information as they didn't actually see the event? Did God give them different information? For God to be perfect he would have to give them all the same information so which version do we pick as the correct one? And how do we know any are correct?
Stop two kids in a school yard fight and as them why. Both claim the other started it, one is lying.
Recently a guy was charged with assaulting a Police officer, during the case a video of the event surfaced which revealed the cope was lying. The guy who was about to go to jail is suing for a million bucks. One event 4 people involved, two versions told, three people were lying. Do we say the truth is somewhere in the middle. No, the cop started punching and didn't stop even after he was handcuffed.
Or, we can apply the Transformation formula to see if the event agrees with both observers.
Sometimes what appears to be contradictions are actually not.
Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
It's either one or the other.
How about he went to hang himself and during the process, whatever he hung himself with or on broke and he fell and burst his insides open?
If you hang yourself, you do not trip and fall headlong. Trust me.
You might! If you haven't put the noose around your neck yet, and whatever you're standing on tips over because you're just generally clumsy...I mean, it could happen.
I'm in no way really seriously addressing the question. I just wanted a little attention.
But then he didn't hang yourself. He almost hung himself which would mean he could have been mostly dead until his bowels came out.
Do I not give you enough attention, sugar? I will have to remedy that, since you and deepes were just fighting over me and all
It also depends on where you are.. And like Mo, I wasn't giving a serious answer, just mentioning a possibility
I am somewhat concerned by the "Trust me" comment.
I stumbled into a friend who had hung themselves in college. There was no tripping and no bowels. It was all very deliberate. I've heard of instances where the drop was too long so the victim was unintentionally decapitated, but never disemboweled.
well the possibility could be that he might have fallen on something sharp and thus the entrails spilling out. Of course (as you well know) there were no graphic details so we simply don't know what happened for sure
If he fell on something, then he wouldn't be hanging. What you're saying is that either judas or the story writer were inept
Right, we simply do not know if any of it happened. In this case we have conflicting heresy information. Either one or both are lying or have been lied to and are simply repeating the lies.
Acts is not one of the gospels so I think Matthew is right.
All right Claire, but what about this? four different stories.
Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus’ Tomb?
Matthew 28:1: After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Mark 16:1: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
The two Marys, plus a third person, Salome
Luke 24:10: When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others."
John 20:1: Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
Only Mary Magdalene
, the accounts vary in the reported time of the visit to the tomb. One writer describes it as “still dark” (John 20:1), another says it was “very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1), and another says it was “just after sunrise” (Mark 16:2). But if the visit was “at dawn,” (Matthew 28:1), they were likely describing the same thing with different words.
As for the number of women, none of them gospels claim that it was a complete list. They all claim Mary Magdalene was there because she obviously was none to the disciples. The other women were not as important as she to the writers.
As for the the number of angels, it is not necessarily a contradiction that Matthew reports one and John two. The Gospel of Matthew doesn't say there was just one angel. It just says that one angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified."
As for when Jesus was arrested, Jewish time was actually different to Roman time.
The Jewish "day" starts at sunset, the exact timing of which changes slightly depending upon the season. Therefore, their day is getting dark when it begins. A Roman "day," however, started at midnight (as does most of the western world today). So when their day began it would be dark and would soon be getting light--just the opposite of the Jewish day.
"During the time of Christ the Israelites adopted the Roman practice of counting 4 "watches" during the night. These watches began at approximately 9:30 PM, 12:00 midnight, 2:30 AM (called the cockcrow watch), and 5 AM. From sunrise they divided the day in sections into what they termed "hours"(1). Thus when they said that something happened at the 6th hour it was about noon or 6 hours after sunrise, not 6 AM like we would reckon time in the West. "
Jewish "Hours" starts at Sunrise and Roman Day starts at Midnight. And so I suspect this is where the confusion comes in.
I saw Claire's response to this and felt compelled to weigh in. Although I think it is reasonable to come to the conclusion you have, it is also reasonable not to. 30 years after the crucifixion isn't an amount of time that prohibits the assumption that an eye witness would still exist. I think most of these are referred to as the gospel according to so and so. It doesn't mean they wrote it. It means they shared it. Discrepancies in remembering events are bound to happen. Discrepancies in determining the meaning of events is bound to happen. Discrepancies in timelines are bound to happen. The similarities in the stories vastly outweigh the discrepancies.
Another thought to remember. Simply because we can verify the existence of documents back to a certain time does not mean they didn't exist prior to that time. We don't have original manuscripts to many things, although we agree they were originally documented prior to the date we set as the age of a document we have which chronicles the event. These manuscripts are only in question because of their extraordinary claims.
Emily, Why are you asking people to read the Bible when you do not believe it is the inerrant Word of God. Based on some of your blasphemous comments it is apparent you are not well read in the Holy Scriptures. Following God is not being paranoid. Scripture tells in I Cor 2:14
"But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Perhaps this is why so many strings here call us Christians delusional.
Please reread my post. I told her not to go to the Bible to get professional help. Plus, you guys aren't following a god with this agenda. You are making it up as you go.
I'm not making blasphemous comments. I'm making comments you don't like. There is a difference. Whether you are capable of comprehending this or not. You aren't being called delusional because you follow a god. You are being called delusional because you think you are one.
If it quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck.
And if an atheist like Rad Man keeps saying "You go girl" to the duck, then . . . it must be a female duck.
That is what is known as a parable of Jack, not a parable of Jesus.
Actually, the monument measures 55' 1 1/2 inches across at the base, or 661 1/2" - not 666 inches.
The height is 6665 1/8 inches, not the 6666 reported in your link.
Choosing the "right" units of measure, coupled with the "right" rounding off (even if it goes against all standard practices) can always produce a number that "obviously" points to a conspiracy.
Emily the premise of this question is false. The Holy Bible does not teach Homophobia and generally Christians do not think of themselves as Homophobic. As I said in several strings, the LGBT people have a political agenda, and Christians pray for all people who live self destructive life styles. The gift of Grace is a great wonder from a God who forgives those who curse and defy Him.
I think, if you think about this statement, you will realize you are somewhat off base. The Holy Bible couldn't be very clear on homosexuality being self destructive. Quite a few faiths not only bless their unions, they ordain homosexual ministers. Surely, these good people do not consider themselves going against the Bible.
As to the political agenda of LGBT. Of course they have one. They obviously need one in order to be treated with the respect and dignity of any other couple. I think, if you took the time to understand the struggle of a homosexual couple, the hurdles put before them, you might sympathize.
As to self destruction. I think they are more interested in self preservation. I think you, and those like you, have enough destruction in mind for them already. I'm not going to lie to you. I think the animosity comes from both directions and sometimes we see what can be construed as a bit of militancy from some in the LGBT community. But, I see this as a reaction to those such as yourself. Those who preach a message of hatred and intolerance. You can say you don't hate them, but when you counter that with a statement that they are self destructive and they curse God, no one believes you don't hate them. You curse what you don't know.
I don't hate them. This is what you read into my words. In fact, after reading about the life style, I feel sad for these people who turn their back on God, and accept such self deprecation. Here is a quote from a medical source about the life shortening effects of homosexuality:
"The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a "victim" image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay" gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a "gay" gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no "gay" gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims -- but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
"All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case."
Now, do you hate your child when you tell them not to play with fire, or advise them on the basics of hygiene? I think this is your responsibility. I find it my duty as a Christian to help people find a better path in life. I do not see that as hate. Oh, you will argue it is their choice and none of my business. What you would have me do is to let a person I see floundering at sea drown because it is not my business as to how they got into that position or why they can't swim and may drown. My human instinct tells me to jump in and help them preserve their life.
God feels the same way when he sees people destroying the precious life He has given them.
Why is that you provide information loosely related to medical sources, yet when others provide similar data from similar sources, it is rejected or denied?
First of all, we are not your children to be advised of anything, we are adults who can think for themselves.It is not your responsibility to say or do anything, far from it. Secondly, it may not be so much hatred, but it certainly is disrespect and selfishness of those who believe it is their duty. Disrespectful, because you are forcing your beliefs on others who don't want to hear it. Selfish, because evangelism is only about the person who is doing the evangelism, they do not care for others, they only care for themselves and getting in good with their gods.
We all know about Christianity, you need not say anything to us at all in that regard. So, please stop evangelizing.
We are not floundering, we are not drowning, you are quite mistaken in that regard. Your instincts are totally wrong.
That's God's problem, not yours.
Troubled man. I find no string post where I rejected medical information concerning homosexuality. There was none posted for the reasons I stated in my last post.
Yes, we are all adults. However everyone is the child of another person,. The Biblical Parent-child analogy stands true eternally.
Evangelizing is not a way of "scoring points" with God. Philosophies which some think of as religion may teach that one has to do so many "good Works" to gain eternal bliss. Christianity does not teach this. My belief is that Jesus Christ taught us to share His message of Grace, Forgiveness and its result being Eternal Life with our Creator in Heaven.
I have a God given right to believe this and act upon it in my daily life.
My gut instinct is that many are floundering and are not really comfortable with what they believe mostly because their beliefs are only skin deep.
I don't know how to respond to your post in a delicate manner. But, seriously Will, I think we all come into contact with a little fecal matter from time to time. I'd be very interested to know where the article was written and read it myself. This sounds a little biased. An attempt to justify thought patterns.
I suppose there is an argument that promiscuous sex puts people in a position to catch diseases which would shorten a lifespan. But gay couples can be as monogamous as heterosexual ones. I doubt their lifespan is shorter simply because they have a same sex partner. Heterosexuals who are promiscuous would have the same statistics as promiscuous gays, I would think.
You are not your brother's keeper. Good thing, I would think. I really don't think I'll read anymore of your posts. I don't see the point. You don't care about others, you simply want to make sure everyone understands you don't consider yourself homophobic. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Can you provide the source from which you found that information?
JMcFarland, so how did I disrespect you? Because I don’t agree with your arguments and I’m not impressed by some theology courses you took that you keep bringing up again and again?
You said, “I'm saying when quoting the Torah, there is no reason to suspect or suggest that a former Pharisee would use a greek translation of the Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew.”
Did I call you a liar? Specifically, did I say that’s a lie? Like you said to julieanita “That’s a lie” when she misremembered something? Did I say regarding your post in quotes that, “The statements did get dumber and more full of absolute garbage” like you did about what willrodgers said?
You indicated that there is no reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Greek Septuagint. Not only is there reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Septuagint, there is reason to conclude that he did, as least for me. I offered some support for my argument that there is reason to suspect or suggest that Paul used the Septuagint, although I could provide much more. You offered no real support for your side of the argument that I can see, other than you said your theology professors never mentioned it.
Some may ask why does this matter anyway. Because to say that Paul created the word arsenokoites as a special message to his Greek audience, if it is established (like you, JMcFarland apparently are attempting to do), that Paul didn’t use Greek manuscripts, it substantially weakens the argument that he created the word arsenokoites to emphasize to his Gentile Greek audience in particular that “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination” is a general prohibition and not about boy temple prostitutes and their abusers, as the OP Justin Earick maintains.
The OP Justin Earick in his very first post alludes to the word arsenokoites in establishing his premise that “Many Christians believe the Bible justifies homophobia.” In later posts he does actually use the word, and expounds upon same, quite erroneously in my opinion. Although I hesitate to call him a liar because he is confused and mistaken. Apparently that doesn’t bother you, JMcFarland.
For some reason I can not reply directly to Rad Man’s recent post.
Rad Man said, “Do you think it's reasonable to ponder wether Jesus ever spoke those words. After all the writers never met him and were writing 30 to 100 years after Jesus was gone. It's reasonable to assume that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were lies as they vary in their description. It's then possible to assume that if 3 out of 4 were lies than the possibility of the 4th to be a lie is greater than 75%. So we have no idea what anyone Jesus said or did.”
Rad Man, I was just about to reply to the questions you keep whining about that I didn’t answer, but then you go off with this.
I understand that you are an atheist and your agenda is to make Christians look foolish in any way possible. But, c’mon man. This is lamer than a three-legged dog. And not just because it is way off the OP's premise.
He's right, though.
The writers of the Gospels never met the man, so why should we believe them? Of course, it is possible to follow history by analyzing written records, but when your only written records were written long after the man in question's death, then it becomes suspect.
And of course, the biggest question of all is this: If Jesus was a rabbi, where are his writings? Rabbis write like rabbits breed, and they do so about everything. Where are Jesus' writings?
Zelkiro you said, "The writers of the Gospels never met the man, so why should we believe them?"
You mean to tell me that Matthew and John were not among the twelve apostles?
So the Pope lied to me?
Well, I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that someone who is, like Motown2Chitown would be very offended by that statement. And such a person would spend countless hours and words challenging your statement and Rad Man's statement that, "It's reasonable to assume that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were lies as they vary in their description. It's then possible to assume that if 3 out of 4 were lies than the possibility of the 4th to be a lie is greater than 75%."
Hey, but I'll bet you two guys have made those statements on numerous "religious" threads before. But you want to hear the answers again?
By which would I be offended? If someone told me a pope lied? Or if someone who told me that there were notable differences in the texts of even the synoptic Gospels, which are the three that basically tell the same story?
People lie. Popes lie. Over history, they've lied, contracted murder, and done other things that aren't so wonderfully biblical.
Does it hurt my feelings to hear those things? Well, it hurts my heart, because I love my Church and it saddens me to be reminded that it is led and peopled by broken and sinful human beings.
Why don't all of the gospels bother to mention the virgin birth? Seems like a pretty integral part of the story. Seems like possibly the most far-fetched part of Jesus' story as well. (A commonly recycled story-line in ancient Mesopotamian faiths, in fact.) Curious, that.
Additionally, they can't even keep the creation story straight. Why did god create man and woman in Genesis 27, then all of a sudden in Gen 2:22, Eve is created because Adam was alone in the garden and it was not good?
What happened to the first woman, to Lilith?
They cannot even keep the creation story straight, or the circumstances (let alone the season) of the saviors birth - it's pitiful.
Justin Earick, since you are examining the first two chapters in Genesis, please help me out here.
Where does it say, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, WHO IS ANOTHER MAN, and they shall be one flesh" I wonder.
I've been searching frantically, but I can't find it.
When did this particular conversation become about gay marriage.
When did this particular conversation become about who wrote the Gospels and whether the writers ever met Jesus. Not to mention Lilith.
It's very simple and completely germane (far moreso than bestiality) - if you are using the bible to justify your opposition to equal rights for fellow American citizens, you might want to consider the short-comings of the book overall.
Y'all seem perfectly willing to overlook the disparities, which stands to reason since faith is the inevitable answer to everything complicated or outright contradictory therein.
I don't believe you can fairly include me in your "y'all" but okay. I do not use the Bible to justify anti-homosexual sentiments, because I have none. And is the entirety of equal rights for homosexuals now tied to ONLY marriage? To which I also have no opposition. I just didn't think that a discussion of gay marriage was what you intended with your OP.
Motown - You seem to be a good, quality, Christ-like Christian. Kudos. You do not seem to fit under the umbrella of "y'all".
And yes, many rights are indeed tied to marriage equality. Over a thousand legal policies are discriminitory against same-sex couples thusly. I simply see no separation between moral and legal equality.
Again, marriage is a relationship between couples and the state - while weddings are religious ceremonies with no legal standing.
Thank you, Justin. I don't know that I am a good quality Christian, but I try like the dickens to be as much like Jesus as I can...and I just can't see the hullabaloo about the whole gay rights issue as some people like to pull it from scripture. First, love they neighbor as thyself. All your neighbors. Not just the ones of whose actions you approve, not just the ones whose hairstyles you think are appropriate, whose tattoos you think are evidence of ''trouble in the head.'' All of them.
Second, marriage in our society is far more a social/legal construct than a spiritual one, IMO. Get the marriage license (from a civil authority), take it to a judge at city hall, and voila! One of you changes your name (or not) and you're all married and stuff. You may have that marriage blessed in your church or not, by your own choice.
Third, I find it deplorable that two people who have devoted their lives to caring for one another, creating a home together, and sharing families with each other, should EVER have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to ensure that they can be present to the other during times of distress, leave behind their property to the other upon their death, or be kind and loving enough to take a child off the street or out of a foster home and provide love, stability, and a safe place for that child to grow.
Folks, your church may never, ever participate in the wedding of a same sex couple, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry in the civil arena the same way any couple can. And what skin is it off your nose, seriously?!?! You don't want those evil gay couples teaching your kids about homosexuality and demonstrating that behavior in front of them. I wish you could see me roll my eyes! My husband and I adore each other, and we do not discuss sex with our child as something that's simply recreational or behave in an immoral way in her presence. She knows that our love for each other is deep and stable - and she knows that it's the same love (if not the same type of love) that we have for her.
Justin Earick, so Lilith is more germane than bestiality?
As I recall, bestiality is mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 18:23: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” The verse right before that is Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Who could possibly see a connection between those two subjects that appear one right after the other?
Now, about Lilith. You ask, “What happened to the first woman, Lilith?”
Where did you find Lilith in the Bible? What makes you think Lilith was the first woman? I mean, besides “Cheers.”
Black - At least, yes. It points to the believers' inherent inability to parse their own religious documents - likely out of an abundance of misled faith.
Once again, Leviticus prohibits tattoos, mixed fabrics, planting of multiple seeds in a given parcel of land, and the eating of shellfish and pork - in the same light as laying man with man. Cherry-picking is ubiquitous, and condemnation universal.
Where is Lilith in the bible aside from Gensis? Well, aren't you clever... Isaiah 34:14...
Ever heard of Lilith Fair?
The myth of Lilith originated in Jewish Midrash, I believe. There is nothing truly 'biblical' to the belief of Lilith being the predecessor of Eve.
Justin Earick you said, "Leviticus prohibits tattoos, mixed fabrics, planting of multiple seeds in a given parcel of land, and the eating of shellfish and pork - in the same light as laying man with man. Cherry-picking is ubiquitous, and condemnation universal.
Where is Lilith in the bible aside from Gensis? Well, aren't you clever... Isaiah 34:14...
Ever heard of Lilith Fair?"
The penalty for man lying with man was death. The penalty for eating pork was what, a stomach ache. Personally, I'll take the stomach ache. I can fix that with Pepto Bismol. Jesus made it clear that it’s not what a man eats that spiritually defies him, it is immoral behavior.
Okay, I read Isaiah 34:14. The Hebrew word "liyliyah" is translated to "screech owl" in the KJV. So that means Lilith was the first woman?
No, I don't know anything about the Lilith Fairy? Is this some story about Lilith actually being a man and he had sex with Adam? That sounds familiar to me for some reason.
Other sins punishable by death in Leviticus? Adultery (20:10), cursing your parents (20:9), using the Lord's name in vain (24:16), and drinking wine in church (10:9).
And belief that Lillith existed is not necessary - I simply referenced the topical index of my NKJV and was led to Isaiah.
Just note that man and woman were already created in Genesis 27, when all of a sudden Adam was alone in the Garden and god took his rib and made Eve.
Oh, I’ll try again for sure, Justin Earick. Not that it will do any good in your case since you have no ears to hear.
You said, “Other sins punishable by death in Leviticus? Adultery (20:10) . . . ”
Yes, adultery was condemned in the Old Testament and punishable by death.
By the blood of Jesus, there is no longer condemnation for any behavior. Jesus did indicate, however, that there is sinful behavior that should be reformed and repented to be right with God.
You do consider adultery to be immoral behavior, right?
Okay, I get it, about you and Lilith. So you took the one reference to the Hebrew word “liyliyth” in the Bible and spun it into Lilith was the first woman.
Isn’t that cherry-picking a verse, which you accuse Christians of doing?
Who cares if we think adultery is immoral, it's not illegal.
Which brings us back to my question. We may not understand homosexuality in the physical sense, but does scripture in the bible justify homophobia in a secular society and is not allowing homosexuals to marry in the legal sense not discrimination?
Are you calling every Rabbinic scholar for the past 3500 years liars and cherry-pickers, then? Because Lilith was their discovery, and when it comes to what the Old Testament is supposed to mean, I'll trust the guys whose lives were devoted entirely to studying it.
Rad Man you said, “Who cares if we think adultery is immoral, it's not illegal.”
Would you then apply the same logic and say, “Who cares if we think same-sex intercourse is immoral, it’s not illegal” I wonder.
I care who thinks adultery is not immoral. I certainly wouldn’t marry someone who thinks adultery is not immoral, would you? I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry someone who thinks adultery is not immoral, would you? I wouldn’t be all that fond of a person in or running for political office who thinks adultery is not immoral. Because if he thinks cheating on his wife (or vice-versa) is not immoral, he/she might likewise think cheating the taxpayer is also not immoral. How about you?
So, am I discriminating against adulterers? What kind of _____phobic does that make me?
Interesting, you are aware that most go into a marriage thinking that adultery is immoral and do it anyway. It's just not illegal. Immoral is irrelevant if you don't understand that you are hurting someone. That's why we have laws Most think that using the Lords name in vain is immoral, but it stops practically no one, if we made it illegal then it would stop more, but we would be forcing religious views on a secular society. Slavery is (according to the bible) not immoral, but it is illegal in our and most societies I'm aware of. It appears that at least in North America we can say that we have improved on the laws given in the bible, but some refuse to give others equality still. We can look to Iran to see what a society that is not secular looks like. I agree that adultery is a problem, however it should not be punishable by death by stoning as done in Iran.
I don't believe you ARE discrimination against adulterers unless you are trying to make adultery illegal. As it is now it's just your opinion which is all and good but not discrimination.
I don't think so, Zelkiiro. Gynophobia is an attitude or behavior based upon fear or contempt for women. I have witnesses that's not me. Although I wonder if some gay males aren't gynophobic. I said wonder. I'm going to have to think about that possibility. Thanks for bringing it up.
Zelkiiro, you said, “Are you calling every Rabbinic scholar for the past 3500 years liars and cherry-pickers, then? Because Lilith was their discovery, and when it comes to what the Old Testament is supposed to mean, I'll trust the guys whose lives were devoted entirely to studying it.”
Please tell me exactly who said exactly what. I’m not going to call anybody a liar based upon some general comment like you made.
That’s like saying, “Are you going to call the Pope a liar for what he said about homosexuality?”
First, which Pope? And what exactly did he say about homosexuality? As in a direct quotation from a source from which I can determine context.
Rad Man you said, “I don't believe you ARE discrimination against adulterers unless you are trying to make adultery illegal. As it is now it's just your opinion which is all and good but not discrimination.”
So if I was trying to make adultery illegal I would be discriminating, so you say?
If I was trying to make bestiality universally illegal (it isn’t illegal everywhere), I would be discriminating?
If I was trying to keep incestuous marriage illegal in the U.S, I would be discriminating?
If I was trying to make polygamy illegal in those countries where it is legal, I would be discriminating?
I decided that Lillith was the first woman?
Wow, you must be some kind of Rhodes Scholar. You couldn't even comprehend that, "Are you calling every Rabbinic scholar for the past 3500 years liars and cherry-pickers, then? Because Lilith was their discovery..." - was about Lillith? You responded with some nonsense about a random pope - is this really so difficult for you to follow along?
Also, you yourself said "by the blood of Jesus, there is no condemnation" - so why are you bringing up Leviticus at all? You are being completely contradictory.
And, is adultery immoral? I think it is wrong to cheat on someone and hurt them that way. But if I went and had sex with some married woman, I don't think that is immoral on my part, since I'm not the one cheating. Such behavior may not be positive, or condusive to a healthy lifestyle, but immoral? Some choose to have open relationships, I don't think that is either cheating or immoral if the parties involved are all good with it.
Cheating is against my personal morals, but patently immoral? Not sure. Sex with someone who has a partner? Meh.
Is it morally wrong to use the lord's name in vain? That is ridiculous - if you are not a Christian, it certainly is not. Is it immoral to draw a picture of Allah? Not to me personally, but you could be killed for such a thing in some places. Is it immoral to eat red meat? Not to me, but it is to vegans. Is it immoral to wear fur? Not for me, but it is to some.
I'm not really comfortable with the whole idea of deciding what is "immoral" for someone else, honestly.
Morals are personal. Religious beliefs are personal. Laws are not. And in this particular country - we are no theocracy, there is a foundational separation between church and state. We don't make laws based upon any religious book - no, not even yours.
Justin Earick you said, “But if I went and had sex with some married woman, I don't think that is immoral on my part, since I'm not the one cheating.”
So if someone had sex with your wife, the only one doing anything wrong is your wife?
I bet you’ll change your mind when that happens to you, whether your wife is a man or a woman. Actually, adultery is going to be more prevalent in the future as more men marry men because men are more likely to be promiscuous than women.
We're completely off topic now, but...
So you are assuming that I've never been cheated on? You would be wrong. I've been cheated on - never cheated myself (in spite of my being a man).
And no, there is no reason to be upset with someone who you likely don't even know. Your partner is the one who cheated. If you know the Jody personally, then yes you have every right to be upset with them for violating your friendship. Otherwise, no. How can someone violate the terms of a relationship that they do not belong to? How can you break a promise you never made?
If you have a kid who isn't allowed to play football (or videogames, or the piano, or whatever), would you be mad at the other kids he was playing with? Makes no sense, the other kids aren't yours to discipline - same as your partner is the one to have a problem with, not some random other person.
Jack, to be honest, I'm a Christian, and I believe in the divine origin of Scripture, but this is A) not an unreasonable question, and B) completely related to the topic at hand. If we, as Christians, should be following the words, directives, and examples of Christ, and we intend to use the Bible to justify our anti-homosexual beliefs, then we should be able to point out very clearly where Christ spoke those words, or displayed those behaviors. And, not every atheist wakes up every day with the mission to make Christians look bad. Even if this is what Rad Man was trying to do, he wouldn't have been successful because he's not making Christians look bad, he's just trying to get them to look deeper into the Scriptures they hold up as God's word.
Do you have evidence that I'm wrong or is this just your opinion? Is it your response that I'm lame? You may be correct in that, but it nothing to do with my post? Don't pretend you were about to answer my questions.
I'll answer your questions when I get around to it. Answering your questions isn't my day job.
And then when I answer your questions, you'll answer mine, right? Promise? The ones I asked you before the ones you asked me you are whining about? The ones you avoided?
No doubt how well Judas was hung is an important issue that keeps some posting about it up at night.
But now that this thread has been going on for 10 days, I would like to know this:
So who thinks that somebody on this thread has made a homophobic comment?
Tell us who and exactly what he/she said and why you consider it to be homophobic. Not your interpretation of what was said or the person thinks this or that, what exactly the person said.
C'mon, man up.
Thats easy - perpetual comparing of LGBTQ Americans to beastiality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc..
My point on those issues is that they are closer analogies to homosexuality than is racism or gender.
You understand that, right?
Does a person make a choice about race or gender?
Does a person make a choice whether or not to engage in bestiality, incest, pedophilia, adultery, or homosexuality?
I'm not sure. I think MJ may have made a choice as to which race he wanted to be associated with. Gender? Certainly. Homosexuality is not a choice. You don't have to participate to be homosexual. Adultery is not a choice for me. Pedophilia is not something I'd ever even consider. Incest and bestiality are not choices for me.
I question whether gender can truly be changed since chromosomes can not be totally changed. Yes, I realize one can change their anatomy sufficiently to be legally recognized. But no matter, it makes no difference to my point if a few individuals can change their race or gender. Race and gender are distant analogies.
The definition of homosexuality in part is “erotic activity with another of the same sex” according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. I have been very careful to illustrate exactly what I am talking about in repeatedly referring specifically to Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind”) and similar verses in the New Testament. I am talking about a willful action.
Rad Man, do you believe that “mankind lying with mankind” is a choice?
Well, if mankind didn't lie with mankind then the whole issue becomes moot in about 70 years.
The issue is mankind lying with mankind instead of womankind.
Why do you ask me that question when I've asked the same question and you refuse to answer it?
No. homosexuality is not a choice. Why would someone choice a harder life? I can't chose to be homosexual, I'm not attracted to guys. I was just in a change room with 15 naked men and it does nothing for me and the thought of sex with a man seems odd to me, but I don't think about what two people are doing behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home. To be honest I try not to imagine what my straight neighbours are up to.
Tell me Jack, do lesbians give you the same distain?
Only the ugly ones who won't let others watch.
I don't know about ugly, but you must mean every self-respecting lesbian who has better things to do than let guys get their jollies by watching them? No wonder some people seem so angry.
Yeah, that was pretty much what I meant Julie.
Didn't you know that Lesbians were made specifically to entertain heterosexual male fantasies? But being gay is wrong.
It's funny, cause I thought that lesbians existed to find meaningful, happy and fulfilling relationships with other women - just like any other couples do. Silly me. What do I know. I'm just a silly lesbian who is in a FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE
Nope, you were mistaken.
Gay people don't feel love, it is just lust. Sinful sinful lust. Women exist to please men only, and if they gather in pairs (or even groups) to do it, it is more better.
Okay. I'm done now. I need to go wash my hands after typing that.
strange thing is I actually know people who believe that. I want to kick them all in the face.
ironically most of them are now divorced - but my gay marriage is stronger than ever.
Maybe the gays are the ones that have it right after all. I'd say everyone should try it, but I don't want to demean my people by just accepting anyone into the group. That would be gross.
Good point... Probably should keep the club exclusive.
Hell, I only got a trial membership. I don't even get a jacket.
You can have mine, Melissa. I'm so damn cool that I don't need it anymore. I have a hot wife and she's mine - I don't need anything more than that.
You do, indeed, have a hot wife.
I'll take that jacket. Think it will fit?
See Jack, not so different. Why not ask JM if it's a choice?
So all those lesbians on the internet are not self-respecting. Darn... well that just ruins things... not.
(and they're probably not really gay to begin with)
hate to break it to ya.
Black - No, ignorant clown, LGBTQ people have exactly zero to do with beastiality, pedophilia, incest...
No, digusting bigot, those have exactly zero to do with consensual same-sex relations.
Joke - Leviticus has no standing, given Christ's death and new covenant.
Also, gender is not based solely upon genitals - I understand that this may be difficult, but not everyone is created in the same repetitive
So now I’m a clown and a disgusting bigot?
I’d tell you exactly what I think of you, but Rad Man would get me banned.
You said, “Black - No, ignorant clown, LGBTQ people have exactly zero to do with beastiality, pedophilia, incest...
No, digusting bigot, those have exactly zero to do with consensual same-sex relations.”
I didn’t say anything remotely resembling what you are claiming. If you think so, quote what I said directly rather than twist it into some mindless rant.
What I said was that engaging in bestiality is a willful act and is sinful behavior according to the Word of God. Same for mankind lying with mankind. Those two appear one after the other in Leviticus.
I merely made an analogy. Did I say lesbians are more likely to have sex with animals?
In fact, lesbians are less likely to have sex with animals. That’s why they don’t have sex with men, according to Rad Man, the resident expert on lesbians who is not a lesbian on this thread. Couldn’t you follow the conversation of last night?
Now, there are no specific prohibitions against bestiality in the New Testament. Does that mean it is not sinful behavior?
I’ll explain what standing Leviticus still has AGAIN, but I don’t have time to do it now. Work calls.
I didn’t say gender depended on genitals. You can buy genitals, right? What I said was I’m not sure gender can be totally changed. I don’t believe that chromosomes can be totally changed. You know, the XY thing.
Go ahead. Tell him what you really think. I didn't press the report button last time and I won't press it this time. You are far to entertaining.
You're rather entertaining yourself, Rad Man.
Last night as I listened in on your conversation with the ladies, I was beginning to believe that YOU were a lesbian.
I fantasized as you posted you were wearing lipstick and something sexy from Victoria's Secret. Not fantasizing in a sexual way. A comedy.Like you were Moe in "The Three Stooges Go Drag."
You didn't know?? Rad Man is a lesbian.. just trapped in a man's body...LOL
Now you want to be more than one woman?
This is really getting strange.
Two or more separate and distinct women? Or like conjoined twins?
oooopppps. Funny. Next time I'll remember to bring up your grammatical errors. It's just not my style though.
Didn't you say you were going to get to the questions I asked a while back?
It quit storming so I have to go back to work.
But I'll check back later to see if you have taken any steps to become a woman. The first, being of course, saying goodbye to your best friend.
Also, while I'm gone please repeat exactly what the questions are you want me to answer. And not a "Honey Do" list. Just a few to start with.
Brenda Durham wrote:
You know I don't look at it that way. People do have the right to be whatever they want, as long as their "rights" don't infringe on others' rights WITHIN the acceptable moral standard that's already established.
= - = -
me .. Don't know if I'm awake yet CAUSE ..... I just had a flashback to the 60s . When Martin Luther King had his agenda to change the american standards. Imagine blacks boys going to the same schools as our white sisters and riding the same school buss. What next ? interacial marriage becoming the NEW standard? Who knows ... It is hard to imagine but someday a black men might be a foreman of a job telling white men what to do? It's sacrilage I say! What is the world coming to? I believe in equal rights as long as "THEY" stay in their place and don't disturb mine.
Many gays (blacks) do not play political games, do not harrass conservatives, etc. But indeed a bunch of them do! And they are doing wrong; yes, we both know they're trying to change the established norm and change everyone's view of right and wrong, and in so doing they are infringing upon the rights of most people (whites).
= - = - =
It is the same game as before; different players is all.
Jerami this is old hat. Obama played the race card and got elected. It won't work for Gays. I said in an earlier string that the GLBT agenda is based on a racial model. This is the foundation of the agenda. " Gays must be treated as a special class" . So far Gays have nor been able to push that balloon uphill, so I don't think it will work here either. No court has yet to recognize them as a "Special Class".
See my posting from a week ago.:
"Third, homosexuals are asking for recognition as a class with full protected class minority status and privileges (under the Civil Rights Act, 1964) based on their homosexual behavior (or mere desire) alone. The special protected class status and advantages (special rights) homosexuals are seeking are not the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to all Americans under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizens may benefit from all fundamental rights and protections without possessing special, protected class status, which is reserved for truly disadvantaged, politically powerless and obviously distinct minorities, under strict court established criteria (Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973; SAISD vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Mass. Bd. of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Ctr., 1985; Jantz vs. Muci, 1991). Not all “minorities” are eligible for protected class status. Even members of the gay community acknowledge that they are not educationally, economically or culturally disadvantaged, are not politically powerless and are not an obviously distinct minority. Therefore, as a group, homosexuals are not a true minority but rather a very powerful special interest group. Nonetheless, full protected minority class status and the special rights that go alone with it are being sought. No matter how often it is denied, “gay rights” are special rights;[ not Civil Rights]".
Quite simply: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
Why? Are you looking for some help? You seem to be all about Leviticus, but not so much about those anti-judgment verses. Why is it okay when you do it, but not others who respond to this thread?
I'm willing to put all the verses together, even the ones about judgement.
I started to do it again with MelissaBarrett on the DOMA thread last night, as you are aware, in a debate she initiated. But she backed off before I could even get beyond Leviticus.
Perhaps you (or anyone else?) would like to debate with me? I'm thinking about competing hubs. Like dueling banjos. Hubs would be preferred because the author can control totally irrelevant comments and banter that is better left to chat sites.
I don't battle wits with an unarmed opponent. It's just not fair.
I do think the banjo is the perfect instrument for you though... and Deliverance is a great reference to use in regards to your arguments.
Your arguments are the same arguments that I could find in any apologetics tract. I don't find you to be a challenge, and you haven't presented anything that I haven't heard a hundred times over, and you seem hell bent on just ridiculing and attempting to demean anyone who disagrees with anything you post. I've read the style of your hubs, and I'm sorry - I just can't take you seriously enough to debate with you. I've debated apologists before. If I wanted the same old garbage, I'd debate with them again, and have a few lined up, actually. So no. I'm not interested in listening to repetitive, meaningless nonsense. I have better things to do, with people who are better equipped.
MelissaBarett, you initiated a debate with me last night, but soon backed down and dropped it because it didn't take long for you to realize it was not going well for you.
JMcFarland, you and I debated whether Paul referred to the Septuagint, and when you realized you were likely wrong, you ran off in a hissy fit.
What, no takers on the debate I proposed?
Some people don't like to play football with arm-chair quarterbacks. In debate, the people who know what they're doing don't need to beg people to debate them, and, in general, when they see someone at an obvious disadvantage, they generally choose not to embarrass you. In most cases, I figure it's because they feel you're doing well enough on your own.
In general, If I want to argue against homophobic arguments, I'll go find someone who holds those views that is also intelligent... if such a creature exists.
I think that there are intelligent people out there who do not necessarily consider homosexuality something that fits into the natural order of things. BUT, they choose not to argue against it for two reasons: Because they believe in the right of every individual to determine how they want to live their lives and because they may believe that while a person may make their own determination about HOW to live their lives, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is what comes easily or naturally to them.
Does that make sense?
I can go with that. Yet I don't really consider those kinds of people as homophobic.
The phobia is expressed in the fact that they have an innate need to try (ineffectively) to change the situation. Their fear demands action, even if it's just spouting hatred on a message board. To me, living your life with that kind of fear negates intelligence.
Oh yes, of course. That's exactly why I stopped. Because I "clearly lost".. (this is sarcasm, in case you missed it. With you, who knows?)
Saying you "won" may give you the warm and tinglies that you like so much, but it doesn't make it true. This is exactly why I don't take too seriously, though. Thanks for brilliantly proving my case for me.
The problem with using hubs in a debate instead of forums is that not only can the author delete the banter and irrelevant comments, they can also delete the comments that raise points that can damage the author's whole stance, which can lead to a dishonesty in debate and claiming victory where there might be none
I don't know anyone who would just "claim victory" by dishonest and ad hominem arguments. Surely you are mistaken.
JMcFarland, what you and the other two ladies do best is rant, and rant, and rant even more. I have yet to find much strength of argument from any of you.
Speaking of proving one’s case: JMcFarland, what you specifically said that initiated the debate in question was, “Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah.”
I disputed that statement, which is woefully weak when one examines the literary-historical evidence. You couldn’t support your statement upon scrutiny, and went off in a rage like the drama queen you are with some nonsensical parting words.
And as for debating certain issues in a hub as I proposed, I never expected anyone to take up the challenge. See, what yinz remind me of is the stuff you find in a chicken coop, and I’m not talking about eggs. I’ll be writing the hubs whether anyone chooses to debate me or no. Not to worry, I will be referring to some of the mindless drivel that you three ladies ranted. Not to mention that of the OP on this thread and others who commented as well.
It appears to me that you three ladies are saying that intelligence and opposition to same-sex marriage are mutually exclusive.
Deepes Mind, deleting comments contrary to one’s premise on a hub would be intellectual dishonesty, right? I don’t do that and I can prove it. The way you get around that if someone does that to you is to post the deleted comment on your own hub and critique same. It puts the person deleting the comments in a very unfavorable light. Works quite well, actually. Of course, I can show you examples.
yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.
What bothers me is that you cannot even recognize how much you're looking down your nose at others - and why that plays a role in the reason why others aren't interested in discussing things with you. It's not because your arguments are epically sound and wonderful - it's your demeanor and your attitude and your condescending, ridiculing approach. I don't have time for that. I have a lot of time for well-reasoned, intelligent and respectful dialogue - I do it all of the time with many christians.
I'd ask why you think so many people are refusing to discuss things with you, but I already know your answer. Clearly it's because you're so "wonderful and amazing" that no one can compete. That may be enough to help you sleep at night, but it's not the reality. You're the common denominator - and christians and atheists alike are leaving conversations with you in droves - because of your behavior, not your arguments. If no one wants to talk to you, it's most likely because of the way you talk to them - not the lack of substance in the things you actually say. No matter how many times people point that out to you, you ignore it. That's on you - not anyone else.
I would also like to add that I did not begin on this thread by speaking to you. I was asked by a friend (who happens to be a Christian) about a word in Romans, and I responded to her request. You then jumped in and made fun of the fact that I chose to post the explanation from a site you consider to be sub par - even though you agreed with everything it actually said. I tried to maintain a respectful discussion until it became clear that you were not interested in offering any respect our actually discussing the point intelligently. Therefore your synopsis of what happened is also dishonest. Why again should we take you seriously?
Gee, that was much more involved than my "I'm ignoring you because I don't feel you have anything of value to say"
JMcFarland you said: “I would also like to add that I did not begin on this thread by speaking to you. I was asked by a friend (who happens to be a Christian) about a word in Romans, and I responded to her request. You then jumped in and made fun of the fact that I chose to post the explanation from a site you consider to be sub par”
You have a rather distorted view of the truth. Not only with respect to your statement above, but on other matters as well.
Motown2Chitown was responding to me when she included a question to you. It’s not like I wasn’t involved in the conversation. And what exactly I said after you copy and pasted a lengthy article from RationalWiki was, “thank God for RationalWiki, ‘eh?” Actually, I’m surprised you didn’t object to the “thank God” part instead of the “RationalWiki” part. You’re fine when you are copying and pasting. It’s when you come up with something on your own like, “Paul, being a former pharisee, most likely did NOT use the septuagint, since he was fluent in Hebrew and very familiar with the Torah” that you get in trouble.
Yeah right, JMcFarland, people won’t talk to me. That’s why a recent hub I wrote has more than 700 comments. I don’t write more hubs and post more on the forums because I feel guilty because I can’t keep up with everything people want to talk to me about. Look at Rad Man. He keeps whining I didn’t answer all his questions. But like I said, I’m working on some new hubs due to the motivation you and some of these others have provided. Thank you! The first one will likely be entitled, “How Homophobic Are You?”
You have an agenda, JMcFarland. You want affirmation, not information. If some do not agree with your LGBT agenda, woe to them.
So what do you think about the statement that, “The problem with that (same-sex marriage) is that those groups crying out for the change in the law are not interested in just acquiring the benefits, they want a confirmed admission of guilt and an open arms acceptance of their lifestyle practices by the general public” I wonder.
Maybe you missed it. Wayne Brown said it over on the DOMA thread. Please don’t reply to me. I didn’t say it. Go rant at him. You’ve put me to sleep with your mindless rants enough already.
I was not implying that you would. I was merely pointing the possibility. You have nothing to prove to me and I am not asking you for proof.
The problem with that is that if someone has to go through the trouble of posting a deleted comment on their own hub because the hub author is dishonest then what's the point of holding a debate of any kind? A debate on the forums is still the most viable option (IMO) because even if you see a bunch of nonsensical comments, you can ignore those in favor of responding to the comments that
are actually on topic. This would require separating your emotions from your beliefs and the topic at hand.
by Catherine Mostly2 weeks ago
This is a really good question for Christians... Why was Obama erroneously-labeled the anti-christ; while a man like Trump is considered to be 'called' and appointed by God?Ps 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand...
by Tricia Mason5 years ago
Hi I would like to know, please, if any Christian members of this community accept evolutionary theory as true; or if anyone knows any Christians, who believe that evolution is true?Thanks
by Nicole Canfield5 months ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other...
by augustine724 years ago
It is quite obvious that Catholics do not follow many things in the Bible. They look at the Church as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
by Anan Celeste5 years ago
I just saw a documentary about how the Catholic Church have dealt with pedophiles in their priesthood for the last 30 years. I was just dumbstruck of how this matter was addressed. Then It hit me. How can they cover up...
by cooldad6 years ago
My personal opinion is that, YES, most Christians believe in God out of fear. And that starts when they are children. When a child is taken to church and told that he/she will burn eternally in the fiery...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.