"I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay"
Quite a powerful story:
http://www.danoah.com/2012/04/a-teens-b … e-gay.html
I think this explains why so many of us are bothered by the "hate the sin, not the sinner" nonsense that many right-wing Christians trot out. Homosexuality is not an act, it's a fundamental orientation, and when you attack that orientation, very real people feel attacked.We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard and as with all sins the Bible teaches that we are to hate the sin and not the sinner and that has nothing to do with being right-winged. The basic thing is that there is no proof that Homosexuality is genetic or anything of the like and the only definitive information shows that it is a lifestyle choice. And although those who are living that life style does so with constant feeling of being attacked, do not be misled to the fact that the Bible does not condone Homosexuality no more than it condones any other act that God does not like because sin is sin to God and He said that a man should not lay with another man as with a woman. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Hate the sin and not the sinner is simply a way of saying that we as Chrsitians MUST understand that Jesus brought grace into the world accross the board and as the Bible states in Romans 3:23...For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Therefore no one can judge anyone else. When we announce to the world that we are Christains...we are saying that the Word of God is our standard and not only the parts that we choose to like or follow. We all deal with sin and that does not mean we cannot still love those who sin. This thing about Homosexuality is a tricky one and there is nothing in the Bible where the act or lifestyle is condoned or even tollerated by God...but there are several texts where God shows that He does not condone those acts or that lifestyle. If one chooses to be then be...but own up to what it is. And when we are going to use God's Word as a defense, we must understand what God says about it also.
On the contrary, the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular. This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others. You may believe it's the right religion, but a Scientologist believes that his is the right one, an Islamist believes theirs is the right one and an atheist believes there is no god. All these people and more live within the same nation. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, so if you want to live in America, you can't be forcing people to be a particular religion, just like you shouldn't be denying gays the rights that everyone else has.
Personally knowing several gay people, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they were born that way. It's not a choice, just like heterosexuality is not a choice for you. No one would choose to be unaccepted, ridiculed, belittled and hated, which is what often happens to people who come out as gay.
There are many things in your bible that are picked and chosen as to what is right and wrong. It's been stated many times before, so choosing to single out gay people and hurt them, deny their rights, ridicule them or what have you isn't very christian-like.
The sooner you accept the fact that some people are gay and that's normal, the less bigoted you will be. If it really affects you, you might need to take a long hard look at yourself and meditate on it because there is absolutely nothing wrong with their lifestyle.I NEVER said that there is anything wrong with their lifestyle i said that first there is no proof that it is genetic and therefore that people are born with the orientation and secondly i said that God does not condone the lifestyle just ike He does not condone murder, lies, adultry, stealing gossip or anyting of the like. But the issue is to hate the sin and not the sinner and therefore my statement spoke to loving everyone no matter their ifestyle. Finally and most importantly I said that the Bibe and the Word of God must be the standard for Christians but do not be fooled as the Bible also says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and therefore we will at some point get to that 100% you spoke of...just not yet. I NEVER said anything about denying the rigts of anyone or any of that stuff you said...and I am no bigot but then even you has the right to your opinion...all good with me. But as Isaiah said...choose whom this day you will serve, but as for me and my house...we shall serve the Lord. And i thank Him every day for His renewed grace that He renders to me insoite of my sins every day...
Well, to answer your first response, It has been linked to genetics. Here's an article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de … netics-usa
Please don't lump in homosexuality with murder, lies, adultery, stealing or gossip -- all of those can or will hurt someone else in some manner, homosexuality does not. Just like being having blonde hair or having freckles doesn't hurt anyone.
I'm glad you revised your statement, because initially you did say that the Bible and the Word of god must be a standard, now I see you said a Christian standard. That's fine, however I am sure some Christians might disagree with your interpretation. Look at Kebennett1's response below -- she is a Christian, but has no hatred toward homosexuality or the lifestyle.
We will never get to that 100% because no one has the same interpretation. And, as long as there is lack of proof or evidence that god exists, there will always be logic driven atheists.
You may claim you are not a bigot because you say it it's god who doesn't condone the lifestyles, but the fact that you come on here essentially using "god's word" as a scapegoat, you are still condemning them with your words and that still makes you a bigot.
If you want the definition of a bigot here you go: "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race." That sums you up from what I can tell. I'm sure you will disagree, but that is definitely what I see in you from your posts. For you to hide behind your interpretation of the word of god seems cowardly at best. Essentially, they are your words.
As an atheist, I am very tolerant of religious ideas that are different than my own; in fact I am very much a proponent for the freedom of religion in America. I never tell people they are wrong about their religious choices, but I will point out and speak up against bigotry, bullying and hypocrisy when I see it because it is hurtful and demeaning to other people.
Lastly, I don't know why you would have any capacity for hate; I sure don't; but your words were to hate the sin, not the sinner -- which means you have hatred in you? That's too bad if that is true.Just because someone disagrees with a lifestyle a majority of Americac agrees with is not meaning bigotry. Given the definition of bigot "'One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.", it can apply to both sides of the issue. It is not one-sided. There are those who can't tolerate any religion but no one is calling them bigoted.. just saying
Do the majority of Americans agree with homosexuality? I don't know, perhaps you can give evidence. I don't think the issue here is not tolerating any religion, but some from the religious camp not tolerating same-sex relationships. Just saying.
i do not think is ethical for people of the same sex to get married,under any circumstance,because i feel it is wrong biblically or morally.if a particular religion now deems it worthy to allow people of the same sex to get married,i would say n u shld think about it. same sex relationships or marriage is psychologically ill.
It is those people who make unfounded assertions like this and claim their truth as the absolute truth, the psychologically ill people.
On what basis do you claim that two consenting adults, who are in love, and want to make the ultimate commitment that is marriage, psychologically ill? Are you some form of qualified behaviourist, psychologist perhaps. Or maybe you're a psychiatrist? Where is the evidence for your claim? Or is that just your unqualified opinion?
---Whilst some homosexual people find great inspiration and solace in their faith, whether that faith be christianity, islam, or whatever. Their choice is paramount.
At the root and centre of the christian message is an all-encompassing acceptance of the One-ness of creation. Homosexual persons are all part of that One-ness. Not to be excluded by ignorant individuals. It is human selfishness and fear which has led to the antagonism.
Again I hear that expression "lifestyle," Amanda. It's such a glib term. What on earth do you mean by it? Have you any idea what you are talking about?
It sounds to me like you have picked up on talk you have heard from your pastor, or minister, or zealots of your congregation. People can spout stuff of which they are totally ignorant.... just biased and ill-informed.First off, jonnycomelately +1 and Hollie Thomas +1
Amanda, I haven't seen the topic of not tolerating religion bring brought in. For me personally, if you read what I said, I am all for freedom of religion. Not sure how much more tolerable it can get since I am an atheist.
If standing up against bigots for their bigotry makes me a bigot, as you suggested, then I guess I'm a bigot against bigots and bigotry.Bigots? There are no bigots. We have freedom of religion in America. A good lawyer could get you damages for hate speech if you demean someone for their beliefs. Even an atheist is free of religion, if they so chose. No one can make that determination for you around here.
We make the determination to be good neighbors. That is what makes America great . . . good neighbors.Just a small point. Bigots don't make good neighbors and hating people because of color, sex or sexual orientation (whether you think it cosmically approved, or not) is bigotry.
Your point is well received. I am not seeing any bigots in my neighborhood. It is a sweet place. What are people are doing in private? I don't know, but if your battery is dead, they will give you a jump.
Martin Luther King's Dream is our dream. Who is fomenting discord today? If you hear a thumping sound and look out the window, you will see a rainbow of skin tones playing basketball in the hoop I installed on the side of the road. The high schoolers have a hard time following my one rule. No hanging on the basket!
Ya'll need to lighten up. Here is a song to help you.
http://youtu.be/AtYqvSoUOTcEwwww. Country. I'm a bit of a bigot on that point.
I'm sure it was a wonderful video.Okay! Who can blame you. Please recognize. This is not country. It is hip hop with a southern twang. It might be deeper than you think. It is a statement against bigotry, and for fellowship.
What's fellowship?
Give us a break. It is the best we can do. Maybe you will like this better. We roll that way too. It reminds me of Celtic music, but it is Native American from Canada.It is all good. Find common ground.
http://youtu.be/xfuo_1EDhKU
"the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular."
That's a little tricky, because I don't beleive that I should have to wear a seat belt if I don't want to (I do wear one always,) but the standard is still that I must. The number of people who believe in something is really not a good litmus test for whether it's true. For instance, although many people do believe gay people are born that way, many don't. By your own logic we can't accept the possibility that they are because not 100% of the population believes that.
"This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others." - But then what is the standard based on?
"You may believe it's the right religion, but a Scientologist believes that his is the right one, an Islamist believes theirs is the right one and an atheist believes there is no god. All these people and more live within the same nation. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, so if you want to live in America, you can't be forcing people to be a particular religion, just like you shouldn't be denying gays the rights that everyone else has." - That's well said, but does freedom of religion mean freedom from religion? There are people who believe that their freedom gives them the right to tell me to shut up, based on whether they like what I have to say. And I mean backed by force of law with incarceration as the penalty. Granted, that's not a majority of people, or even close, but they do exist.
"Personally knowing several gay people, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they were born that way. It's not a choice, just like heterosexuality is not a choice for you. No one would choose to be unaccepted, ridiculed, belittled and hated, which is what often happens to people who come out as gay." I've known several gay people, and it's never really occurred to me that they were "trained" to be gay. But whether they chose it or not, Jesus is still Jesus. Gay people should not suffer persecution simply because they're gay, it's not right. But that goes for other people as well. I'm not gay but I certainly know what it's like to be picked on and bullied (and no, not because of my Christianity.)
"There are many things in your bible that are picked and chosen as to what is right and wrong. It's been stated many times before, so choosing to single out gay people and hurt them, deny their rights, ridicule them or what have you isn't very christian-like."
It's a sad truth that people do pick and choose what they want the Bible to say. Jesus invites us all to the party. But He makes pretty clear that certain things are expected.Chris Neal:
Seat belt laws are for safety and not backed by religious beliefs. Besides, even if they were, that doesn't affect someone's freedoms and it isn't a form of bigotry. I don't think that's an equal comparison... But that's just my opinion.
Whether they were born that way or not, it shouldn't matter. They are still people and deserve equality. That is merely my opinion, though.
The standard, as it would appear, is pretty much based on laws that have been written up, voted upon and passed. Most laws are fairly common sense. A lot of laws are for some kind of public safety. And when something new comes up, there are discussions, debates, think tanks, voting and all sorts of ways to figure out how to regulate it if needed. Some laws need trial and error as new things come into play; for example, seat belts didn't used to be mandatory until they realized people were more likely to survive an accident with them on. Like yourself, I don't always agree with every regulation, but as long as they don't infringe on civil liberties, I will understand and accept them.
I can only speak for myself and even though I'm an atheist, I would fight tooth and nail to make sure you have freedom of religion to believe what you felt was right for you. Freedom of religion is part of our constitution in America and I support it fully.
I don't think it's right for Christians to get bullied either; I'm not a fan of making anyone feel bad.Thank you. Let me repeat that I've never been bullied on account of my faith. That day may come, but it hasn't yet.
Everybody is a special individual made in the image of God.
What seems like common sense to us can seem entirely different in other parts of the world. You'd be surprised how many basic ideas about what is right and wrong come from past and present religious convictions.
It was nice talking to you!
""the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular."
That's a little tricky, because I don't beleive that I should have to wear a seat belt if I don't want to (I do wear one always,) but the standard is still that I must. The number of people who believe in something is really not a good litmus test for whether it's true. For instance, although many people do believe gay people are born that way, many don't. By your own logic we can't accept the possibility that they are because not 100% of the population believes that.
"This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others." - But then what is the standard based on? "
In a word - democracy. It is the ability of the laws to change, and people to change them, that marks it above faith based teachings.
With religion there is no changing what is said, word of god is word of god (no matter what modern slant is put on them). But by law if someone thinks a law is wrong they can vote for someone that will change it - or they can run for office themselves and if they get suitable support for this law they see as unjust then enough people will vote them in that they can change the law themselves.
Checks and balances, the ability to change, to adapt. All important marks of modern democracy and something that allows us to use it to run our lives even if we dont agree with all of it, when religious doctrine would demand far more faith and persecution of those not of the faithYou say several good things that I don't disagree with. You also say several things that I do. Rather than go point by point, let's get straight to the underlying philosophy.
Democracy is a good man made system and I think it's the best one available on Earth, but there has to be a transcendant reality, an objective standard for "right" and "wrong." If not, then literally anything becomes permissible, provided you can get enough people to go along with it. You may or may not be familiar with the example of the deserted island for the flaws in democracy. Four healthy, attractive young people are marooned on an island in the middle of the Pacific. They know they need to get organized in order to survive, and being good Western kids they opt for a democracy in order to vote on priorities and what to do about them. Did I mention that there are three healthy young men? Assuming for this example that they're all straight, they decide that one of their main priorities is, well, I think you can guess. The young woman is definitely not with it, but since it's a democracy they take a vote and voila! In one fell swoop we have institutionalized, legal and democratic rape, slavery and enforced prostitution. Ah, the wonders of democracy!
Now, I do not think this is axiomatic, that you have democracy and then you institutionalize bad things. But it is true that, at least until relatively recently, it has been faith-based groups, usually Christian, who drove the good change. End to slavery was largely (though not completely) advocated by Christians. Yeah, slavers used the Bible to their own ends but the often overlooked fact is that most abolitionists also were Christians and quoted the Bible even more (and understood it better!)
Another real life example: The Nuremberg Trials. Nobody claimed that Nazi Germany was a democracy (except possibly for Hitler, who also was known to lie every now and again!) but when it came time to try the Nazi leaders who were still alive after WWII, they all claimed that they couldn't be prosecuted because they were simply following the laws of their own country. This was a real problem because, except for Russia, the other three powers on the board of judges couldn't figure out what it do. It was finally the Americans who said, "No, there must be some transcendant idea of right and wrong, or else not only can we not prosecute the Nazis but we can't really prosecute anybody ever again." That transcendant idea of right and wrong was based on the Bible.
I believe in democracy and I believe in checks and balances. But they also don't always work. The government constantly wants to assert its "right" to control how we live "for our own good," and it doesn't matter whether you're a suite-and-tie fundamentalist or a drugged-out pinko hippy, there's always something that you can find in that class.A broken example at work. It relies on
1) people to be so self serving as to agree to evil
2) a very obvious example taken to an extreme (I think I read you arguing against that elsewhere).
Let us look at a more useful point. The Nazi's (we'll ignore that much publicized law of the Internet for a moment). They came to power, but not exactly on a wave of publicity but on a broken democratic model (which the allies were using as a test) based on impossible conditions put on Germany by the allies.
Could certain Nazi's argue following orders? Yes. Could a 'higher' moral point still be claimed by the allies without referring to God? Yes. Basic human rights don't need a higher power, and basic right and wrong doesn't either. If a Government is contravening human rights, and people try claiming following orders, then we now have mechanisms in place.
There is NO need to refer to a higher power. At the time Christianity was still a central, if waning, force, so was still to be claimed to. I have no doubts we would reach the same conclusions now, without any idea of reaching to a higher moral authority other than those set by humans.
Is our society based on teh bible? Yes. But let's not make that because of some inherent good, but on the fact that Christianity destroyed, raped and pillaged all major resistances to it all over the world. YES that was often based off of mortal greed, not Christian teachings, but it doesn't stop it being any less true. If you want to accept that what we have is based off of Christian teachings in the past, you HAVE to accept the bad with the good - that Christians destroyed the teachings of just about every religion, usually with malicious intent.
Abolitionists being Christian, Slavers being Christian. Daft arguments. OF COURSE THEY WERE! Sorry to shout, and it's not aimed at you, but at people who keep trying to argue these points. Christianity as THE major religion in our historical records for thousands of years. Once the West came to power of the New World they were the ones that could choose, or not choose, slavery. It was Christian teaching that allowed slavery, and Christian teaching that abolished it.
As ever the idea of Christian morality leading the country is one that is abhorrent to me. Not because I am an atheist, I am, and not because I am against Christian morality as it (mostly) stands, I'm not. But because we have seen so many examples of Christian teachings being twisted to suit an individuals needs, and because religion so often doesn't rely so much on choice as it does of teaching - people will slavishly follow that example.
We can bring up one or two examples of democracy being wrong. But so often these are flawed models of what democracy amongst the leading nations is. However history has shown us again and again that placing morality and decision making in religion will bring conflict, witch hunting and individual power seeking.
Democracy is very flawed, but central to democracy and capitalism is the concept that humans are flawed and power seeking. It works in spite of, and often because of, that fact. But religions aims are too lofty, and so too easily twisted by those that seek power for themselves. They expect the best in people and are so often let down.
I'll take the practical example that works, that relies on people as they are, that can put in place moral rights without claims to higher authorities, that aren;t responsible for so many atrocities. The system that has worked despite everything, rather than the one with such a long history of not working.
I like the goals of religion to put morality in place, but it should NEVER be the guide. It's too easily twisted to individuals needs.Actually, the example is whole and sound. I went to pains to make clear that I don't think it axiomatic that this will happen, but in the absence of some greater standard of right and wrong it could, which segues nicely into...
A useful point indeed. Your history is not wrong, but it's incomplete. The racial theories that Hitler embraced and magnified were not unique to the Nazis or even Germany. They were, sometimes in different forms, among even the intellectual elites in both Europe and America. Certainly not all Germans subscribed to everything that Hitler espoused, Hitler knew that. He certainly didn't put forth everything he personally believed. But enough people believed enough of the same things he did that they were willing to go along. In fact Nazi Germany is the perfect example of why a higher moral power DOES need to be invoked because it illustrates perfectly how "basic right and wrong" become whatever someone says it does when there's no higher authority. Very Nietzsche to be sure, but I've known many, many people who believe exactly that.
History argues exactly the opposite. Certainly the Church did many nasty, evil things and I have never shrunk from the history of it. But you don't go back far enough. At it's beginning, Christianity actually served as a tempering force, and it's true that in many ways the worst thing to ever happen to it was to become a political force. The men who did the worst things were often the least religious and certainly the least theological. And since the world embraced "Enlightenment," things have only become worse. Nietzsche himself predicted the 20th Century would be the bloodiest in history, and he was right.
Inherent good is the only reason to make Christianity the basis of anything. Otherwise it's a waste of time and energy. I do accept the badwith the good, reference my previous comment.
I wrote a Hub about that. Christian teaching did not allow slavery, men just chose it anyway and then justified it as best they could. The argument that since Christianity was the major religion becomes a rather facile basis to ignore the debate about whether it is true.
You're right, it does often get twisted. What always floors me about that argument is the implication that only religion would have that effect. Communism, anti-communism, fascism, atheism, humanism, all these things and more have been twisted by people with devastating effect. That is taking the bad with the good.
True. It's also showed us again and again tht placing morality and decision making in every other political form has lead to the same thing.
The American Experiment in democracy understood that men are flawed. It relied on Christianity to provide the moral impetus that no government can give. I went to great pains to make clear that I think democracy is the best government devised by men and that there should be democracy everywhere. I like democracy and don't want to see it go away. But human beings need more.
I can't agree with this Chris. It sounds great on paper, but determining that everyone, everywhere must abide by one set of principles takes away all choice. That leads to Dictatorship. This is also why we don't ALL have to be christians. There is more than one legitimate path.
If one of those guys was healthy heterosexual, you have the beginnings of a great community, especially if the other two guys are gay and get on very well together. They can all go off hunting and support the woman as she becomes a mother.God gave everyone unique personalities. Nothing says we must be clones. But if there is God and Jesus did die for our sins, then no, there are not multiple legitimate paths. Obviously everyone doesn't think those two points are true, and I have claimed often that I have "met" God so I often ask myself, Which will I believe, God or men? I actually tried to stop being a Christian once, and God did not let me alone.
The example was supposed to be three healthy men and one healthy woman, all straight and all young. I wrote it that way but for some reason that part didn't make it in. If two of the guys were gay, the point would fall apart. And let me stress that I don't necessarily think that democracy causes those sorts of situations, but that devoid of an objective right and wrong, those kinds of things become more likely. Think "Lord of the Flies."If you were to say "I believe that The spirit, the soul, goes on forever and when the physical body dies it will spend eternity either with or without God," then no one, yours truly included, can disagree with you.
Your statement that you have "met God," is true for you. It is totally presumptuous of you to assume then that your experience must be brought to reality for everyone else. THIS Sir, is the root cause of so much strife in the world.... intolerance of the other person's point of view and the presumption that "I have the right way, you don't."
The christian way, especially the dogmatic American christian way, is the BIG BIG PROBLEM for this world. I know you are basically a good man, Chris. You have your heart in the right place. You are warm and friendly with people and I appreciate that. But the dogma is the downfall. IMHO.A) Thank you very much for you comments. They really mean a lot to me.
B) I agree that "American Christianity" is a big problem in the world. Americans have done with Christianity what we've done with a lot of other stuff, comparmentalized, brainstormed and marketed it. We need to go back to the Bible and see what it actually says. Obviously everyone doesn't see it that way.
C) At the risk of ruining my image in your eyes of being a good man and warm and friendly, the fact is that if you believe the Bible, as I do, there are exclusive claims made about God in the book.
I know what you mean about "it's true for you but you can't expect everyone to believe that." I'm 45 and I became a Christian at 22, so I spent half of my life NOT being a Christian. And it wasn't soooo long ago that I've forgotten what it's like to think like an unbeliever. I wrote a Hub about my experiences that have convinced me to be a Christian, so (not to be self-promotional) you can read that for a better explanation. But the upshot is, the Bible does claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. And that Heaven is a real place where Good really does take those who loved Him on Earth. And if it's true for me, then it's true for everyone, if it's not true for everyone, then it's not true for me either.
That doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree with me. Of course I would like it if they did, I hope and pray for people. But I'm also old and realistic enough to know that it isn't going to happen. And also that many people who aren't believers are very nice, kind and generous people and that many believers are not.
I don't mean to be presumptuous. I hope I'm not. I'm a fallible man and I've certainly been guilty of picking fights and shoving things down people's throats. But that's not what God wants from me.I respect the dialogue Chris. Thank you.
"But the upshot is, the Bible does claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. And that Heaven is a real place where Good really does take those who loved Him on Earth." Only if you see that expression "I am the way," etc., as meaning Jesus was claiming himself to be God. I and many others throughout the world do not interpret it that way. The " I AM " is at the centre of it. It refers to the one-ness of the Universe. And each of us, Jesus included, has access to that one-ness in the I AM. For an enlightened person to claim that he/she was Exclusively God would be totally impossible. The enlightenment will teach one that. Enlightenment comes when we can see the inter-connectness of all Creation.
I accept that there are, therefore, at least two ways of looking at that expression. Even if you and any other person(s) see as you see it, does not make it the only admissible interpretation. We can have differing views without the need to resolve the question once and for all. It is not necessary for us to believe --- just be accepting of difference.
The world is diverse. Big enough for us all. It's only when dogmatic and ostrich-like attitudes make show that we find we cannot live side-by-side.Obviously I don't see it quite the same way you do but I do prefer dialogue to fighting. Thank you as well.
There HAS to be an objective standard for right and wrong? One of many good reasons why MEN made up the stories in the bible over the millenia.
"[X] cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not [agree]" -- jdflom
(1)
On what basis can you assert what can- or cannot be the standard?
(2)
If it is consent alone on which premises do 100% of the population agree?
(3)
Catching a glimmer of your self refuting position yet?Generally the standard is that which is set. This usually means by Government and Police. The Government doesn't need 100% approval, it simply needs to be elected, which gives it a 'mandate from the people'.
If people feel strongly about a position they can run for election themselves, and if enough people feel strongly then they get elected, and consequently can change the standards being set.
Religion setting the standard is VERY different, as it is not an electable in the more traditional sense, requires people to sign up that specific way of thinking and requires often obtuse interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago.
Thankfully we're not in that position, as expecting people to adhere to a religious tome for standards set now, especially if they did not believe, would be ludicrous.
Whilst there is no way of guaranteeing 100% acceptance, a government elected on a democratic principle gives us the best workable option vs a religious text that even people who use it as a basis of their religion can't agree on (and that has caused numerous wars, deaths, inhumanities, etc over the centuries).Sir Nick, I suggest then, on the basis of your post here, that it could boil down to "democratic" principles.
If an elected government was instated on the basis of a "free," "knowledgeable," "non-coerced" electorate; and the ability to stand for election did not depend upon the candidate being monetarily rich; and every candidate professed and practised fairness and honesty; and it was, in short, a "level playing field," --- then you could well consider such a government as democratic.
However, where all or most of the above are absent, it cannot be regarded as democratic. It is much more likely to be a Plutocracy of rich business club members who get into power. Then, sitting behind closed doors, they can make any laws they like, regardless of the will of the people.
If those "elected" persons find they can manipulate the electorate's thinking, especially in regard to religious/sexual matters, they will use these powers to corrupt the system. Plant media owners amongst the elected, and you have the Big Brother syndrome set in.
We all thought that "1984" was about the U.S.S.R."We get the government we deserve".
If the government found themselves severely out of kilter with public thinking, and the other major parties/party (depending on your nation) were also so out of kilter, then you would soon find a new party emerge that was better thinking
Also remember that parties will often bend to the prevailing winds to get power, which comes back to the "we get the government we deserve" quote. If there is a shift in morals in the general populace then you can bet pennies to the pound that our political parties will follow suit.
There is lag, and there is a certain amount of latitude given that parties also bow to financial pressures. But for the most part large uprising of belief in a certain moral will certainly over turn any one donor, no matter how large.
We can debate how democratic the governments are (and I certainly agree with you to a degree), but the points I made, and am trying to make here, is that the system is still more viable as a way of judging publicly accepted morality than any text that was written thousands of years ago and that any cross section of it's believers will show dramatic differences in. We can accept differences in a populace under a government...but religions often struggle with the concept of different understandings (protestant vs catholicsm for instance). What a government does is provide strict, understandable lines in the sand. What religion does is provide strict lines in the sand, but then someone else reads it and makes different lines, and someone else yet more lines - and then there is those that refuse to believe at all...
Government as a standard setter is a far better system than relying on a religion to define moralityWhat you say here makes much sense, which brings to mind ??
Do YA think that, as the story goes; the apearance of God to Abraham was the first ever established governmental institution?
Until then the bigest and badest person in the group made all the rules.
So; it was necessary for this new institution to follow previous standards to some extent or the populus would have had no understanding of the concept at all.
Didn't contimplate this comment more than a few seconds, just a thought that popped into my head while reading your post.
Hmm...I'm not so sure that there's no "proof" as you say, that this is not a natural thing that people cannot choose. I know a lot of people who are gay and have tried to change that their entire lives. They actually want to be straight but simply don't have a preference for the other sex. There has been a lot of scientific research into the hormones and other chemicals in our bodies which influence sexual orientation, suggesting that it may possibly be genetic or a way in which people are born.
I'm both straight and a Christian, but I think it's best to think twice before we judge...Agreed.
According to gay people I know, they simply are not attracted to people of the opposite sex just as I am not attracted to a particular woman that another man sees as a absolute hottie. They cannot change who they are attracted to anymore than I can. Being gay for them is not a lifestyle choice.
The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality is conspicuous by its absence. We don't have to agree with Paul as he wasn't an apostle and we are not members of his Church.I wasn't even aware that Paul referenced homosexuality. I thought it was only mentioned rather vaguely in the OT. Hmm...guess that shows how much I read my Bible...
Why do you choose to take my stance as judgement...I said that the Word of God must be our standard if we are Christains. That is truth. And until I see or read the proof to the same...then i can only go by what i know...and roof is proof. And there is none.
I didn't say you were judging. I was just making a comment in general. As far as proof goes, it depends on how you see the evidence, I guess. For some, the scientific research done thus far is sufficient proof. For others, it is not.
This is a very disturbing response to homosexuality. We as a society do not get our morality from the bible nor should we. Do you really want the moral fibre of a 2000 year old society? The bible condones rape, murder and slavery. Sure you can pick and choose which versus you adhere to, but if you take the bible as the word of god you have to take it all.
I find it fascinating that in the year 2012 we still have people thinking homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Does it sound like the kid in the story chose his lifestyle? Did you choose your heterosexual lifestyle? You are hating because of what you read in an old book. Try thinking for yourself.Oh but I do think for myself. And the Word of God is not based on some 2000 year old society...it is dynamic and very relevant to today. There is not a single place in the Bible that condones rape, murder, or slavery. Please go and read a BIble and do so with the assistance of someone who understands what it says before condeming what the Bible says. Your very statemenst show that you probably have never read a Bible and therefore you are not thinking for yourself. Educate yourself beofre you comment on a subject...Please.
I think Rad Man is absolutely correct.
Not trying to sound condescending here, just stating what I see. If you thought for yourself, you wouldn't take a man made bible as the word of god and strictly adhere to it. You would read it and then develop your own interpretations and ideas. The fact that you keep pointing back to the bible and saying god hates sins and what not leads me to believe that you aren't critically thinking for yourself.You are not being condescending...you are actually clueless...but that is ok too. I do think for my self and I do the research that leads me to know that the Bible is not man made. And critical thinking and faith go hand in hand.
Nice to see you go right to personal attacks. Hope that helps you in life.
The bible is not manmade? Most of the authors are unknown, but it's "known" they were inspired by God? Please - let's be realistic.
If you insist on believing in talking snakes and burning bushes that speak, fine - but don't expect everyone else to believe exactly as you do.I agree, let's be realistic.
The Bible is written by men, that is not denied. But that God inspired these men is the point. And there are many prophecies that came true, such as Daniel's vision.
It's not all about the burning bush!
Oh but it does condone rape, slavery and murder.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.
If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NLT
But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.
Exodus 21:15 NKJV
And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
See this link for much more.
http://rad-man.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-g … -the-Bible
Perhaps you should educate yourself on what the bible says and what homosexuality is.Rad-man...anyone can go cut and paste some text out of a Bible. Your words and thought reveal your lack of understanding of the same. I know what the Bible says and why it said what it did. and cutting a piece out and using it as a standard is inerrancy. And I am well aware of what homosexuality is. When I said to educate yourself...i meant the exhaustive study of the Bible in the context of the written eords and not just to go find some text and cut and paste without understanding...bjut then if that is your world then live it like you want to...I am no Bible novice...take the same text and read farther so you might understand what it says and what part God plays in the text you pasted for your purpose of argument...go gain understanding of Apologetics and you will understand context. Much luv man.
So rape, slavery and murder are ok in certain contexts?
That's odd because I always thought they were wrong in any context.
Seems to me like the bible does condone these things and you are refusing to accept it because you dont like what it says and you will go to any length to attempt to defend your belief to the contrary of what the bible actually says.Oh, but you can cut and past test out of the bible and that's okay. Think critically. I don't find anything about the male form sexually attractive and I would assume you don't either. Ask yourself, why would one choose a homosexual lifestyle if one was like me and I assume you. I use the word assume because many a fundamentalist makes the journey to the other side and when is caught asked for forgiveness.
What I'm trying to say is don't judge people on what a 2000 year old book says. The does promote slavery, murder and rape. This you choose not to except because of modern day ethics. You should apply your modern day ethics to you view of homosexuality as well.
The USA held on to slavery for so long because of the words in the bible. Those words were used to enslave people and the biblical words you use against homosexuality are no different.
Why care?Case in point Rad-man...misguided men with inaccurate interpretations of the Bible misused the Word of God to hold unto a madness called slavery for as long as they did because if they did not use the Bible they would have found another reason to do so because they were evil and misguided...
Case in point gaeparks...misguided men with inaccurate interpretations of the Bible misused the Word of God to hold unto a madness called "crusade against homosexuality" for as long as they did because if they did not use the Bible they would have found another reason to do so because they were evil and misguided...
Radman, I read the Hub, and I gotta say;
A) I was taken aback at your anger. You seemed like a fairly reasonable man when I was talking to you in other forums. You seem quite angry in that Hub and on this forum.
B) I was a little surprised that someone who is as smart as you seem to be and who has claimed to actually know the Bible would make the academic errors you've made. To wit:
1) To quote the OT out of context is dishonest. The rules God gave to the Jews 5000 years ago are exactly that. They were not the rules given to t he Babylonians, the Sumerians or the Egyptians. At that time, if you wanted to follow the true God you converted became an Israeli. And Jesus clarified which ones apply and how they apply to other people at other times.
2) Again, to quote the OT out of context is dishonest. To state unequivocally that everything reported in the Bible was reported as good and something that we should emulate is only possible if either you don't read the Bible very carefully or if you read it having already made up your mind and you're simply looking for whatever you can use to "support your argument." The Bible does NOT say that slavery, murder, incest or really even sleeping with someone you're not married to is okay. But you can take texts which, if that's all you know, seem to support the contention that it does.
You assert in your Hub that Jesus didn't say anything about slavery. Come again? Did you forget that Jesus was walking the earth at a time when the entire nation of Israel was basically enslaved by the Roman Empire. Did you forget that most of His followers wanted to crown Him king of Israel and have Him lead an armed insurrection? Everything he said was about slavery, it's just that the slavery He was interested in ending was human slavery to sin!
Cut and paste texts, also sometimes called "Proof Texting," has two inherent problems. 1) It doesn't take any special skill or great intelligence to do it. Open the book, throw a rock, you'll probably find a verse that on it's face and devoid of context seems to say that something we think is horrible is actually okay. 2) Since proof texting doesn't require any great intelligence, people who actually do have high IQ's (and here I'm specifically talking about Dawkins, but others also qualify,) seem to feel that they have to add passion since they can't contribute scholarship. Passion is not bad in and of itself, but if you resort to basically the same kind of behavior you spend so much passion decrying on the other side, then why should I believe you're right any more than you believe me?
One more thing, although it's a bit more long-range history, the fact is that Western law in general and American law specifically is mored in Biblical ethics. That does not mean that every law comes straight out of the Bible, America is not a theocracy and is not going to be. The argument could be made (and I would make it) that American culture and law are moving farther away from Biblical ethics, but the foundation is still in the Bible. And the dirty little secret of "Enlightenment" thinking is that so many of the lofty ideas were taken from Christian thinking and had the religious language stripped out.Thanks for reading Chris, I obviously can't compete with your knowledge of the bible, nor would I want to. Knowledge of the bible however does not make one right or wrong with regards to one's personal belief.
You have kind of make my point for me though Chris, my point is try to show people that you can't take snippets out the bible and use them against anyone. You seem to be telling me I shouldn't do that, and I agree. Slavery existed in the USA for far to long because of someones interpretation. Fundamental Christianity attempts to block the freedom of equality of gays based on their interpretation of the bible. Yes this does anger me and I'm not even gay nor do I have gay children. I'm repressing not suppressing that anger so I can look at the situation objectively. I'm not a women either but I'm upset at the lack of equality in the Catholic Church. Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?"Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?"
As any good makeup artist will tell you, it's not what you got, it's what you do with it. If your knowledge leads to truth, or lets you show others truth (and this is not just about the Bible,) then you're "right." If not, then you're "wrong."
Slavery existed for far too long in the USA, to be sure. Those who wanted to maintain it did unquestionably quote the Bible and claim Christianity. Ironically, so did those who wanted to abolish it. And this argument actually went on from the very founding of the country. Those who used the Bible to "support" slavery had a habit of picking out a few verses and not taking the entire book into account.
I've never hidden who I am or what I beleive or why. So I think you will believe I'm being honest when I tell you that I don't think being gay is an automatic disqualification for salvation. But the New Testament has a long list of actions (including theft and lying) which, if being actively engaged in, will keep you out of Heaven.
Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say. I study the Bible and the history thereof and its effect on history because that is the personality and the interests God has given me. I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known."Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say."
It seems as though you believe it to be so, however.
"I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known."
And yet when good arguments are being presented to you (concerning Hell and the like) you don't accept them because they don't line up with the truth that is already true for you... You seem to agree with scriptures that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of other Christians seem to also "believe" and don't accept new looks into the same scripture, that could very well be "true."
I love that you accept relativity, even if only to a degree. Imagine it on a significantly larger scale, and you'll get a glimpse of part of what it means to be human and the role that subjectivity truly plays in everyone's lives... Even those who feel themselves to objective or following objectivity, the religious and non-religious alike.Of course I believe I have more knowledge of the Bible than some people. I also have less knowledge than many people. I don't hold myself to know more of the Bible than Rad Man. His knowledge of Scripture seems fairly broad. And I certainly wouldn't go head-to-head against Disppearinghead. I think his is far broader than mine. But what I was pointing out is that if you are going to use Scripture to make a point, make sure the point you are making is supported by Scripture. It's not just a product of being a history geek, I'm also old enough to know that things aren't always what they seem, and sometimes you need to dig a little deeper.
To say that the truth which is true for everybody is only true for me is a very interesting, slightly zen argument. I've been thrown into the river, now I must swim it, fight it or drown but don't think about it, right? I've laid out for you (and anyone else who cares to see,) the reasons why I believe what I believe. In a very real sense, you are asking me to believe that God did not reveal Himself to me.
I see you as fairly young, in your 20's. I could well be wrong. But please don't take it wrong when I say that it's a little arrogant to assume I don't really know what it means to be human. In a real sense I've lived at least two lifetimes, pre-Christian and Christian. I've hung with the freaks and I've hung with the squares. I've been with people who feel that subjective truth is the only real measuring stick. And I've been with God.
I think I have some concept of what it is to be human.Arrogance is the exaggerated sense of ones own importance or abilities, such as saying one has had god revealed to them or that they've been with god, that's real, hard evidence for arrogance.
Here's a nickel. Go buy a lollipop.
SHOCKING FACT: A Troubled Man . . . is a woman.It depends on what you have planned for later.
http://youtu.be/DUKt91wvPE8
What a beautiful old lady! From the outside one might think she was a witch, but I bet on the inside she has a heart of gold!
I'm not defending Chris here, but if he feels he has made a connection with God and if he feels anyone can have this connection that it's not arrogance however misguided he may be. I think humans need to better control our emotions or better understand them. In this way Chris may have better understood what he was feeling.
He's not going to like that, but I didn't call him arrogant now did I?I was responding in kind to his accusation to A Thousand Words for what he believes was arrogance towards him. This is a typical response from believers who react to those who question their beliefs and then turn around to state quite emphatically they have met and talked with gods and then claims he knows something about being human. In that case, being human means to be dishonest with others while claiming to know better than them because they get their answers first hand from gods.
Actually, that means a lot to me. Of course, I'd rather that you do have the same connection with God that I do (or even more so!) but to be acknowledged that I have thought about this and am not just some crackpot does mean a lot.
The measured voice of reason speaks his well thought-out tones once again!
Welcome to the land of the living, ATM. Maybe some day you wll join us!
I wrote on one of the posts, "People who enjoy yelling matches can get your blood pumping, but they're just empty calories."
And I still have more evidence for God's love than I do that you're not some Romanian teenager having fun jabbing at people!ATM writes:
"I was responding in kind to his accusation to A Thousand Words for what he believes was arrogance towards him. This is a typical response from believers who react to those who question their beliefs and then turn around to state quite emphatically they have met and talked with gods and then claims he knows something about being human. In that case, being human means to be dishonest with others while claiming to know better than them because they get their answers first hand from gods."
1) A Thousand Words is quite intelligent and perfectly capable of defending herself if she feels she needs it.
2) I've said before and repeat again, you just like to yell. I've said to others and I've said to you and I say it here again, when I try to have a real debate (you know, with facts, figures, backstory, anything!) you disappear (sometimes literally.) When you have the chance to start trading broad accusations with other people (also known as a shouting match,) you never come more alive and can fill entire forums with your back-and-forth. I've read it when you "talk" to me and I've read it when you "talk" to others.
3) Arrogance can be in the eye of the beholder. I think I stated my case fairly well. And when I said that A Thousand Words was arrogant, I meant in that way that young people tend to be (and yes, I was once a young person.) They sometimes don't think that people who think differently than they do know what they're talking about. I don't take it personally. And I didn't mean it personally. I hope she understands.
4) In a very real way, I consider you a gift from God, because before I started my unique conversation with you, I WAS you, just for the other side. And that does nobody any good.In other words, you have nothing of value to say at all. Yes, I know.
You are unable to debate considering you create fabrications about talking with gods. There are no facts to your fantasies.
I explained what arrogance was based on the definition and how it relates to those who fabricate stories as if they were facts.
Fabricating stories is not thinking differently. Huge difference.
No, you don't appear to be anything like me if all you do is fabricate stories about talking with gods.
"I was responding in kind to his accusation to A Thousand Words for what he believes was arrogance towards him. This is a typical response from believers who react to those who question their beliefs and then turn around to state quite emphatically they have met and talked with gods and then claims he knows something about being human. In that case, being human means to be dishonest with others while claiming to know better than them because they get their answers first hand from gods."
You're a beautiful human being! Don't ever change!
If I am coming across as being arrogant, I do apologize. However, there are people who have lived as long as you, who have come to same conclusions as me. More time on Earth doesn't necessarily equate to more understanding about the world. In my short existence on this Earth, I have experienced a LOT.
Yes, Chris. I am indeed asking you to accept the possibility that you have not met God. At least not God in the sense of a anthropomorphic deity full of "love," but more Vengeance. Have you ever considered that what you experienced was not the God that you believe it was? Probably not.
It sounds crazy, but I was certainly just as convinced that I had been with "God" on numerous occasions, that He had saved me (from freak accidents) numerous times, that when I prayed to find my keys, or that my gas would stretch a bit longer, or that I could get over my "lust problem," and the like, that He could hear me, and that He was helping me, and that warm feeling in my being was the Holy Spirit, and that I was loved, because I needed to be loved. I needed someone to hear me when it seemed like nobody else was listening. I needed a reason to feel good about the fact that I had always been a goody two shoes, and that, even though I was a "fallen sinner," I became very dedicated to God, I took His word very seriously, I sought holiness, when it seemed like everyone around me didn't give a damn, even many of my fellow youth in my youth group. I was devoted, even though I slipped up, but I was serious about listening to the "holy spirit" and yadda yadda.
But, things changed. And a story too long for a response in a forum, I have come to realize today that, even though those experiences were very real to me, what I "experienced" wasn't what you'd perceive to be "God" at all. At least not in how you use that word.
And in my current state, I am more empathetic, caring, affectionate, realistic, rational, objective (more so, not completely, that's impossible), considerably less judgmental, thinking outside of the box, etc. It was not easy for me to not keep from praying al the time, and reading my Bible, and listening to Christian music, yadda yadda, because all of those things had become majorly important parts of my life.
But those things that popped up in the back up my mind, thoughts and the like that you all like to call the "devil..." I realized what they really were. I listened to the voice inside of me that I been ignoring because I was too afraid think anything inappropriate about God and that, amongst a number of other things, basically led me to be where I am today. I'm not better than anyone else for it, but I am better in a sense that for the first time I feel like I'm actually being true to me and have healthy image of myself.
I'm not some screw up that keeps making mistakes and needs "God" to become closer to perfection. I accept myself, am aware of my "flaws" as nothing more than little issues that could help me to live a better life and treat everyone and everything around me in a better manner. Perfection is unnecessary, unrealistic, and causes all kind of complexes in people. I take advantage of things considerably less often, I respect nature, I understand sex better, and have more self control because I'm not completely abstinent, I don't beat myself up anymore, I don't have any complexes about my physical appearance, I don't get overly emotionally attached, easily offended, etc. etc. I have grown up more since I let go of the idea that I'm super special, because I realized that I'm no more special than anyone or anything else, that I have value because I am alive, and that no one is inherently good or bad. They just are. We exist. We can do "right" and we can do "wrong" but those are all in the context of society and the like, and some people seem to lean towards one way or the other. It doesn't make them good or evil, just people doing what they do, and are how they are as a result of how they grew up. I have a real lean towards psychology, actually, and that's helped me to understand people more.
Anyways, I mean you no disrespect, and I actually don't expect you to change or anything. That isn't my goal. My goal is to inform and also to express my opinions about certain things, and very often in these forums, what I think about the mainstream Christian God (and my disdain for the idea that He is loving or just)And I admire what you have just written ATW. We have come to know you much more as a person, and understand very much where you are coming from. Would you consider starting a Hub with this post? I encourage you to keep your power going in this way. There is obviously so much in your experience that others will want to respond to.
I'm currently writing a hub since you are not the first to suggest it. Thanks.
1000 Words - Hint : this is HubPages, not ForumPages.
First, let me clarify something. I don't think that you are unusually arrogant in and of yourself. The arrogance I was referring to is the tendency of young people to assume they know exactly what they're talking about and others don't. I had it, and the fact is that some of us don't outgrow it as fast as we ought to. It has certainly been a process.
Do you really think I've never considered whether I really heard from God? And I have argued against the "anthropomorphic" and "Western" ideas of God that many people have, both believers and nonbelievers. So please, don't assume anything about my experience or whether I've examined it or not.
Ace Frehley believes that a guardian angel has been watching over him. I'm not making that up. It's not unique to Christians.
I've never had a warm feeling from my faith or from my God. I've had positive feelings, but nothing that could be generalized as a "warm fuzzy." So I don't really quite know how to relate to that. I have known that God loves me, but it's not the sort of warm feeling that many have described. My experience was probably more akin, well, I don't really know what it would be more akin to. I've never done drugs, nor was I ever a real drinker, so I can't liken it to either of those. But it is a euphoria that is like nothing else I can talk about. It's a rush, an absolute knowledge that the Holy Spirit is not only present in the room (I've had that experience, too) but is present inside of you. I don't know if you've ever had that experience. As I've written before, even other believers look at you funny if they haven't had the experience.
I've fallen into the trap of getting arrogant about the fact that I'm a Christian, as if it made me a better human being. It's the exact opposite message of the Bible. It's easy to get disillusioned. But one thing I learned is that God doesn't give people a whole new personality. Sometimes He will deliver people from something like an addiction, but more often than not what He wants is for us to put some work into it and trust in Him.
I'm glad that you are more empathetic, caring, affectionate and all the rest. These are qualities that everyone should strive for. I do, and I'm not always that successful. For reasons that literally have nothing to do with my faith, I sometimes struggle a great deal with some of these things. But my experience is that getting away from Christianity doesn't make it easier to be those and getting into Christianity doesn't make it harder. In fact, in a very real way it is my faith that lets me know how far I've come and how far I need to go.
I agree that perfection is unrealistic, and in fact impossible for human beings. People who strive to be perfect actually usually already have the complexes, it's often an attempt to control your environment when you feel out of control yourself.
Thank you for sharing more of yourself here. I really value that. I believe that all human beings (all human beings!) are uniquely created in the image of God and are therefor all inherently valuable and special. Obviously, I believe that God is both loving and just. But it's still very nice to read what you have to say. Thank you.Euphoria and rushes are not any reason at all to believe gods are in the same room with you, but certainly is reason for you to want to believe such nonsense.
Then, why doesn't God deliver everyone from addiction, regardless of whether they believe in him or not. Rubbish.
Humans, like every other life form on earth are the result of evolution, that is a fact. Spreading garbage that we are created in the image of invisible gods only diminishes and insults the work scientists achieve, the very same scientists who provide everything in your life.
This thread begs me to ask you Chris, how you respond to someone in your community who comes to you for counsel... when they have taken a definite decision to follow their own path, which does not concur with your understanding of which path they should take.
Are you able, humbly, to say, "Ok, you way is not the way I would chose, but I respect you for it and step back without criticism, because I cannot know your destiny... it is not for me to judge." Such a statement from you would require unconditional love.
This would also be a very difficult stance to take on your part, in view of the fact everyone sees you as the person to look up to, standing firm in your beliefs.I've thought about that, Jonny, and I think the best response is, "What do you think?"
That's not an evasion. I've been putting myself out there in these forums for quite some time now. Sometimes I do it better than others, but I think that anyone who has been watching me over time should have some idea of what I would say in such a situation. And there are people who are watching me closely. Not a large number, I'm no thought leader or anything like that. And I don't confuse "looking at" with "looking up to." Some may be looking up to me, many are just watching to see if I stay consistent, and some are looking for any pretext, no matter how forced, to try to rip me apart. You and I were in pretty constant contact for a while, and although you've missed some stuff I think you've got a good idea of what I think and how I would handle a situation. So, if someone came to me for counsel and they decided to reject it after I gave it, how do you think I would act?
"Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?"
As any good makeup artist will tell you, it's not what you got, it's what you do with it. If your knowledge leads to truth, or lets you show others truth (and this is not just about the Bible,) then you're "right." If not, then you're "wrong."
Slavery existed for far too long in the USA, to be sure. Those who wanted to maintain it did unquestionably quote the Bible and claim Christianity. Ironically, so did those who wanted to abolish it. And this argument actually went on from the very founding of the country. Those who used the Bible to "support" slavery had a habit of picking out a few verses and not taking the entire book into account.
I've never hidden who I am or what I beleive or why. So I think you will believe I'm being honest when I tell you that I don't think being gay is an automatic disqualification for salvation. But the New Testament has a long list of actions (including theft and lying) which, if being actively engaged in, will keep you out of Heaven.
Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say. I study the Bible and the history thereof and its effect on history because that is the personality and the interests God has given me. I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known.
Let me go on record as saying today: I LOVE PEOPLE...ALL PEOPLE! I HOLD NO HATRED FOR ANYONE I DO NOT HOLD HATRED FOR HOMOSEXUALS. People are people and sin is sin whatever what the sin is and God determines what is sin and we as people cannot pick and choose what He has determine to be so. We Christians are all mandated by God to love all people. We are mandated by God to not like sin...that means my sins, your sins...every sin..."for all have sinned". The term hate sin means that we are to detest or stay away from or avoid...that term is not built on hatred as in hatred for people hatred in the sense of the emotion.
Let's put aside Paul for a moment because he did not fulfill the requirements of an apostle as Peter gave us in acts; only Paul claimed Paul was an apostle; and we are not of his Church. So the only claim that his word was the word of God came from him and the Dark Ages Catholic Church who included his letters because they suited their theology.
Now let's look to Jesus instead. He spoke about money, adultery, hypocrisy, and legalism, but never once homosexuality. Does that not strike you as rather odd?
Let's pretend Paul was speaking his own opinions, much like pastors do today, and his letters were removed from the bible, how does your views on homosexuality change now?Wait a minute. Peter did recognize Paul. He said what he wrote was scripture. People are hard on Paul. Don't forget he was the same guy who said, "Accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to pass judgement on his opinions."
He also said, "Do not wrangle about words or controversial issues. It leads to the ruin of the hearers."What I'm trying to get at is that we blindly accept that Paul's words are scripture because a committee voted for him a couple hundred years later. I see no reason not to accept his teaching as simply expressions of his opinions as any preacher today. We don't have to agree with him, and we can disagree in good conscience. Jesus did not talk about homosexuality and we should defer to Jesus before Paul.
Well, you are right. I can not think of a single instance of Jesus talking about homosexuality at all. Maybe it would not be out of line to assume that he invited homosexuals to his dinner parties. The religious leaders of the day were always getting bent because he was hanging out with the wrong kind of people. God would never do such a thing!
Like JDFLOM has written in reply to your post, I don't accept the premise that I have to accept the existence of a "god" in order to control my morality. Certainly I don't accept that other humans are entitled to sit in judgment of me, simply on their own interpretation of the book. I respect the fact that you are a pastor in a church and are required to adhere to a certain set of principles and understandings.
For me there is ample good sense obtained from intelligent consideration of life as I find it, in the time that I live, in relation to others of my peers and fellows. Let me try to explain. (I was trying to start a new Hub on this subject, but currently my Internet connection does not allow that. So, hopefully this Comment, in the Thread, will allow my points to expand a little in the discussion.)
This thread, like so many others on the topics of homosexuality and religion, will never progress beyond bias, argument and rhetoric. Maybe it's time we all looked at the reasons sexuality in general is such a “hot topic.” Why has it always been an area of human life so radically fraught with difficulty and conflict?
Sex and sexuality, intimate relations, are and always have been one the strongest seats of emotions. This is the way it's meant to be. In order for the species to reproduce, it requires a lot of enjoyment to be promised during the “act.” The “chase” is full of hormone fervour. All the 5 senses come into play big-time, plus the mind and its psychology add up the excitement. The dream and fantasy which are promised at the end of the chase spur us on, for both genders, regardless of specific orientation. All this is very fine and gives huge zest for life whilst it lasts.
Yet, once the goal is reached, conquest has been achieved, orgasm has brought a sense of relief, THEN there is the risk of breakdown. Breakdown of the energy which preceded it; breakdown of the desires which were there in the fantasy; some new knowledge of the person you were seeking – like unpleasant smells, or habits, or demands which put you off. The challenge has been won, so you don't need to appeal quite so much now. What does all this add up to? You need to rebuild the relationship, on new bases, if you want it to continue. That is going to take some time and a lot of effort on your own part. Your partner will have to do his/her own bit of the work as well.
Thus, can you wonder that the whole subject of sex, whether it be “gay” or “straight,” has been so weighty in the history of our societies? The various religions have used this potential conflict to control the communities in which they operate. Akin to the politics of the time, control and management of people and their lives has been the main driving force of religion. We see it operating just as much today. We also see hypocrisy. Even the pastors of churches fall down, because they have lied about their own desires and conflicts of passion.
So, I am recommending we drop the thorny subject of homo/hetero acceptance or rejection. There can be no resolution until the majority of us look at the personal responsibility which is involved in ANY intimate relationship.
Let's get real. Let's come down to earth!Only a person who knows absolutely nothing about the Bible would make the statements you are making---every preacher, every rabbi, every priest and every muslim KNOWS that the King James Version of the Bible could not possibly be the WORD OF GOD---not possible---God had nothing to do with the writing of the Old Testament or the New Testament first of all----God did not write anything in the original versions of the bible and neither did Jesus---we have apostles and lawyers and fishermen and others who wrote the old and new testament versions of the bible and in neither one are there any writings from Jesus or from God----and even if they had written anything anywhere in any original versions of the bible history would have clearly documented that---so for you to say that God said this or felt this way about that is just ignorance of the facts----in addition, the KIng James Version of the Bible from which you quote is a very CHANGED version of the ORIGINAL versions and anyone who studies the history of the KJV knows this and would feel ridiculous quoting it's contents as fact---I don't often refer people to Wikipedia, but they have a very accurate accounting of ALL the many translations from language to language and all the editings,(opining) and rewrites from the original versions of the bible into the King James version of the bible and they will inform you as to the fact that 7 whole books were purposely omitted from the KJV and if you ever studied spanish, you must know that languages do not translate straight across ever and the english language has hundreds more words than many other languages which left a lot of room for adding and subtracting verses and books from the original versions of the bible
And not only that, geneticists have known for decades that being gay is genetic--it is a simple matter of X and Y chromosomes and having more of one than the other---which is why gay men seldom grow very little or no facial or chest hair and which is why they want to play with dolls at the age of two or three and which is why they walk and talk like girls and which is why they can dress like women and noone knows they are not women and genetics is the reason why genetically gay women have huge hips and moustaches and why they always work in conventional men's jobs and never ever wear a dress and why they were called "tomboys" as kids for playing rougher than their brothers or for only playing with trucks and not dolls and it explains why most of them walk and talk like men---only a person who has never been around gay people would consider this anything other than genetic---this is the reason why lesbians fight like men and have more testosterone than men and why gay men don't have physical fights typically because like most girls they don't want to mess up their pretty faces---have you ever asked yourself how a person can be born a hermaphrodite??? with breasts and a penis---it's genetic and only genetic and has nothing to do with sinning---I died and went to Heaven and I can tell you first hand that God has nothing to do with our many reincarnations only we decide who and what we will be in the next lifetime and God expects us to live one life loving everyone who crosses our paths and until or unless we live a life in which we do this, we will continue to come back and do it again and again----Love is the only answer not the myths perpetuated by men and only by men in the KJV of the bible---study the whole bible and read the lost books and you will get it tooI saw a boy--a young man--from a religiously conservative Christian background going through the 'coming out' process. Those of us who knew him at that time were very concerned that he would survive it. One look at his face was enough to reveal that this was a soul undergoing tremendous suffering; the conflict between who he thought he was, who he was raised to be, and who really felt himself to be, was nearly fatal for him.
And some speak of how 'homosexuality is a choice.'
The young man did not choose his suffering, only how to respond. Could he have chosen to remain celibate, and so 'sinless?' Presumably. But that would not have made him 'straight,' just abstemious.
And, Scripture notwithstanding, I do not see how that would make him 'holier.'This happens all over the world. We all struggle with sin. However, we are not at liberty to go against the rules. God made a way of escape, Jesus (again by faith). We can take God our problem and he "covers" you with his mercy and begins a work within you to bring you in line. He promised. He knows we can't "be good" w/o him.
Do you take the scripture seriously when it says women should keep silent in matters of religion and let the men handle it, Genaea? Very few of you christian ladies take much stock in these words supposedly written by your god. Perhaps you are one of them? I'll wager your Baptist preacher didn't dwell too long on this particular passage of scripture.
Well, i believe that thatword was amended because so many me decided to deny the truth. Maybe not. Once Jesus came, a lot of things were changed, ie. under the law/ grace. The law has not changed, people are unfaithful. Women biblically spoke for God. Look it up.
So god changed his mind again? Yes, first it was forbidden and now it's okay. Is there somewhere listing all of the stuff once wrong but now accepted in the latter part of the bible? You know, sorta like amendments or something? Oh, let me guess again. "U gotta have faith becuz if UR nt livn rite ur prayers want b answerd"! Am I close?
genaea - your cop-out has again insulted the story which Doc Snow has written! I know you do not mean to be insulting. Yet your blinkered reaction to that story of a young teenager and his deep, deep problems with society's reaction to him, means you cannot face life without your narrow religious prop.
What the hell difference does it make to your life, and your perceived relationship with your god, if you drop the evangelism for just one moment, and JOIN with a fellow human being who is in trouble? I'll tell you! It would make you a REAL human being, instead of a religious hypocrite. Where is the Love in your life? It certainly ain't in your heart, so it must be in your head!Those of us indoctrinated folk cannot survive without God's words. Wea all struggle. The poor young man has no problem that cant be handled through This thing that i have (salvation). Try it.
Wow, that response just seems even more insulting to the young man and to jonnycomelately. I think jonny said some pretty powerful words from the heart and you just dismiss him like that, refusing to even acknowledge his point of view. It seems kind of mean-spirited.
I am a Christian. I believe in GOD, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The one single thing taught over and over again in the Bible is that we are to love.....love......love! If hatred against homosexuals is being taught in a church, any church, then the leader of that church is not teaching the word of GOD. There are so many teens who have considered suicide (many have succeeded in taking their lives) rather than let their families and friends know that they are gay. Others have done this due to harassment. Parents who teach hatred in the home against homosexuals or racism are doing a disservice to their children and are not following GOD's word. We have all been created equal and each person needs love and respect. Hate crimes disgust me and unfortunately I see more and more people guilty of them. I always ask myself, what if it were my son or daughter and that truly is the question that people need to ask themselves. I love my children without putting limits on that love. Parents who can't say that do not deserve to be parents. God does not limit his love for me either and I can certainly extend that same kind of love to others.
Please read my piece AGAIN...there is absolutely NOTHING about hating homosexuals or anyone else. My entire pece was and is about the unchanging and grace filled love of God. But as a Christian yu and I must rely on His Word as that standard for our lives and His Word doesnot condone homosexuality...period
I agree.
I love everyone equally, irregardless of their choices.
But God doesn't say keep sinning, it says turn away from all iniquity.
I understand people have trials, but denying what God expects is not grace, it is rebellion.
If one seeks God, then one has to come seeking God's will, and that is certainly not homosexuality. And the same goes for any sin.
No one needs to hate ANYONE. EVERYONE needs love, period.
But you can't expect forgiveness for a sin you won't confess...Lot of But's in there. " I love everyone equally, irregardless of their choices. But... No one needs to hate ANYONE. EVERYONE needs love, period. But...
All these but's leave me to suspect you don't love everyone equally, that's just something you say to make you feel good about yourself before you say BUT...Yes. It's hard to give a child candy or a hug while they kick, scream, flail their arms and run in rebellion because they can't have the firecrackers..
Suspect all you want, but you don't know anything about me.
Your accusations are empty little fella, and I'm not the thread topic.
Careful implying ugly slander on people.. It's wrong.
I'm not a liar sir.
You are "passing the buck" when you say "it's God's will."
It is HUMANS, ill-informed and biased-thinking humans, who make the judgement. Yourself included. So, when you stop using a book to support your beliefs and arguments, and instead get back down to earth, then we will all be happier neighours.That "book" is all you will hear about from me.
Go attempt to force other people to be silent.
I'm not "passing" anything. If you aren't happy it's your own fault.
Christ makes me happy. Be unhappy if you need be, I will always serve Him irregardless.
Christ takes precedence. Period.
Kebennett1, yours is one of the most beautiful posts I have seen in HubPages.
Thank you so much.
As they should! Gays are certainly loved as are all by God.
IMO.ack....i haven't sinned......ever....i'm so sick of hearing about 'we, the sinners or whatever'...if you sin, by your definition...then deal with it....no book.....written by some sinner...will dictate what i do, what i think...who i am...f*** that...amen!...get a life......my 2 cents...
You have sinned by anyone's definition and you know it. REPENT!
...maybe tomorrow...k? or some other time..........Most people do like themselves the way they are.
The question is, does God?I think a better question is:
Why doesn't God?
Did He create such foul beings to only have worth in Him? I certainly have value devoid of "Him." I have value because I'm alive. I have value because I am. That's all. The same for each and every person, animal and other living thing. We are not tools proved useless to be thrown away. We are people. People who "make mistakes," which is simply a part of life, and only defined through the eyes of society... If God can't appreciate that, we certainly don't have the husband/wife relationship you keep bringing up.
I can't remember if it was you that said that God doesn't have to compromise for us. That's a one-sided "marriage."Why do you have such a low opinion of God? You have value because you are made in His image, and that makes you infinitely valuable.
You are alive because He gave you life, and He values you, no matter what you do. He doesn't find people inherently disgusting and nauseating. But He doesn't accept just anybody, the same way you and I don't accept just anybody."Why do you have such a low opinion of God?"
He seems to have a low opinion of me... I'm not worth anything outside of Him, which is the only time I am truly me. Otherwise, I'm just a part of Him, and I'm certain its not hard for Him to love Himself.
"You have value because you are made in His image, and that makes you infinitely valuable."
How do I have infinite value, when Hell is even a choice of where I can go? Also, I'm not even "worthy" to be in His presence without a mediator.
"You are alive because He gave you life, and He values you, no matter what you do."
Really? Am I supposed to believe that? He only truly values you if you decide to follow His path. Otherwise you are like a fig tree not bearing fruit, useless, to be cast into the fire; worthless. All the "feelings" don't matter as much as the choices you make. He chose to create Lucifer. He chose to tempt Eve (I'll explain why it was God tempting them, if you like). He chose to create Hell. He chose to be a stickler with His own law. If God's ways are unchangeable, they are something that He is a slave to, as well. Any man can change his own nature. But God, it seems, cannot. And if He can and does, it means that He is imperfect because He makes mistakes.
"He doesn't find people inherently disgusting and nauseating. But He doesn't accept just anybody, the same way you and I don't accept just anybody."
Isn't God's ways supposed to be higher than ours?
But anyway, that's where I'd have to disagree with you. I don't need a person to be what I want in order for me to accept them. I accept my mother. Yes, she's done a lot for me, but she has also done a lot that has damaged me psychologically, emotionally. She has a very oppressive personality, and I don't like her very much. But I love her, and accept that she is who she is, though who she is isn't what I want or needed out of a mother, but I understand why she's that way due to her experiences being abused physically and emotionally as a child, and an incessant need for approval. We're both human. We both make mistakes. I'm no different from her in that regard. I don't like everything that she does or says. But I "accept" her. And I know she needs me, otherwise she would really be even more lonely.
God should be able to accept just anyone, but even if He can't, WHAT HE WANTS ISN'T ALL THAT MATTERS. We learn that growing up! Just because I want you to be a certain way doesn't mean you are obligated to be that way because I want it. That's selfish of me. How can I get offended for you being you! You have the right to be you! I can give you suggestions, advice, warnings, but at the end of the day, I am me, and you are you. We are different, and THAT'S OK. At least, that's how I see it. There are people I don't like being around because of their personality types, but I wouldn't ever want them to go to a place like Hell, nor if I had the choice to, would I create it.
I certainly have friends who aren't always pleasant to be around, but we have common ground in our humanity, and I accept that they are different from me. The people closer to me are the ones more similar to me, of course, but I don't shun anyone. I certainly disagree with people. (I have avoided certain people from my past, but that's a different story).
After reading what I wrote, you'll probably say, "why don't you approach God that way." I would say because, 1) I don't believe in this God, and 2) "He" is a different case. I accept people because they are people, and because it's kind of not my right not to accept them, I don't know if that makes sense. We're all "flawed," unique, bleed the same blood , go through some of the same sh*t in this world. And many go through different things. But we're all trying to make it on this planet together. I accept that.Well, you have a good username
where do I start? You have a lot of word andfeeling behind this air that you speak of. Sarcasm, yes. God is real. He don't operate the way you think he should. Ut you don't know everything. If he did things your way, there would be no such thing as bad/good. Let him drive...he knows the way.But YOU do know what God means in his cryptic rulebook, right? All Hail the disciple and Biblical interpreter, genaea!
Which seminary did you attend for your godly certification of Biblical interpretation? I'll wager it was the same as mine!
Believe it or not... I am still learning. this one thing I do know, God has never failed me. I've had many problems but God is always there to carry me through it. He can be that for you too.
No thanks. The other gods have a better offer if I so decide to relinquish my soul to an invisible deity. They do not demand I insult other people with my presumed righteous the way your god does. All of the other gods think yours is crazy anyway. A self esteem problem, they say.
I already answered this one. You are more valuable than you know.
Thank you sir, but I know that I am, it just has nothing to do with "God." So are you, and every other being with life on this planet.
Thank you, but if that's what you believe then you don't know how much you are truly worth.
I don't doubt that you believe you are worth a great deal. You should, and I don't want to take that away from you. But to truly understand that you are made in the Image of God, that is something almost incomprehensible. It's wonderful. Nothing can compare.
That was a very powerful article and I loved it! Thanks for sharing that. LOVE can change our perspectives. Sigh. But I can see from comments here that some still don't get it and that's heartbreaking.
Let's go right back to where this Hub started. After literally hundreds of back-and-forth arguments, from people who think they have a special relationship with "god," it has got us absolutely no where of any use at all.
I have come to see all those steeped in their christian dogma as having one basic outlook: they are professing christianity for themselves, because it gives them a sense of authority. They can point a finger at anyone whom they think is a sinner, then declare that "god" doesn't like the sinning, so the sinner better watch out!
When anyone chooses to counter their argument, the secret weapon is the statement that the laws are made by "god," an invisible, infinite 'being' who looks down on us in the manner of a very strict, father-like school master. Because we cannot see this School Master, but need a special relationship with the 'holy spirit' in order to read Him and understand Him, we have no defense in the argument. The christian wins hands-down. There is always more "mystery" they can call upon, to meet any argument at all.
So, folks, this argument and this Hub will never come to an end. At least, not a profitable end for us "sinners." Is there a more edifying discussion we can have, where it will not be infiltrated by gospelers?This discussion has touched someone. It is neccesary to explain the points of the faith to those who wonder. Differing pov creates an option. Do you realize that it takes faith to not believe in God. You do believe something..'
Yes, now I do believe you are a Baptist, Genaea. Who informed you "it takes faith not to believe in god"? Or is this in the bible too?
Faith is believing w/o seeing. You believe a LOT that im sure you've never seen. You just eish to believe that ourposition is wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person, just wrong...in our opinion.
See, I asked you a question and this is how you answer it? You did not say who told you this at all. You could at least say, "no one told me, I made it up cause it sounds good" or you could say "the preacher said it," or "it's in the bible". Instead, you go rambling along about faith and how wrong I am about your position.
This is why I posted to another about your not answering questions. So try again if you want any respect from those you are attempting to communicate with, or simply don't ask any questions yourself. I am not impressed with your communication skills thus far, Genaea.
No you didn't Genaea. I asked who told you "it takes faith to not believe in god? So who was it again? I must have missed your answer!
Oh. Takes faith to believe in evolution. Science. The texts that say Jesus had a wife' the fact that all other religions, cults, doct rt ines uv come across have any merit or carry any weight. Uv just kinda let ur faith loose to do its own thing. You justbelieve in...what again???
Still no answer as to who told you this? I give up trying to get a straight answer out of you, Genaea. you are no better at backing up your statements than Bible Studies. You simply throw out statements with absolutely no way to back them up than other than inanities.
You are a prime example of the harm done to a child when they are indoctrinated into the Christian faith at an early age. Every bit of their reasoning ability is destroyed and they simply answer any question with "I have faith and that's good enough for me. I hope your questions are answered in the same silly manner.
Good luck convincing anyone with any reasoning ability to join your cult. Better catch them young before they have a chance to learn to think for themselves, like you apparently were introduced into the "faith"! Now I understand why you are like you are.
I neglected to tell u who told me bcuz I honestly feel that it wud b obvious to you given my examples. None of us were eyewitnesses to any of them. I didn't need anyone to tell me it takes fsith to not believe in God bcuz of what faith is. to dismiss the idea of God means to adopt another idea of which u do/did not witness. Faith, we all have... In what, makes the diff. Now ur not answering questions... Where does your faith lie?
And you would be correct, Genaea. I honestly did know you were stating something you could not prove. It works well on children, but not so much on adults who are not afraid to ask questions about things which make absolutely no sense at all. All religions use this same tired rule. Indoctrinate the kids to be afraid to doubt the inspired word of god. Just don't tell them common men made it up. Am I close?
I knew this also. Some ancient religious cults demanded the children of their followers for sacrifice to their gods. Those parents had faith in their priests and in their gods. Is your faith as strong as those who freely gave their children up for sacrifice? Is your faith strong enough to give up your child--if you had one--for sacrifice to your god? Surely your faith would be stronger than that of idol worshipers, right?
Where does my faith lie? That is a very easy question to answer and unlike you, I won't beat around the bush with "I don't need anything concrete to claim something outrageous" type responses.
My faith lies in my own common sense, my own logical mind, from reading over ten thousand books in my lifetime--your old myth book included--and from personal observation of, and with, human beings. And I promise you, I've learned much more about you than you have about me. Long before you finally told me, I suspected you were a Baptist. I attended a Baptist church for perhaps 16 years until I was old enough to escape the masses of self righteous judgmental, hypocritical, godly, chosen ones. Piece of cake!
Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of what I was taght comin up, ok? I read it for myself. I tried it, over and over snd it worked. I am positive of my conviction. And since I know that you know you had no hand in the formation of little rg in the womb. You must know that there is more to it than just u....??? Please dont tell me ur that delusional. If not, then u rrturn to my former statement that your faith just hangs loose??? U don't REALLY know what you believe??? No wonder...uv thought yoursrlf into a corner. Don't feel safe there so u must try to convince others to hopelessly flounder as such??? Quick, call upon the name of Jesus, he can help you sort it out.
No, I didn't say I don't know what to believe. We're loosing something in translation it appears. I believe I am here now. I don't believe there is a god so cruel he would create people and then allow them to suffer so much pain and death. Or that he would choose the most uneducated people to try and convince others to follow him. Or that he would place his messages in a book in such a way as to confuse every single group of his followers. They all believe differently or otherwise there would only be one group of them. If he wanted followers why would he do this?
Hey...FOUL!!! U gave me a long list of what you DON'T believe. Your here/now existence and your book readns aint satisfied your thirst. What do you be"ieve Randy??? The Lord wants us to choose him. All the suffering in the world is due o the hate that humans through evil and pridefilled spirits display. We decide what we do. God is not going to put his hand in the back of your densely packed with knowledge head to form the words, "yes, Lord” he waits for us to decide to choose him. At the end he wants to hang out with the ones who did for eternity. That simple. Come and go with me Randy. Love, joy, and peace, are just a few of the benefits.
You can only read, you can't think. So why try to convince somebody who can think and prove yourself a fool to the world? Why can't you keep your discussion with other delusional or indoctrinated people who'll say amen to whatever you say and may even consider you a saint?
Randy, how many ancient baby slayings for My God did you witness??? Better yet...got any photos???
This is your answer? Same old routine, huh!
I give up, Genaea. I tire of trying to get answers from you. Goodbye.
You persist in the ranting on about what the bible says. All the time you keep doing that, there are homosexual people being vilified for what they are and what people think "they do."
There are individuals here who have a big, big problem with sex. Vector7 has admitted himself that he is one. This bible thumping stuff is nothing but a big cop-out! Some use it as their pseudo-authority to judge and preach to others. Some use it as an excuse to cover over their own sexual desires.
At least one person here has been honest enough to shout: "BORING!" It is boring, and I would have deserted you all long ago had it not been my fear that you are doing harm to so many peoples' lives. You are displaying anything but love for others.
Get your heads out of that bible. Get to looking inside of yourselves and finding the true Self within you. Use the help of a professional NON-BIASED person to help you get to grips with your confused mental state.
LAY OFF bashing of people who's sexuality and social needs you don't understand. Deal with your OWN life, get the plank out of your OWN eye first.
EVERY PERSON IN THIS HUB who has a problem with queers, YOU have your own inner work to do. The sooner the better for all concerned.Woe jonny, I haven't seen any gay "bashing" since iv been in this forum. Vector7 share his issue as a way to demonstrate "no judgment" only what the bible says. We speak of it often, for it is our (Christians> those who believe it's message about Christ) blueprint for navigating this thing calld life. We believe that it would free you too. God is in control and we follow bcuz we know hes ight. And we know he has already won the fight. Please join us if you want to realize that all the studying you do only leaves you with more questions. God has all the answers.
To people like myself and probably jonnycomelately, (I don't mean to speak for you, sir), the belief in god brings more questions than answers. That's just a personal difference that won't change. For vector, whom I do consider a friend, and yourself, you just see things differently. You can't really claim that it's right because of the overwhelming lack of evidence and contradicting evidence. For the same reason, I don't claim I am right, I just go with what seems most logical to me.
I wouldn't say there is direct gay bashing going on in this thread for the most part, but to take what you believe is god's word and condemn the behavior, is just a round about way of taking a stance on it. If you did approve of it, you could say, "well, the bible says this, but I think different , etc.," But, since you do not, you are taking "god's words," as your own and projecting them, and thus you are adding to the bigger problem by not really accepting/tolerating gay people.
I think you are entitled to your opinions, even if they are in the area of bigotry, and for whatever reason you want to claim; my only beef is when things are unethical or unfair, as I don't believe gays should be treated any different than straight people and the bulk of the laws that cause inequality are usually from a religious agenda, which is wrong since we are not a christian only nation, and are supposed to have a separation of church and state.Sorry, i missed this post earlier. To answer... I am not against anyone. Fornicators, homosexuals, cheaters, liars thieves, murderers, etc. are all under the same category, sin. God and ideas as such are all illogical. You must have faith to believe all of the things that discredit the bible. It's all a atter of WHERE you place your faith... We are all labled "sinner" except God let his children add further "saved by grace" Learn of him w/o logic. Our minds are too little. We just can't take it ALL in. but, when u follow one who does know it ALL, The Father. You can't lose
peace is one of the benefits. You just realize that you don't have to know it all. I can never "think differently" than the bible, it sved my life. If u wanna do like me, please do. If not, i can handle that. I came, like Jesus, for the one who is lost. you obviously have found your wayInterestingly enough, we have found that the vast majority of believers here and most likely everywhere are indeed liars, which means they're all equivalent to murderers, based on your "thinking"
It would then be appropriate we refer to your quote here each and every time a believer lies about something.I don't want to have to quote this every time a believer posts! Perhaps HP could simply put a button on the bottom of the message box we could click which would automatically post her quote? Good idea ain't it?
And that's most of my point. We are all guilty. It takes a kind and loving God to forgive us and mske us clean because of faith in him.
No, we are not ALL guilty.
It takes a sick and maniacal god to lump homosexuals in with murderers.You can do no better than he. He makes the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't. No... I cannot show you a pic of the Lord writing the word on the stone. By faith... I know it happened. Place YOUR faith...wherever you want. God-given rght, agree or not.
Yes, by far.
No, he doesn't.
I would never follow the hatred your god exhibits and teaches.
No, you've been indoctrinated to believe.What's in a name??? You can turn your frown upside-down if you say yes, Troubled. Hate is not God's department. Check with your God, or yourself, if thatis where your faith is. It is still your baby, rock it and put it to bed. In other words, choose ye this day.
I'm not frowning.
Yes, hatred is God's department.
I would not choose the hatred your God exhibits and teaches. You yourself clump homosexuals in with murderers, that is just some of the hatred the bible has taught you.Heaven just lost a great orator. Unless you wish to change your mind some time in the future. God will always wait for you.
Why would I change my mind to follow hatred?
And, he will teach hatred always.Go where? Is that some threat of eternal hellfire?
I have come to the conclusion we will all end up in some eternal hellfire. Though, I have to believe with the amount of homosexuals who have been banished there over the years (at least in the eyes of the religious right) have probably spruced it up a bit. For all we know, it is probably a pretty fantastic club or chicly built series of condos.
:: shrug ::
Just a thought.Ok, but you have one more thought coming.
just kidding. I fon't know how heaven will be set up for sure. But i want to go. You dont have to. You have options.I'm sure heaven is very nice and would love to go, but I am not going to live my life for something that may or may not happen. I figure if being a good person, with good morals and who helps old ladies across the street when they need it and makes a conscious effort not to swear (more than twenty times, a day) is not good enough to get into heaven, then it's a pretty empty place.
I really think you might be right, Janikon.... haven't you noticed that beautiful silver lining on the edge of the clouds up there? And the beautiful pinks and blues, etc., especially in the early morning, when the new day promises so much?
Very Gay !
Away from our side. I thought you werechanging your mind.
Your side? Why would I want to propagate delusions, lies, bigotry, racism and hatred, many of the characteristics that make up your religion?
I suppose if I had a frontal lobotomy, I might consider it.Lobotomize yourself.
kidding, again. You have convinced me that you are sure of your position. I cant force you to surrender. Done???Have Christians ever misinterpreted Christian scripture, genaea? Is it possible Christians are misinterpreting scripture now when they say they're absolutely sure G-d hates homosexuality?
God gives interpretation. Some get it wrong. But it seems clear on that point.
I'm glad you used the word "seems" because many disagree with you, and that clarity is really just your opinion.
Many Christians in the past were sure that the Bible said that Africans were supposed to be slaves of Europeans, because of the sin of Ham. What was wrong there: G-d, scripture, or their interpretation?I think my biggest issue when it comes to the 'word' of God, or whatever else is written in the bible is that these stories started verbally. They passed through generations being told by word of mouth before they were committed to page, and since then have gone through several rewrites over the generations.
I cannot believe that what we read now in the bible is the same that were told to 'his' followers initially. Playing broken telephone is such a fun game because no matter how many people are playing, whether it be five or thousands, the message will always be different from how it started. Why do we put so much stock in something we cannot be sure is the same message that was initially intended?
Is there some 1-800 number we can call for verification?I agree with you. I'm Jewish, and we know our scripture is very often ambiguous. The rabbis have said so over the ages, and it's obvious even when you make an honest attempt at translation. That's why interpretations often evolve.
Christians do the same thing, but they tend to be oddly insistent that their current interpretation is the way it's been since "the beginning."I believe learning there is a certain degree of ambiguity within religious teachings is extremely important, especially when teaching children. I think this will allow them to form their own opinions without the guilt of going against something 'as set in stone'.
I think over the course of the last twenty years, we have seen firsthand how certain religious ideologies have been altered by scientific fact.I agree. Indoctrination is unhealthy for children, and telling them that observable reality is not true when it conflicts with (an interpretation of) scripture is just absurd. Nothing is set in stone, least of all our knowledge of how the world works.
The world we percieve is nothing more than chemical responses, conditioned in such a way as to release certain preset doses, in such a way that suits the individual. In this way, no one person has a complete, universaly accepted answer. Great things are apt to occur, in the midst of a group effort. Let theists stay in their caves, we in the material world shall forge ahead.
There are things that are set in stone. Walking around life with more questions than answrrs is absurd. you can never know everything. God makes us ok with that.
You can't get blood or even water out of a stone, genaea. Nothing in this world is set in stone to the point of finality. EVERYTHING is subject to change. We all of us here (at least the thinking people here) hope that your mind will change, just a little bit for the better.
That's what happens when you are obsessed with perfection, and live in a world of black and white.
I like the children of the black and white, their a likable shade of grey. One right answer creates a wrong answer and therefor the same in reverse. I don't see any side as being fully correct or fully mistaken, they are equally facets of individual attitude and condition.
I can't be gray. My faith I God is solid. No perfect humans. God is perfect, that's why we need him.
If Jesus were here he'd probably wop you up side the head!
Of course! No doubt in my mind. I truly have "faith" he would! They didn't take any trash off women back in those days! They still don't in some places over there. Yep, Jesus would have told you to get back in the house and shut the hell up! Well, perhaps he would have said heck instead, because he was such a nice guy you know!
Well, Genaea, if God is perfect and we were created in his image then we must be exactly who he created us to be, whether it be homosexual, lesbian or heterosexual - if what you say is true, that he is perfect, then he does not make mistakes and perhaps, humanity has corrupted the 'word' of God.
You cannot have it both ways.
You cannot assert that he is perfect and there are no shades of gray in belief of that one staggering fact but yet state we should follow the bible - a mortal creation - which directly states we are all sinners, we are all imperfect and gives us an unliveable set of rules to abide by.
If we were simply suppose to live our lives like mindless automatons, then he wouldn't have granted us freewill.Forget the reasoning, truth, logic, facts, history, examples, charts, graphs, quotes, etc., I've tried all that and she ain't gonna fall for it. Now if you have some 2000 year old hearsay, she'll listen to you.
What? How dare you not own a bible! I believe this is a stoning offense in Southern Baptist Churches in the US. But perhaps it's different in Africa, though.
Sorry I can't advise the same for you. Jim Jones tried it using the same reasoning you promote here, and Kool-Aid shares took a drastic plunge in the stock market.
No, Jim was not on this train. He was narcissistic kinda like... well nevermind, God is always available, as long as you breathe.
You mean like thinking only he knew what the bible really meant and how others were going to hell if they didn't believe the same as he did? Yeah, I know the type.
No! Be clear. He had a lot moregoing on than that. Surely you know that with the way you study. You must rely on something. Now if you think you have all the answers by yourself, takea s tab at it.
I've stabbed until my arm's tired. Sometimes you just can't penetrate willful ignorance.
I do indeed have reliance on things, Genaea. Real things. I rely on each individual to believe as they wish without telling them they are going to suffer some terrible fate if they do not believe as I do. I don't think anything bad is going to happen to you, even if you are hopelessly lost in your own judgement of others. Isn't there some scripture you could quote about judging others you are familiar with? But I'm sure only you can decide what it means.
Well, I believe I'm ready to put you on Randy's Wall Of Shuns. Not too many folks have made this very short list in the 3 years I've been here. You will be in the proud company of a divorced homophobic fundamentalist female, a mystical moronic Mormon priest, and a revolting right wing republican male. Adding another befuddled, brainwashed, Baptist believer to the mix should round out the number nicely. Congratulations! Think of how easy it will be not having to deal with me anymore. Have a good life!
Mindless? Heavens no! He wants us to do as we're doing...gather all info and decide. That simple. We are free to choose what's real to us.
genaea, those old-fashioned vinyl discs, where the stylus could get caught in a groove, repeating the same old few bars ad-infinitum, went out several years ago. You seem to be stuck in a groove. Can you hop out of it? Is there anything new you want to tell us?
Nope! My message is ages old. Though your discus is a bit scratch too. But I believe you worry about the road you're on. You're just so sure of, not much. I am sure of what I'm saying. You cannot be. All of the info to discredit what I say has been intentionally present ed. You must choose which is real to you. Faith in God. Faith in scholars of ancient texts who obviously have more evidence for you. I'm sure at least one of them were there.
It's very obvious that you have some psychological need to be stuck in that groove. You have the limelight here in this Hub. You revel in that limelight. It's like a performer on stage that never wants to get down from it. He/she is addicted to the attention.
There is nothing intelligent about what you are on about. Others here have warned us not to bother with you. I tend to agree with them. So I will not continue a discussion with you. You are boring, repetitive, closed to anything else and, no doubt you will have the last say here.
There have been many good people here, over the past few weeks, some of whom I have agreed with, some I have not. Yet they have been worth listening to because at least they have some willingness to listen to different points of view. I have enjoyed their input.
But you are intolerable. Nothing to do with the message. Nothing to do with you as a woman, as a dark-skinned person, as a person with a christian persuasion. Most other things about you which we can discern from the post you have presented are at least acceptable, even if we don't agree with them. I and others have appealed to you for a broader discussion, yet you are unable, or unwilling to expand your thinking. So - wallow in it. Suit yourself.
I have better things to do, in particular searching for intelligent people for worthwhile discussions.
How much of ancient history do you believe? What have you placed your faith in? You cant prove or disprove many ideas on what is true from the world's origin up to the time of Jesus. You want to believe another book? Ok
I was not attempting to prove or disprove anything, I was simply asking how so many people can be so sure the words they are reading, that they mould their lives around, are actually the teachings of God. I honestly do not think anyone can state without a shadow of a doubt that they are.
The faithful, in God is sure that he speaks through the bible. It takes faith. Faith that God is real, and an earnest heart. He does not leave us hanging. He speaks to our hearts and often confirms what he told your heart through others. It's an awesome phenomenon!
Ok, let's see you put some of that into action, genaea, instead of spouting words, words, words, about what you see in your bible.
Your total immersion in that book seems to be all you know about being a christian. There seems to be no substance to what you regard as love.
Get out, get off the keyboard. Go do some hands-on dirty work amongst the down and out. Tend to their earthly, bodily, human needs. Don't for one moment tell a hungry, desolate person that their answer lies in a belief system. Leave that choice entirely up to them. Your duty is just to care for them.
Are not africans sort of slavelike?? The curse? Havent looked into the specifics. However, we mus be somewhat cursed. But it doesn't matter. The Lord's favor has touched many of us. Only one opinion really matters. Selfishness and pride confuses the scriptures because man always wants to expand the borders of the word so that their desires can be quenched w/o consequences.
Wow. I haven't noticed that the African Americans in my life are particularly slave-like. As the mother a young black man I must say that I am offended. I am also confused as I can't even bribe him to clean his room...let alone get him to plant a cotton field.
Genesis 9:20–27 Ham looked on his father drunken and naked and his son Cannan (and subsequently all offspring... ie cannanites and a bunch of other dark skinned -ites) was cursed. Conservative Christians used these verses to prove that blacks were hated by God and as a justification for slavery and later for fighting the civil rights movement. The KKK still uses these verses in propaganda and on their websites. Not to poke too much but if a white unitarian knows this then why doesn't a black Christian?I nearly spit out all my juice, laughing. Thanks, now I'm sticky, Melissa.
LMAO! And I prided myself on never making anyone sticky over the internet in my life. Thanks for ruining it for me
Well, consider it ruined, I just had to change my pants. I should have known better than to have anything in my mouth when reading comments you have left.
There is absolutely no way that I will reply in specific to anything in that post. Being banned sucks.
Wow, I really felt that I made it clear that I hadn't researched the subject. As a black woman, i have see first hand, the plight of the black, in our country. The stats are staggering. However, I personally feel that, curse or no, God makes a difference in our lives. Now, I never meant to offend you. It wasn't my intention. I only meant to express my opinion on the "curse" matter. It just is not important enough to me either way. I know who holds my future.
Which is it, conservative Christians or the KKK? The two are not synonymous. I'm a conservative Christian and a white man and I've never thought, let alone tried to "prove" that blacks are hated by God.
genaea, for me the colour of a person's skin is totally irrelevant. Having spent 2 years in East Africa, and just this past month spent a lot of time amongst Haitians and Cubans, for me the darker skinned peoples of this world are the cream of the earth. I love them. Not saying every person is a "good" person, of course, or I would want to be his/her friend. That would be totally unnatural and unusual. Each one of us chooses a friend for a multitude of reasons. But it does not mean those who are NOT our friends are any less worthy.
One reason I never visited South Africa during the Aparteid years, was that I refuse to let anyone say who I can be friends with. In those years, I would not legally have been allowed to get close to an African person. So I stayed away.
If you, or any one in your Baptist camp even suggested that I, as a caucasian person, was in any way superior to an African or Indian person, then maybe I will see you in Hell!You're kidding right? Surely you are not suggesting that I would infer that Caucasians are superior to anyone. My point has always been that God is the way to abundant life. The slave thing is something I generally don't touch. It is obvious in this country that black skin is the beginning of much unnecessary red tape. I will write on it. But God accepts all who come to him without prejudice.
The God of anyone's choosing, is the right God. If there was only one way to God, then certainly there would only be one way. However, this is a big planet, there are alot of people and unfortunately for some, none of them think in exactly the same way.
Amen! We have all kinds of ways to God. But only one way is correct once we get there. Make no mistake about it. Take it or leave it. We are his children. He helps to cover and alleviate our imperfections when we trust Him.
To put the title of correct on your own belief, is to drive your argument in a one sided direction. If there is ever to be compromise, there must be no right or wrong. If there was one way to God, there most certainly would be only one way, but there are many and their all individualistic... As in the prority of the one person, that is everyone....
There must be compromise in Christianity, there must be compromise in any religious institution. I firmly believe humanity would not be able to thrive in such a rigid and unbending religious institution, especially for those who live their lives for these institutions.
Faith in God cannot be compromised. Humanity will not thrive. Passing away. To me, and many others. Once God heads your life, you agree with his word fully, even though you are unable to follow without God.
If you truly followed your God, you'd be commiting genecide and salting the earth.
I'm heaving real trouble understanding what your last statement means. Please rephrase.
Because the tenets of said discipline are insane, completely unwavering and empirical in it's communication.
Here you go again, genaea ! Can't you see it? Your brain is in limbo! You DO judge. You use your preconceptions about the bible to apply that judgment. You PRESUME that I and others NEED what you have got in your beliefs.
BUTT OUT OF PEOPLES' LIVES! Believe what you want for yourself. The world is full of people like you who make it their business to direct other peoples' lives. Your convenient use of the biblical scriptures to bolster your authority DOES NOT WASH WITH ME.
This is why I am still in this Hub. To counter the rubbish that you and people like you are pouring into the world.
There is no "god" in control, and your beliefs are not sacrosanct, they are figments of your own imagination. You are not applying Love when you only follow those beliefs.You mad jonny? You are trying to push your beliefson me... You say that i am judging bcuzi say you need the peace of God??? I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I only offer the beauty in my world. I see clearly and i want that for all who would benefit. Now, if u wanna stick around and hear more...ur welcome
im gonna tell it... I have no choice. Im convinced. I have a duty to report that. So please stay with me... I'm wearin u down:) i know he speaks to you... ListenJohnny you are wasting your breath because you aren't seeing the big picture. It has nothing to do with religion for these "Christians"... They would think being gay was an abomination regardless of what the bible said. The bible is a cover for their own hang ups. Christ has always been used as a scapegoat for people to maintain the status quo and force conformity... I guess they will find out how he feels about being used like that someday (or they wont if he doesn't exist)... either way you have to hate the zealot not the religion. The Christian faith-in this case- is like an innocent rape victim being used to feed her attackers need for power and dominance. The Christ I follow wasn't really into that kinda thing... I don't know who they are following but it's not the guy in my bible.
Very nicely said. I don't think the point should be to dissuade Christians from being Christians - not to turn the spotlight on you, but you're an example for whom Christianity works for splendidly - but to convince them to be better Christians.
Using a cruel interpretation of scripture as a cudgel to hurt others is a bastardization of what scripture was intended for.Thank God for you Melisssa
Jesus never allowed one to walk away w/o the truth. When the word was challenged, he spoke the truth of the matter in love. Thanks for stopping by
I want to thank you for posting this, I would not have read it otherwise. This article sheds light on the fundamental issue with many religious-based arguments surrounding homosexuality, though many say they 'do not hate' their comments and actions only breed it.
The article also made me smile and now I want a cookie.
I'm a Christian unless you are a murderer, thief, liar, adulterer or whatever your preference is for sinning. Well, Gee, whiz, I think God forgives all of those things so that you can develop the right relationship with Him. But if you prefer not to repent and quit your sinning, Dose God love you. Of course He does but He doesn't like the things you do. And as long as you prefer to do those things, you do not have the right relationship with God. Does that sound as though God may be a right wing Christian?
So, if I'm gay, you're not a christian....are you gay?
No, that sounds like the person objecting is a right-wing Christian, defined by their apparent ability to, and interpret, what he thought and how he felt. Impressive, wish I could get into his head like that. Here's an interesting link, written, not by an arm chair bible reader, but by someone who has studied the subject in depth.
http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/levi … osexualityInteresting hub, Hollie, but it neglects Paul's writings in roman's Chapter 1 and assumes that one ommission nulifies the existence of the first statement.
Paul's writings were dealing with the same things as the Leviticus verses. The same explaination applies (substitute Greek)..
You're right. Paul condemed homosexuality. Can you explain Sodom and Gomorrah?
Paul condemned temple prostitution...The same as what is talked about in Leviticus.
Sodom and Gomorrah, according to the bible, was destroyed because of their ill-treatment of strangers...As the Mosiac laws require you to take care of strangers and to send them on their way with provisions to sustain them to their next stop.The way they treated strangers? Read it again.
Read Ezekiel 16:49.. or my post a few post back...Never mind...I'll post it for ya...
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.Correct. Jewish scripture is full of accounts of the many, many ways Sodomites & Gomorrans were inhospitable and cruel to strangers; they never once talked about gay people. It seems silly to have to make this point, but men raping men is no more a normal gay behavior than men raping women a normal straight behavior. Rape is rape, and it's bad.
Are you ever mistaken...sodom and gomorrah were fills with homosexuals and they wanted t have sex with the strangers who happend to be angels sent by God. the word sodomy (anal sex) comes from sodom because they practiced that act and God destryed them for it...Please read your Bible accurately....I am no novice.
Sorry, I actually have read the Bible. You clearly haven't if you're making that claim.
See, Sodom and Gomorrah were slated for destruction because of their wicked ways. Abraham went back and forth with God, trying to get them a plea deal. It was no use. No telling what all they were into. They were probably selling real estate backed securities and derivatives, too.
Well, God decided to send a couple of messengers to warn Lot (Abraham's brother). It seems that Lot was a righteous man, and we all know what that means. Save the bull for the tourists. When the sun went down, all the lounge lizards and gutter rats came out to party in the streets. The ring leaders demanded that Lot send his guests out so they could show them how they roll in Sodom on a Saturday night. When Lot got disgusted with them, they said, "Who are you to judge us?"
Sound familiar?
Anyway, Lot begged the godless hooligans to take his two virgin daughters, instead. What kind of Dad would do that? The crowd wasn't interested, they had their sights set on some real fun. Then, somehow, the messengers of God struck the rabble blind. That's when the group made their getaway. Of course, Lot's wife looked back, because she knew she would miss the shopping mall with the nail salon. Then, because of all the destruction, Lot's two daughters got it in their head that they were the only people left on earth. The only way they could procreate was by getting the old man drunk. They did!
The Bible is not so tame.Yep, I got all that. The men trying to rape the guests was the straw that broke the camel's back. Most Jews take the sin to be an attempt to rape (i.e. unwanted sexual violence), not homosexuality. Right-wing Christians are convinced that it's homosexuality (as if had they accepted the offer to rape Lot's daughters, they would have been considered righteous). They seem to be either unaware of or unconcerned with the rest of the Biblical commentary on the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Like I said, I've read the Bible. Many, many Christians who blather on about the "sin of homosexuality" have not.Well, there is a scathing condemnation of homosexuality in Romans. Then, the writer goes on to say, "Who are you to judge, who do the very same things?"
One may say, "I don't do that!"
However, there is presented a list of unacceptable behavior that no one can escape. At the end of the day, we all need a measure of divine forgiveness. It seems to me that my instructions are to start with myself and work my way out from there. Christians are called to serve, unconditionally. Do you need a hand. I will lend mine.
I do not know why people have to stress their personal preferences (whatever they may be) to strangers. It is a shortcoming of our culture that people attach so much of their identity with sex. It is not this way in nature. Monkeys only masturbate in captivity.I'm Jewish, so more familiar with Jewish scripture than Christian, but I do know that Romans recorded Paul's thoughts, not Jesus's, and the term he invented for (what's translated as) homosexual is odd since there was a commonly-used Greek term at the time. Maybe, like in Leviticus, he was talking about something different?
But I take your latter point (in the third paragraph; not the one about public behavior; gays and lesbians don't project anything more about their sexual orientation than straights do).Livelonger,
Paul was referring to exactly the same thing as was written in Leviticus. By Paul's own words he says that his teachings came from the "Scriptures" and the guidance to understand them from the "Risen Christ" whom he never met in person.
He was talking about the male and female "prostitutes" of the temples. And the greek word he used comes from the word for "Man" and the word for "wedding bed".Yes, that is consistent with Torah which talks about male temple prostitution. The "man-bed" compound word in Greek that Paul invents (arsenokoitai) is not the same as the popular term paideraste for homosexual, in wide use in the Greek-speaking world at the time.
I am curious as to why we have these "laxed interpretations" of certian words, instead of attempting to find an english word or phrase that is closer in meaning to the original wording used by the biblical authors...It leads to alot of misunderstanding of the texts...
By the time KJV was translated, the Christian idea of homosexuality being a major sin had already shaped the way the translators interpreted those words.
The Christian obsession with being completely sinless is linked to the idea of hell and eternal punishment (all of this is foreign to Judaism). And if you're heterosexual, then elevating homosexuality to be the paramount sin is an easy way to make yourself look like a saint in comparison.I would agree with the earlier english translations...I, for the life of me, don't understand why we are continuing to do this though...
We are too preoccupied with sex. It is out of balance in our culture and in our identities. Do you think Native Americans had issues like these? They did not spend much time deliberating about natural functions of their body. They lived on a different plane. We could take a lesson from them.
The Roman Legion under Julius Caesar sang a song when they marched back into Rome from a conquest, "Husbands hide your wives, Julius Caesar is back in town. Wives hide your husbands Julius Caesar is back in town."
The Romans got jiggy!
Sir you are handling yourself very well in this thread. I thought the questions were for the christain community as well. You know people tend to do what is best for themselves and think abot God second or even farther down the line. There are many scriptures that shows The Lord's attitude about homeosexuality, but right know I cant find scripture to back it up so I wont argue. Scripture is powerful.
I've just read the hub and would like to invite all fundies to read it.
Don,
According to the definition of an apostle in Acts 1, Paul wasn't one. As far as I'm aware, the only person who called Paul an apostle in the NT was Paul himself. The only writings that Jesus, Paul and the apostles recognised as scripture were the Hebrew scriptures. As a Pharisee, no doubt Paul would have considered it blasphemy that people called his writings scripture.
Taken all together, as Paul's writings are not scripture, we cannot form doctrine fom them. Paul's writings express his views and opinions only and thus he is no different from any Church minister today. We are free to disagree with him with clear conscience, much like the church does over matters of women being silent in Church, women being forced to wear silly hats, and men being forbidden to have long hair.
If, just for the sake of this argument and not accepting the existence of a judgmental god, we accept that "god" doesn't like what a gay person "does," what is it exactly? What action or set of actions are you talking about?
If a person claims to be "a christian," (whatever the characteristics of a christian are), what exactly will happen to him if he persists in doing the things in answer to the first part of this question?
@jdflom The thread specifies Christian and Gay. It has nothing to do with any other belief. Other beliefs may be valid, but this thread specifically is the person is Christian in all instsnces except when it comes to Gays.
I understand that and I read the article, too; but I was responding to gaeparks who stated "the Word of God has to be the standard." I was merely pointing out why that is an incorrect statement by addressing other beliefs.
For the Christian, The Word of God, is the Bible. Without the Bible that would be no Christianity. Therefore, the thread is limited to Christians. If you want to choose another authority as the Word of God, feel free to do so. But is you do the peremise in this thread is voided.
You are incorrect, gaeparks made a blatant statement about the word of god being the standard. If you make it the standard you are invalidating all other religions, atheists and agnostics. Based on that, it therefore makes it more than a Christian issue. I'm not telling you or him you cannot be Christian, I'm saying you cannot make your religious beliefs the standard for everyone else.
You are incorrect and mistaken. What i said is that if you are Chrstain then the Word of God must be the standard we live by...I did not and wuld not attempt to tell anyone what to believe. However, when one calls themself a Christain...then the Word of God is the one and only standard...and that is non-negociable to the Christain.
As I pointed out above, in your initial statement, you did not specify Christian.
Here is YOUR wording: "We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard..." At no point did you specify Christianity with that quote.Yes I am sure that as you just did it is quite easy tp pick at little pieces of what someone says to make your point...the entire piece is one...and I did make the definitive connection between the Christain and the Word of God...but then you have your right to see what you see. However, if you will attempt to quote then get it right and use the entire piece and not just picking and choosing. BTW that is the problem with many Christians...they try to pick and choose what they wish to follow in the Bible as it benefits them. Either way...the mode of my piece does not seperate the Christian from the Word of God being the standard.
I didn't pick and choose -- that was your quote and almost the first thing you said and one of your points.
Here's your entire quote: "We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard and as with all sins the Bible teaches that we are to hate the sin and not the sinner and that has nothing to do with being right-winged." I don't see where you specified Christians.
In addition, if you read my response I said that I was glad you revised and clarified what you said.
Yes, I've heard that version. And also the version that King James was a homosexual. Can you document you your version of that story?
Don't know if King James was gay or not...I do know that his bible wasn't taken from the orginal Hebrew and Greek texts, but from "bibles" of the time...
And there is nothing in the bible that states that Sodom and Gomorrah was filled with gays...Just that they were "sinners"
Gen 18:20-21
20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
And if one reads Ezekiel 16:49
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.Thanks for your post DS I had not noticed this before.
Anytime...Keep the posts coming. I enjoy your thoughts.
How convenient that yoy left out the part of the text that says that Sodom and Gomorrah committed detestable deeds in the eyes of God. The translation of the word detestable deeds is directly related to the Leviticus text about a man laying with another man and the Romans text about male prostitutes and the Jude text about sexual immorality...Please show the entire text and do a more complete research.
Don, with respect to you, I have stated several times over the past months that there is no such thing as "a homosexual." Homosexual is an adjective or advert, depending how it is used.
You cannot point to a person and say "that guy or girl is 'a' homosexual." There are no consistent outward signs of such an orientation. Homosexual people are not consistently effeminate. or sporting weird hair/adornments. We don't have green eyes or horns on our heads. We are not more of a danger to children than heterosexual people. We do not all, consistently, engage in anal intercourse, (although many heterosexual people do).
We are as varied a group of people as any heterosexual group.
So please, could you do us all a favour, and simply regard us as fellow human beings? Give us respect. If there is anything which we do of a hateful or cruel or selfish nature, then of course we will stand up for the judgement of society around us like anyone else.
There is no "god" out there who is going to judge me when I am dead and gone. Any judgement is done by my fellow humans around me, during this lifetime. And it is usually a very inadequate judgement, generally biased and ill-informed.
Exactly, Kenennett1. God loves everyone. But he does not lik the things they do. Every thing would be great if God had not wanted man to repent. But the repent problem leaves everyone in a bind. Otherwise we would go on doing what the carnal mind wishes to do. God still loves us, but he doesn't love what we do.
He doesn't stop loving us when we sin, but if we do not repent, we are out of the relationship with God. What does that mean? It means that God loves you, but not the things you do.King James was a well known homosexual as you'll find out if you study his life. But the OP could easily have read "Love Christ, hate the Christian" and it would also fit well for some believers.
Who care what King James was...hs only contribution to the Bible was a bad translation and that he so happened to be King when the translation was done and therefore his ego put his name on the translation. Now to his alleged homosexualty...if he was nd felt he was born that way and he was king and the hhest human authority...why did he allow the Bible to be transated in a way that speaks against who he was? he could have had the wording changed or omitted completely. Again...that translation has many many naccuracies...you might want to read NIV or NAS they are much more accurate...and they say the same thing as the king ames when it comes to the point f homosexality and how and what God feels about it...period.
I read an interesting point on FB...
"If being GAY was a choice, then when did you decide to become STRAIGHT?"[-1]
lol
Sorry, unless design is useless..
You can't plug a female electrical cord unit, into a female electrical wall outlet.
Functionality states the obvious use of the mechanisms built into the biological human body.
Just because someone likes pink and pretty and is confused about it, it doesn't change the obvious... It just means they are confused mentally and like something that doesn't fit puzzle-wise.
If you like the puzzle pieces mixed up, it doesn't mean you put the puzzle together 'your' way, it means you didn't put it together, and if you think you have and just did it different...
You're confused.
Confused people aren't right just because they think they are right.
They are confused because they are wrong and think it's right.vector -- Hope you're doing okay, I noticed you didn't post for like 2 days, was hoping to chat with you more on your other forum post.
At any rate, obviously for procreation, the male part is meant to go in the female part; but that isn't the only way to enjoy each other (and as science has advanced, not the only way to procreate); and as humans, we have sex for more than just procreation. If someone doesn't want to, that is clearly their choice, but most people also have sex for pleasure.
I know several gay people and they don't seem mentally confused or confused in any capacity. I doubt we will ever come to an agreement on that, but it's how I have perceived them and I couldn't be happier for them that they have found partners that make them happy. In my experience, although I am not gay, being gay isn't a choice; it's as natural as being born with freckles or being born with curly hair.
So, functionality wise, as you put it -- which would be for procreation in my opinion, the normal and obvious pairing would be M and F, but that doesn't have to be the only way.
If you see it as a mental limitation, fine, but know they are happier being gay, and they aren't hurting anyone; so why all the fuss?lol, a mental limitation?
No.. I see it as a choice.
Get anyone roused up enough they're bound to do things abnormal.
I won't go in details here, and think maybe we'll pick up later.
I'm trying to get to a keyboard in a bit, and I'll try to get around to a response on my thread.
I like how you aren't in the repeat, repeat, repeat business. I prefer thoughts.. lol
Talk soon.
-v7
gay and atraight are social words and social standards...the fact remains that if we are all created by God and God is God and devine...then he wuld have to have contradicted Himslef in His own Word..which is impossible. Graple all you want but my stance is that there is not scientific proof of homosexuality being genetic and that God does not condone the life style. However, God does condone and blesses that union between man and woman...period
And there is no proof of there being a God either...So both of our points are moot.Oh but you are so wrong. There are sooooo much proof of God that it is astounding. But...there are none so bling than those who will not see.
Please prove me wrong. I am open to see it...There is plenty that we humans can give God credit for if we so choose. And there is plenty of things we can't explain that we just chalk up to "God did it"
Please show me astounding amount of proof.
And ther is just as much proof in science as well...For those not blinded by "faith" and who choose to accept the facts.
And just so you know...I am a "believer" as well...I may not believe exactly like you do...But I am not so vain as to even consider the reasons I believe as to being actual proof of there being a God of any sort...They are my reasons and my proof...And Since there is no way I could ever "show" these "proofs" to anyone else...I don't make a claim of "truth" that I cannot use facts everyone can actually see as facts and/or accept as facts and make their own decision as to the validity of those facts.Double Scorpion you say you are a believer and will not say what you believe...that brings to question your true faith in what you believe for if you "believe in God' Then He said that we who believe are not to be ashamed of Him before people. That being said...I am a science teacher and have lived a life involving science. Science proves God and research are coming out more and more that shows that. Scientists because of the philosophers of old who were also artists and debaters have created this "gap" between science and God. I can get as deep as you choose but here is one small point.
The human sperm hold no charge. the human egg holds not charge. Mathematically 0+0=0 therefore two existing organisms with 0 charge cannot possibly produce a charge or any kind.
You would agree so far?
At the point of fertilization of a human female egg by the human male sperm and thanks to Alber Einstien who actually develope a unit of measure for this phenomenon...there is measurable energy charge and a measurable flash of what can only be called light enegry at the point and moment of fertilization when the sperm enters the egg and mitosis occurs.
Again...0+0=0
Where did the two sources of energy come from?
What cause the process of mitosis (doubling) into zygotes.
How do two single cell-like organisms become the complex biological system that is the human that we are?
This is a rather simplistic yet complex explanation and question.
the "big band theory" states that and explosion occured...what exploded and where did it come form?
They say the Hydrogen gas started spinning because of gravity...where did the gravity come from as we all know that gravity is the result of an existing object that is spinning and based on its mass vreatyes gravity...so i ask what caused the Hydrogen gas to start to spin?
Double Scorpion I can go on and on
The Bible says that God holds the universe in His hands.
I know it is hard the grasp...but that is where faith comes in and not blind faith...SCIENCE PROVES GOD!!!Since you teach science, I will assume at the bare minimum you hold a BA/BS with a Teaching Cert...But I will say you hold at least a Masters in some area of education (leaning towards science
)
Science is not my area of expertise, although I did quite well throughout my education in this area.
I hold a Doctorate in Biblical Studies. So Philosophy and Religions are my area of interest...
So let me first address your thought on the word "detestable" from your earlier post...Found in Ezekiel 16:50 the word "detestable" ( תֹועֵבָ֖ה---to·v·'e·vah) or the better interpretation of the word "abomination" as defined in Strongs says "something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol -- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
Next I'll touch on your egg and sperm analogy using my layman's understanding...
Human egg is a living cell/organism...Must have a "charge" or wouldn't be living would it? Same with the sperm...
If I take carpet and a balloon, both non-living things and without a "charge" and rub them together I can create a static charge...Does that make me God??? I can create a "charge" from two objects which aren't alive. Using your theory, then it must be so...
Lastly...I am not ashamed of my beliefs...I never said I was...I said that I am not so vain or proud to think my proof of what I believe is actual physical proof that anyone and everyone can perceive, and I am not insecure in my beliefs and so do not feel the need that I need to attempt to prove to others that I am right and hold proof positive.
There are many (not pointing at you, speaking generally), who place complete faith in what is written in their English version of the bible...And they have little to no understanding of what the original language and the writers of the timeframes where even talking about or the context they used in their writing styles. I always highly recommend every single Christian or follower of the bible take two classes...One on the Old Testament and One of the New Testament... A course that actually explains the text, the authors, the style and context of the writings and the actual meaning behind some of the most commonly misunderstood terms used throughout the English translations of the bible.You are correct about my education with the addition of one more degree which is a BA in Biblical Studies...I applaud your Doctoral accomplishment. The example of the living thing with the sperm and egg is inaccurate in that they have no charge...been tested as doctors and scientists have been trying to give reason for the energies that result from conception. The example of the static charge does not make you God but it does adds to reason that there is energy around us...the question is what is the source...I can go into the physics of the ballon and the carpet if you'd like...but the fatc is that they both hold a charge by virtue of their synthetic makeup...whereas the sperm and the egg hold no charge. Just like the human heart hold no charge by itself but can be read by an ECG unit...research this stuff it will amaze you and the existence of God will simply be revealed greater than you can ever imagine...IT IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.
There is an experiment that was conducted by some physics students at NYU where they set up a cpntrolled area with sea salt and with not air movement or any other natural or mechanical effect they introduced pure sound waves that are in the frequencies of speech and the salt moved into first simple geometric shapes and when the sound was introduced with multiple frequences within that same range the salt moved into more complex geometric patterns. You can view the experiment on utube...I think it is still there.
And God spoke...and the earth was formed. Science proves God.
There are other more detailed experiments with a Japanese Doctor and how water reacts to different sounds....an amazing piece.
Show me advance in technology that didn't come from intention of purpose and effort into production of an imagined idea, and I may personally endulge your notion that there is no proof for God's existence.
As it stands innovation comes strictly from intelligent brain power and from NO OTHER SOURCE.
I see many, many extinctions, and no 'evolutions' [macro].
De-evolution is what mankind is in.
I wouldn't have even considered posting this to anyone else, and consider you one of those who admit truth when they see it. [or state how you see it rather than the insult approach. ]
I personally think what I mentioned above states exactly why not believing in God is much less intelligent of a logical choice.
And I also personally think that with all the parallels it should be one of science's subjects of study, as it seems many of the connections are found there rather than the myth of evolution.
Biological flight is not something able to be considered at all a possibility by evolution's stated processes [which are also wrong as none of it is true on a macro scale.]
Does any of this seem true to you?
I agree with the first part...innovation comes from intellegence (brainpower).
Belief in God is not the same as Proof of God. Let's look at what the majority consider as proof...Something tangible in some form or another. This is something we just cannot provide with God...Experiencing God is a spiritual thing and is a feeling that we get that can be explained by nothing else. If someone never "feels" this, then there is no possible way to explain it that they would understand or be able to accept as viable proof. It is kinda like explaining color to a blind person...Unless they actually experience it, it is nothing more than words and cannot be "Proven" to them. We just can't prove it to them, because they have no possible way to "see" the proof.
Those who are the believing type have their "proof" and nothing can talk them out of that...But trying to prove that "proof" to another...impossible to do as we cannot prove a "feeling". The best we can do is show our "proof" through our actions and interactions with others...To many times it seems we say one thing, but act in the opposite of our words and then expect others to believe what we say as "truth".I can respect that post as pretty much true, if I'm understanding all of it correctly I say I agree.
But I think that may just be what seperates those of one kind from another, just as you stated.
Thanks for your thoughts DS, I got some perspective from them.
- jomineposted 12 years ago
0Why you people don't understand, god only condone murder, slavery, adultery and bigotry not homosexuality?
- when did sexual orientation become god's business?
You know it is god that created homosexuals, but he want them to use free will to resist their natural orientation. Just to test their mettle (just like the gladiators who were asked to fight each other and animals). Eternity is boring, why god is not allowed a little enjoyment?
pisean...all human business is God's business...all.
jomine...you make a humanistic correlation to God and that is the error in your reasoning. God does not test anyone...ever. God gives us free will to love Him and each other. Along with that free will comes the will to choose what we do and say and how we live. That goes for all people about all things involving people. The Bible says that it is the desire of God that all will be saved. That is the measure of His love...we choose what pathe we take...he chooses the results of that choice. I teach this concept to kids..."I am different and so are you...and that makes us all the same...different too." There is an old R&B group called The Stylistics who sand a song that says "People make the world go round..."when did sexual orientation become (non-existent) god's business?
Greetings WD and everyone "Hubbing." Still on travels, in Caribbean right now. If you can read between the lines, I am needing some medication today! Usual tropical malady. Nothing to worry about. Internet connection is sporadic.
Loving my contact with other cultures and living conditions. Very humbled, but hoping there might be ways of sharing some of my "eco" interests.
Have met with some wonderful people.
jomine...God does not condone any of those things and He also does not condone homosexuality....but whatever.
@Double Scorpion.
Great quote. Now go back and read the preceding verses.That whole chapter is is talking about the downfall of Jeruselem... and it is being compared to other fallen cities...
But it clearly states the "Sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah. And it wasn't homosexuality...It was ill-treatment of strangers and the poor.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago0
I read the article and it falls in line with what I've always seen. People fear what they don't know. Hate is easy, when coupled with a degree of anonymity. But most people, when the unknown becomes known in their own home, rise above their childish and petty beliefs and offer love and support. Well, not all. But most do their level best to try.
People need to look in the mirror before they cast stones. If a person is seeking the truth, seeking God, believes Jesus died for their sins and wants to live the life God showed us thru Jesus, yet happens to be gay, Why does that not make them a Christian? We all sin, whether in action or thought. If a gay person is trying to fight off the ergs and truly trying to seek understanding and help from God then who are we to say they are not Christians?
It is in my understanding that ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE US. For ever measure you judge onto others, so you shall be judged onto you by God.I'm Christian, whether you're gay or not.
I like, weed, driving at 100 mph, getting things for free, and trying new things..
But you won't catch me lighting up a j....
Being chased by the cops at 140....
Stealing from bass pro shop....
Or trying crack cocaine....
Square blocks, circle holes.. Doesn't make it right because you want it to fit.
I was born this way, doesn't make what I 'like' right.
People who want to be gay are no different.
They are not better than me, nor am I better than them.
I love them, and so does God.Vector, it's good you have self control; but the only problem with that is that being homosexual isn't about self control. If it were, you'd have homosexual "urges" too.
They don't want to be gay. Like I stated earlier, with the gay people I know -- they didn't choose it. They were born that way. It couldn't be any clearer to me. Just like I didn't choose to be straight, I just am, I was born that way. I see it the same way for them.What's more, gay relationships are not any more just about sexual pleasure than straight relationships are. Loneliness is a flaw in creation; meaningful, mutually dependent, and loving relationships is the solution. For straight people, that means a male-female pairing; for gay people, that means female-female or male-male ones.
Forcing a square peg into a round hole is how you get people like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, bearing false witness and emotionally harming people as part of their self-deception.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God who created Adam, a man, and then made Eve, a woman. This is what God has ordained as the normal means by which we carry out his command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up.
The Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God.
So-called christian people being hateful and mean to homosexuals would be more of an exception and not the rule.(We are not all Pastor Fred Phelps)
all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles.
The Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian.
Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
It would go against the Christian bible.Gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged and pushed the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought the scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the vast research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.
They fail to find, because it is not there..
Excellect posts.In fact it may not be genetic, but it may be just one of those things that happen in the womb. We do know it's not personal choice. There, from what I understand seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and birth order. I've read (and seen) that homosexuality for males is more prevalent for the third male born.
I've been around the block a few times (though many here assume they know what I'm knowledgeable of) and things aren't quite so simple as "I was born this way."
People can say they were born this way when it comes to being a cold blooded killer.
Any decision one makes can be carried that direction, especially claim the children of the children have increased desire to further the urge.
OF COURSE the children have stronger urges.. The father/mother indulged in the urge and if you know anything on human nature and feeding desires the conclusion is obvious.
I wasn't intending to iron all this out, but just because people enjoy something from birth doesn't change it's abnormality.I would say that homosexuality is normal rather than abnormal because it's been occurring for as long as we know, including as far back as ancient Rome times. It may be uncommon since obviously the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, but I wouldn't label it abnormal just like I wouldn't label someone with red hair abnormal.
Sorry but I am going to get somewhat graphic here as I think it warrants it.
A person's anus and lower intestine is for the body to eliminate fecal waist not to have sex with. It was not made for sex.
How can you consider that "normal"?
They have tried to dress it up with names such as gay and homosexual but really how "normal" is that kind of activity.
SeriouslyHa ha ah ha ha ha. that's too funny. So only gays like the anus? I know lots of straight guys that like the anus. I don't personally understand it, but it's not only for gays, as is oral sex.
It's destructive of the functionality needed to be normal.
You think it's normal, for a man or woman, to need surgery or a plug for their rear to keep waste from involuntarily falling out?
And as for oral sex, it's not functionally productive.
At best, it's a lazy way out of physical intercourse.Vector: "It's destructive of the functionality needed to be normal." Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but could you explain what you mean by that?
Oral sex is all about pleasure. So IF you're suggesting that procreation is productive, then you'd be right. But some people put value in pleasure, and so to them, oral sex would be productive. I know that not everyone puts value in oral sex, gay or straight. So, that just boils down to personal opinion.jdflom, I think you are missing a vital connection here as Christians we are not to be "all about pleasure" or trying to live to the standards of this world.
Christians are not to be living for their flesh or fleshly experiences.
Homosexual activities in the bedroom( living room,where ever) go against the Bible..so for them to be a Christian, they would have to stop
this activity.
I truly believe that if it was something that a person absolutely could not help and they were just born that way then the Bible would embrace this activity.The Bible does not embrace this activity but the world does.
This behavior did not just suddenly start happening in this generation,it has been happening for thousands of years and the Bible warns people against it..just like it warns against many other behaviors.I’m not missing the connection at all. As an atheist, I'm not all about pleasure, either. I understand that not everyone, Christian or not, sees the world the same way I do. In all of my posts, I am merely expressing my point of view, much like you are. I'm not trying to tell you that you can't feel homosexuality is wrong -- you are entitled to your opinion. I think a lot of things are wrong, but I tolerate it and accept it because others are different than me - plus they aren't hurting me and it in no way affects my life, so why do I even care? I don't.
Some have already pointed out that the bible doesn’t say homosexuality is good or bad, others, like yourself interpret it to read that it’s bad. And like Rad Man has pointed out, the bible condones slavery. Why is your interpretation of the bible right and his wrong? It isn’t.
Let’s not forget about the bible itself – to some people is nothing more than a book of fiction and to others is the word of god. I’m more worried and concerned with the fact that we have laws in America that ban civil liberties and freedoms for gay people that are based on religious beliefs when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. You have to at least see that, right?
Christianity isn’t the only religion and there is no guarantee it’s the one true religion. I’m sure you probably believe it is, and that is fine, but others of different faiths and lack of faiths do not believe that. It doesn’t make them any more or less right than you, but they also live in places where beliefs that take away or restrict freedoms that others have should not be forced upon them as a law.
Before I get off on a tangent, let me get back to my point… Even if you disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons, it shouldn’t be banned and condemned. It doesn't mean you have to think it's okay, but there's no reason to get up in arms about it -- they aren't doing anything to you! I don’t agree with eating McDonald’s for health reasons as I don’t like to put chemicals in my body, but does that mean McDonald’s needs to be banned and condemned? It's not up to me to tell others what to eat.
Lastly, I truly believe the opposite -- it is how they were born and they cannot help it. I know several gay people as I have previously stated somewhere, and I am convinced without a shadow of a doubt that they were born that way. I know that won't convince you, but I am just letting you know that in my mind, it makes way more sense than for them to choose a lifestyle that will limit their rights, give them possible ridicule and hate and expose them to discrimination.jdflom,
I am not up in arms about anything.I myself have had many gay friends in my lifetime..some of them very close friends.
I know there are good and bad on both sides of the heterosexual,homosexual coin.
I,personally do not condemn anyone.
I do not participate in politics.(I have opinions on it)
I do not think as a Christian we can be involved in politics without compromising our beliefs..but that is my opinion.
I don't have anything against anyone.People have freewill to live their lives how they choose.(But apparently homosexuals have had their freewill taken away,they can't choose to be anything but gay...Really?..Seriously?..They have no choice but to be gay..sure, okay whatever)
I haven't had anything to do with anything being banned.
No,Christianity isn't the only religion but this thread is in Christianity, the Bible and Jesus ,Jesus and His Teachings ..so I would imagine that is why Christianity is being discussed here.Interesting comment on politics in the sense that you can't compromise your beliefs. I respect your opinion on that.
But getting back to the topic at hand:
I wouldn't go as far as to say they had all of their free will taken away... I never said they have no free will... Also, I am only referring to America when I say that they definitely are not treated equal by the laws we have in place. This thread isn't about the most obvious one -- gay marriage -- so I won't go off on a tangent on that in this thread; but that is the my beef -- they are not treated equally and have less rights than straight people.
I'm glad you had nothing to do with them being banned -- does that mean you've never voted to ban gay marriage? (again though, I don't want to take this discussion into gay marriage... so no need to expound on that question, respectfully.)
And yes, they cannot choose to be anything but gay. I mean, they could live a lie and be and act straight, yet also be depressed, but what kind of life is that?
In the context of this thread, I agree that you are correct -- Christianity is in question. The reason I bring up other faiths though is because homosexuality isn't limited to just Christianity, and Christianity isn't the only religion -- which you have recognized.
Speaking in terms of just Christianity, there are Christians on this thread that disagree as well that homosexuality is a sin.... So, in that sense, it would seem to me that there isn't a standard for it.jdflom,
I am only speaking for myself here and I am probably a little different than the majority of people claiming to be Christians.(I'm not saying I am better or worse than anyone else,just different.)
When it comes to gay marriage there are people that get completely up in arms and freaked out,insisting that the sanctity of marriage is being destroyed by allowing gay marriages.
Looking at the divorce rate I would say that the sanctity of marriage was destroyed long before same sex marriages came on the scene.
I certainly sympathize with their situation..as I have said ,I had lesbian friends that had been together almost 20 years now..they raised 3 children together and love each other deeply(whether I belief it to be wrong or not they did/do obviously love each other deeply)..If something happens to the one..the other could basically be treated as a squatter..and kicked out of a house that she has spent more than 20 years in...Is that fair,probably not...Did they know that going into it,yes they did.
Christians are to be "in the world" and not "of the world."Gay marriage would be considered "of the world".
I am supposed to be about my Father's business and there are those that think protesting such things are their Father's business.I don't happen to think it is for me.
Meaning,I wouldn't protest it, nor would I run up and hit them over the head with a bible.I don't believe that I,personally am to be overly concerned about such things because eventually it would come to the point where I would be trying to impose MY will on their freewill.
I think that is where a lot of people's problems lie.They try to force their will on other's freewill and we shouldn't do that either.I think you hit the nail on the head -- "is that fair, probably not."
That's the entire point -- it isn't fair. i am only speaking for America when I say that we are supposed to be a free country with politics and religion separate. That doesn't mean you can't hold on to your opinions and thoughts, but we need to think about what is fair to everyone. We can't allow certain groups of people freedoms and not others; we did that with blacks and with women, and look what happened... and one could argue that it still isn't equal for them.
There are fundamental struggles too for Christians that I understand, like does the bible say its bad or not? Is it ruining the sanctity of marriage or not?
Again, you hit the nail on the head -- they are trying to force their will on other's freewill, (although I would replace freewill with civil liberties or freedoms). Certain christians and most mormons are doing just that.
Let me just ask you a fairly straightforward question... Based on what you said, would you agree that even if you thought homosexuality was wrong, that you shouldn't force a law banning it (or tell them they are wrong in some form) in any capacity based on your religious beliefs because you would be forcing your will onto others?jdflom,
I am going to refrain from posting in this thread any longer as it has gotten too ugly in here for me.(not by you but others)
I have enjoyed speaking with you though.I respect what you have to say.
"Vector: "It's destructive of the functionality needed to be normal." Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but could you explain what you mean by that?"
-jdflom
"You think it's normal, for a man or woman, to need surgery or a plug for their rear to keep waste from involuntarily falling out?"
-vector7
As for oral, it's a topic in itself and trickles into the hetero subject as well..
I think this is as deep as I'm going in this subject. At least for today.
Oh I don't believe I said anything about needing surgery or a plug for a their rear to keep waste from involuntary falling out. I said it's not just a gay thing to like the anus. It's not for me either, but it says something about the difference between being gay or straight.
And if you think oral sex does not have a function then you need to ask your partner the same question. It certainly has a function.
Rad,I didn't say anywhere that it was only for "gays".
IMO it isn't for anyone.That is not the natural use of those parts but sure consenting adults can do whatever they want with their bodies.So two connecting homosexuals can do whatever they want with there bodies as well. Just because I don't like to picture it in my mind doesn't make it a sin.
The bible condones slavery. I didn't say you did. Does that make it okay?
Rad,I am not going to get into another big argument with you.
"The bible condones slavery"
The bible does NOT condone slavery. I will never understand why you insist on undermining the Bible with your errant speculations..but hey don't let me be the one from stopping yourself from beating your head against a wall..Have fun lolHooked, why is your interpretation of the bible more correct than Rad Man's or anyone else's for that matter? That doesn't make sense to me...
jdflom,
It is not my interpretation.People take things out of context,Rad and I have gone round and round before.I am merely stating I'm not gonna go there again.
I could read SOME of what you have posted and then take something you have said out of the context in which you said it and then use it to try to paint you in a bad light.Would that then make a good "interpretation" of you? No,it would not.Look - The point I'm trying to make with this is there is a lot of stuff in the bible, it's no fair to pick and choose what YOU want to use to hate others. Hating gays is no different than having slaves, if you are using the bible as your moral compass. You don't like me taking about slavery because it makes you uncomfortable, but these words were used to justify slavery in the USA not long ago. They believed these words to be righteous just as you believe the bibles take on homosexuality to be righteous.
You are the one who is picking and choosing which versus to rely on.
Okay, once again I'll defend my statements. You may not like it but here it is. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps instead of denying these passages a little critical thinking should transpire.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.
If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.Rad, talk about slavery all you want.You assume it makes me uncomfortable.
Saying the bible condones slavery is like saying the movie Roots condones slavery and that to me is ridiculous.
Rad,you can't argue your point so you result to false accusations and name calling as usual.
You are accusing me of hating,that is NOT true.
People in the past twisted what the bible says to justify slavery.
I didn't do that, THEY did.You are making it seem as though I had a hand in slavery which I did NOT.
This thread is about Christian beliefs ,not Rad's NON Christian beliefs.
This thread is not about slavery in the Bible.You seem to HAVE to mention slavery in every thread you post in even though none of them have anything to do with slavery in the bible.
You can never stay on a topic...maybe you should start a thread about slavery in the bible so people can go into a lengthy discussion about it with going off topic and highjacking other threads to disseminate your beliefs(or lack there of).
That is the point attempting to be made...The bible does not say that...It is a bad translation of the original meaning...The bible is talking about Temple Prostitutes...Males and Females of a Temple who would "invoke" a god/goddess so the people could "Know" the god/goddess...It was used for various reasons...infertility, help crops to grow, rekindle a love, bring about a love...
DoubleScorpion,
I have to disagree with it being about temple prostitutes.
Can you prove that lesbians went to temple prostitutes?
Jesus did not address child-molestation either; neither is it one of the Ten Commandments. Neither did Jesus address drug abuse, nor pornography, smoking, spousal abuse, or torture. Does this fact therefore condone such sins and atrocities? Are we to assume therefore that none of these are wrong or sinful? I hope we are not foolish enough to believe that if something is not mentioned in the Bible, then it shouldn't be considered a sin.
Same gender sex was condemned under Moses (being punishable by death), and that it was a practice of "Baal worship." And so it suggested that homosexuality was not inherently wrong, but rather it was wrong because it was practiced in the worship of Baal.
Apparently, had not the pagans used homosexuality in their worship of Baal, God would have allowed it.
I think not.You are missing the explanation...The Hebrew word does not mean Homosexual...It is a term used for Temple Prostitutes, there is a male version of the word and a female version...That is a bad translation into the English...
If you are going to argue a point, let's use the Original Hebrew and Greek versions of the bible...I happen to have abit of formal study in the area of the Bible...So I don't base my side of the debate from what I learned in church or think I understand from the English version of the Biblical Text.
Believe as you wish...Personally I don't care...But it might be of help in strengthening your beliefs to get the correct understanding of the original text. The ASVB or the ESV bibles might be of use....Just a thought...
Oh.. And about the Ten Commandments...Where exactly are those located....
Let me guess you are gonna say...Exodus Chapter 20....
Not quite right....
The Ten Commandments are located in Exodus Chapter 34 and make sure to pay close attention to the last line of Verse 28...DoubleScorpion,
You are trying to argue YOUR beliefs (like many others)..which clearly are not the same as mine.
The thread is about gay Christians not bible translations and you being such a scholarly person,as you claim, should know there are no "original text"..what you read is a copy of something just like the rest of us.
We are to rely on God, not rely on a pet text for better understanding.
People can come to Christ by hearing and using many versions. God is not so weak that he cannot get through to us from any version or translation.
To say a person can only understand the bible if they read the original Greek or Hebrew is just complete nonsense.
I guess that would mean no Spanish reading person or French reading person could ever be saved because they aren't reading it in Greek or Hebrew.
God is greater,God is mightier than a translation.
You can put limitations on God by saying he can only work the way you say he can if you want.
I say God has no limitations.
I would suggest while you do your studies that you include one on the evolution of the Hebrew language it might be of some help to you..because what it once was and what we read of it today is not the same.
This forum is sooooooo off topic.I am not arguing beliefs...I am debating the meaning of a word.
And of course I know there is no "original texts" of the New Testament. But of the Old Testament...We have fairly reliable replications as to the process of how the Jewish scholars made a new copy.
As part of my Doctorate, I had to study both "New" and "Old" Hebrew as well as Greek.
And I did not say someone could or couldn't be saved by not knowing the bible in Hebrew or Greek....I said they would get a much better understanding of the Bible if they would read it or at least research it in the Orginal languages...
And I agree this thread is about Gays and Christianity...And as I have noted before...The Christian belief on being homosexual is based on the misinterpretation of a word and the proper meaning behind it.
Our discussion has nothing to do with my or your personal belief in God...It has to do with...Is the belief that being homosexual is a sin based on the text of the bible? And according to everything I have been taught in my years in college, as well as my own personal study for my dissertation and the my continued studies, say that the bible does not list what we today classify homosexuality as a sin...
I am curious of something though...If you know that we have no original texts...How do you know for sure something hasn't been changed from the original copies...(New Testament)...How can you be 100% sure that what you are reading is in fact what the author wrote as guided by God and that later copies were not changed in some way to fit what the person copying the text wanted to portray to their audience...The Catholic Church did it all the time back in the day...Who's to say it wasn't done by church "leaders" prior to the Catholic church as well.
One last quick question and Note...
Did you read Exodus chapter 34 at all yet?
And Jesus only preach two simple commandments which he said covered them all...
Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind. And Love your neighbor as yourself...
Nothing is mentioned of judging, making a determination of who's belief is right or wrong, or decided what is or isn't a sin...Just Love your God and Love your neighbor... It is up to God the sort the rest out...Period...It is not man's place to even assume what God thinks, much less attempt to speak for him.
If you want to go there, sure. If it didn't feel good, people wouldn't be doing it. I know straight males that like pleasure back there, but they will never be with another male.
If you are too uncomfortable with your own sexuality, that's fine, but other's aren't. Obviously there's no chance of procreation, but it's for pleasure.
I would go as far to say that yes, sex in the anus is normal. Maybe not normal for you, but normal for some. Since it isn't normal for you, it's within your right to consider it not normal, but is skydiving normal to you? Is eating a vegetarian diet normal to you? Maybe you're a vegetarian skydiver, but I think you get my point.I find it interesting that you are accusing me of being uncomfortable with my sexuality without even knowing me,that's fine.
It is what you, and I am sure most of the world would classify as normal but from a Christian perspective,we are not to conform to what would be considered the normalcy of the world.
I don't think it is comparable to skydiving and being a vegetarian.
jdflom,we will most likely not agree but I respect your right to state your opinions.I said IF. I wasn't accusing you and saying you were. And I was also saying that there was nothing wrong with it, if that was the case...
I will admit, just because you don't find it normal doesn't mean you are uncomfortable with your sexuality -- but some people are, and that was merely my point. I did not intend to insult you, and I apologize if you took it that way.
The only thing I would disagree with you on in that last post is that it is comparable to doing something, be it a hobby or whatever, that isn't normal to you. I accept that you disagree with that, though and I respect your right to your opinions, too.I wasn't insulted.I laughed.
I do appreciate your apology.For some reason, I can't reply to the other thread you most recently addressed to me, so I will answer it here:
I didn't paint you in a bad light or knowingly take anything out of context that you said. It's possible I inferred some stuff, but you have every right to disagree or clarify what you meant. I just asked why your interpretation is more correct than his. And it is very much your interpretation because you are presenting it the way you see it or were taught it.
Also, I didn't take anything out of context. He offered his interpretation and you told him he is wrong... So, I pose the question again. In addition, I'm not asking you to go round and round about your disagreement with Rad Man. Again, I asked why your interpretation or representation of the bible is more correct than Rad since you are telling him he is wrong. If it's because you believe he is taking it out of context, whose to say you aren't taking things out of context? Please note I said "IF," and I am not accusing you of anything.
Lastly, what does an interpretation of me have to do with anything? It's obvious we have very different opinions. Plus, I didn't ask or smear an interpretation of you, I asked about your interpretation of the bible.
Rad,we actually don't know that it isn't a personal choice.That really has not been proven either way.
I just know that people shouldn't try to use anything as an excuse to spew hatred toward anyone else.
We are commanded to love each other.We aren't commanded to understand each other.
We are really talking about whether someone who is homosexual can be a Christian not whether or not we can prove they can't help it.
My stance is that that term "gay Christian" is a bit of an misnomer.
The person that is actively living a gay "lifestyle" would be walking contrary to the teachings of the Bible in which a Christian is supposed to adhere to.
The person that is actively living a murderous "lifestyle",a lying "lifestyle",a thieving "lifestyle",a "lifestyle" of premarital or extramarital sex would also be walking contrary to the Bible.Hooked, I know several gay people very well and it's very clear to me after long conversations with them that it is not a choice. Much like being heterosexual isn't a choice for me and I'm sure not for you either. You just are.
I can understand why that is up for debate though, so know I am not trying to tell you you're wrong, just that I disagree based on what I have witnessed.
I do like what you have to say about not using anything as an excuse to spew hate and to love each other though. That's a very peaceful sentiment.Well I guess we should just throw out half the priest then? Does not Christian mean Christ like. If you were told heterosexuality was a sin would you change teams? Be real.
Let's not forget that the bible also condones rape, murder and slavery, but most of us don't.Rad, I am game for throwing out the priests because I don't agree with most of them either. lol
Christian means follower of Christ.Christians believe Jesus is the Christ.
Technically,I don't think I even have a "team" as it were.
I suppose I would be asexual.I am living my life for God.I'm not married nor do I seek to be.I remain abstinent by choice.(not that you really wanted to know any of that about me)
I choose to not be with anyone and if I can do that so can others.
I can choose not to be with a man or a woman..saying I have no choice can really be a bit of an excuse,don't you think?You can choose not to be with anyone, but if you were to decide to date, you would know if you wanted to date men, women or both (bisexual); and that wouldn't be a choice unless you forced that choice upon yourself. You'd be risking going against your instinct though.
No, I don't think there is a difference between acting on our urges and suppressing them when it becomes to what we really are. Legally, yes. I see the difference, but there are too many fundamentals that have gotten caught with the hands in the cookie jar so to speak.
I personally am not tempted by homosexuality and have a hard time understanding the desire, but do understand my own desires and to say that anyone can switch team is ridiculous to say the least.That's like saying a druggie can't quit...
Desire is desire..Vector, c'mon, you can't relate a chemical addiction to homosexuality. Those are completely different desires. One is inherent, and one is built from chemicals. Also, one is completely safe in general terms and the other has a high chance of leading to death.
Well, I'm trying to point out the obvious and stay out of lengthy clutter..
But I'm biting this one. lol
Everything we do is because of chemicals, including sex. You have sex more often, and your body begins making more chemicals that promote sex. It builds momentum, and this is called feeding a 'habit'.
And sex IS addictive. People have serious problems because of sexual addictions, and I don't see how everyone misses these points. [Tried to avoid sounding like mr knowitall, but hey..]
I've had an issue with fighting off sexual urges since I began in porn long, long ago as a teen. Though I don't do what I used to, these things affect you, and homosexuality is no different.
And homosexual activity is NOT safe.. lol
I've been around lots of seriously active gay people WHO ADMIT THEMSELVES they have physical problems because of it.
Some even state they "know it isn't normal" and these are the people DOING it...
I personally like many gay people as they are usually aware of judgemental attitude's effects and try to not judge others and attempt to be understanding of others.. And in that we agree on most subjects overlapping.
But they know I don't endorse what they do as okay. I'm not judging them.
This also drops down to belief in God. For if you deny God, then you can change everything..
So I'm not getting too deep here, because I can see the future replies already. [isn't hard is it? isn't for me...]Actually, Lesbian sex is statistically safer than heterosexual sex. Oh... you meant gay MEN... which is really what people have the problem with. God apparently is sexist too since even if the bible does mean homosexuality (which it doesn't) it doesn't say ANYTHING about woman laying with women.
I guess even God's sexuality was threatened by gay men... unless he is as much as a hypocrite as your general bible thumping homophobe. Maybe he too watches lesbian porn while condemning homosexuality.The Bible mentions this. Read the first chapter of Romans, and you will find out why people do such things.
yep... read it... probably more than you have. I guess I would have to think a certain way to get the meaning out of it that you apparently do and honestly it's not worth it.
What? It doesn't take much in the way of interpretation. It is as plain as day. It becomes a matter of faith. What is true? What is real? What is right? What is natural? What is good?
Actually, it IS a matter of interpretation as well as an understanding of the Bible as a whole. There are also a slew of considerations including history of the bible and it's translations as well as the bible within a societal context both at the time of it's creation and as it applies to today's world.
My faith (and it is a ridiculously strong faith) is rooted in the same Bible as you claim yours is. However, we seem to get completely different meanings from it. What is true, real, and right to me are obviously not the same things that are true, real, and right to you. Nor apparently are natural and good.
Yet my version is automatically wrong because?Preach it, Sister!!!
I really enjoy your responses.I asked a similar question last night -- have yet to get an answer.
I didn't say anything about my interpretation of Romans, only that it mentions women who have a burning desire for other women, and some of the dynamics of the relationship.
Do whatever you want, but don't assume that I want to watch.
To some people, yes, sex is addictive. I am of course referring to sex addicts or nymphomaniacs. I agree with you that there is a chemical release with sex,
For me and most people I know or have met, it's no different than anticipating a movie that's coming out -- Yeah, I might want it instantly, but if I miss it in theaters, I'll live. I can control my urges. I think it's necessary though for a healthy relationship, but that's just my own opinion on relationships.
And calling it not normal is a loaded question... Do they mean it to be not normal because it isn't within the majority? I could say that albinos aren't normal... but does that mean there is something wrong with them? In that case, yeah, homosexuality isn't normal, but there isn't a negative connotation to it in that context suggesting it's wrong. Semantics and context play a major role in calling it normal or not. I would even go as far as to say, "well homosexuality is normal in society, but not normal for me since I have no desire to be with another man."
With all things in life, Everything can cause physical problems. Poor example, but example nonetheless -- I sometimes walk with a limp when the numbness acts up in my leg from the affects of my chemo treatments. It's a physical problem, but that's just part of life. I chose to go through with the chemo because I knew it was what I needed to continue living and to be happy. I would argue that homosexuals need to what they need to do to be happy.
And yeah, getting into denying god and changing everything is probably for another topic since this is specifically about Christianity. But, as I did say earlier in a different post somewhere I think (there's a lot here now), there are some Christians who condone homosexuality in their interpretation of the bible. So it's not just about denying a belief in god that postulates the thoughts of homosexuality as a sin or not.
Well sure, you can join the priest hood, but we all know how that turns out. How many women married some guy that thought he could contain his homosexuality and ended up with a horrible divorce? You can try to not act on it, but the desire is still there. And it's not just sexually, it's wanting to not be alone, wanting to be loved.
Oh HELL no!
There is a good reason' there's no 12 Step program for homosexuality.
It's not an addiction. It's not a disease.
It is a perfectly natural and for some people normal form of sexual expression and identity.
Give that it's Holy Thursday this is a bit heretical, but I'll say it:
What if one (or more) of the 12 apostles was gay. I am sure if one looked for a homoerotic interpretation in the Bible it's findable.
I'm thinking Peter myself...Not a Biblical scholar I'm guessing? [sarcasm here] lol
Your assertion is not only sad because you stated outright you didn't do your homework before claiming such a stretched idea, but did it about something that plenty are knowledgeable the notion is utterly false.
I guess we could say you have gay tendencies because you are defending the position they hold?
My above statement is the equivalent of your post...
And anything involving pleasure is exactly what you said it is not. Especially if it is damaging to one's bodily structure and functions and they continue pursuing it. (natural yes?)
Psychology studies might help you out in that area of knowledge. [no sarcasm here]
[nice profile, btw. honest]Now here's another argument altogether - not a Biblical one, since, let's be honest, your Biblical "case" against homosexuality is easily disproven if you use the original text and not King James's translation.
So you're arguing that homosexuality is dangerous to bodily function. Hmmmm... That makes some easily disprovable assumptions about what all gay people and all straight people do in the bedroom.
What you continue to ignore is that G-d wants man to have companionship, and that gays and lesbians can only find meaningful, loving relationships in a partner of the same gender.
You have an oddly pharisaic adherence to your interpretation of Biblical law even when a more fundamental one is being violated by doing so. Is that because bashing gay people is an easy, painless way for a straight man to feel devout?livelonger,
Wow,really accusing someone of gay bashing?This thread is in the Christianity forum and is discussing whether or not a gay person can be a Christian.
Your use of the "G-d" instead of God clearly shows that you do not hold Christian beliefs.
Your belief and Christian beliefs are not the same and would clearly clash but to throw accusations around because we don't belief as you do is immature don't you think.
I find it exhausting to participate in the forums here any more.
People from different faiths or from no faith at all feel the need to come into a clearly defined Christian forum merely to BASH their every post.
People that aren't gay and clearly not even of the Christian faith.
You guys keep coming to the Christian forums to declare how wrong we are and then start disseminating your own NON Christian beliefs as truth and right.
Christians do not believe the same as everybody else.Christians do NOT believe as you do, livelonger..and there for we(Christians) could NOT agree with you.
This forum thread is not about everyone converging to argue many different beliefs ,it is about homosexuals and Christianity...It is not about gay Atheist,or Jewish homosexuals,or gay Hebrew roots adherents.
Everyone has every right to believe and live how they wish and people can certainty post whatever, where ever they would like(obviously).
This thread is not for arguing different beliefs but for discussing Christian beliefs and what the Bible WE read says about gay Christians.
Where are the forum police when you need them.They just let this whole place run amuck.I just want to point out that livelonger started this thread... that is all.
It's true I'm not a Christian. I can read, though, and have made a much more concerted effort at understanding what the Bible says about homosexuality than your average Bible-thumping Christian. And it's Christians of several different flavors, at least in this country, that foment most of the anti-gay bigotry that we see today.
I did start this thread and if you don't like having your posts, or the posts of those who you sympathize with, challenged, then you can go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to weigh in with your opinion. But as it stands, it's an open forum.
I do think you have a lot of chutzpah to speak on behalf of all Christians and define a Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. Melissa and many other devout Christians have a very different viewpoint. But I've seen stranger things, I guess.Maybe I do have chutzpah(lol) but the rules apply even to the ones that started the thread.BTW,I didn't make those rules either.
I personally cannot agree with anyone's anti-gay bigotry agenda.
I have not claimed to speak for all Christians but thank you for claiming to speak for me. LOL
I have made it clear in posts to say this is my opinion,this what I think,I believe...no where have I claimed to speak for everyone.
So now because we don't agree you are going to tell me where I can or cannot post..That is really funny.
That is true,it is an open forum that you are trying to close to only those that agree with you, that is hilarious.
The forum rules state that we are to stay on topic and people are going all over the place arguing everything but the topic.
Oh, so I get now, the purpose behind you posting this thread was to BASH Christians..my apologies...I thought this was an open honest debate but I see you had a hidden agenda.I don't feel bashed... maybe you are taking someone disagreeing with you a bit too personally... There is another poster around here that does the same thing. Maybe you know her?
- I admit I'm not a fan of Bible thumpers, and if you go back to the original post, you'll see the article I reference was about a woman's transformation from a Bible thumper who was harming her child, to a non-Bible thumper. She remained Christian throughout, because there are Christians of all varieties.
If we really lived in a "live and let live" world where people could hold homophobic beliefs but not carry them into the political spheres (much less to abuse their children with them), then I would not feel the need to bring the topic up whatsoever.
Steady on HH, when you say "Christians do NOT believe as you do, livelonger..and there for we(Christians) could NOT agree with you", I hope you don't presume to speak for me. Livelonger appears to me to have the greater credibility on this argument; he has studied the scriptures to show himself as one approved, not just read a dodgy English translation.
hookedhuntress, if you believe for one minute that you can have a christian Hub, discussing a biased and self-righteous attitude to "gay christians" without gay people wanting to get in on the discussion, you can think again!
Are you one of these people who believes if you are one of the "chosen 144,000" you will get to heaven, and all the others can go to hell?
Would you please let us know how you relate to the idea of unconditional love? Does it allow selfishness. (Just noticed a funny re-spelling would be "shell-fish-ness." Pretty appropriate if what I am putting to you is in the affirmative.)It is interesting, hookedhuntress, that you have admitted that this thread is about deciding whether or not a gay person "can" be a christian. Might I ask, is that your decision to make? In fact, who should ultimately make that decision?
if we're going down the route that gay sex is unnatural because it can cause to harm to bodily function, then, wouldn't we have to argue the same case for hetro-sex. By that I mean, do virgins contract cervical cancer? Has it not been established by the medical profession that semen causes cervical cancer (I'd say that's pretty harmful to bodily function) and in many cases death?
I am sorry but I cannot fund any proof that semen causes cervical cancer and the article you sited in that later post is rather dated don't you think.
I googled "cervical cancer" and this was the very first website; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealt … ase.causes
here's an excerpt, "Almost all cervical cancers are caused by HPV (human papilloma virus). HPV is a common virus that is spread through sexual intercourse. There are many different types of HPV. Some strains lead to cervical cancer. (Other strains may cause genital warts, while others do not cause any problems at all.)"
How hard did you look?If you scroll down and read my response to your other comments, Gaeparks, you will find the link detailing how the British Medical council have also discovered links between cervical cancer and a hormone contained within semen. Either way, when discussing the HPV virus or a hormone in semen, hetro-sex can undoubtedly cause harm to female bodily function.
Again...they why are there millions and millions of women with cervical cancer. many many many women are having sex and being "exposed" to semen. Women should be dropping by the millions and cervical cancer should be running rampant based on what you are saying. I just cannot see where that data can be even remotely accurate. Now...if the man whom a woman has sex with is diseased and she developes HPV as a result...that is not the result of semen...that is the result of sleeping with an unhealthy person. How can any biologist come up with such a conclusion is beyond me...but then like I was told mant times...if one is looking one can find.
That's like saying that if smoking causes cancer then everyone who smoked would die as a result of cancer, or if alcohol damaged the liver then everyone who drank alcohol would die from liver disease. Now, if you find and read the study and found flaws in the research, your comments would carry much more weight. As it stands, you are merely suggesting that you disagree with the research, based purely on YOUR OPINION and sweeping generalisations, just because this study does not strengthen your argument, but weakens it, considerably.
The research, btw, was conducted by the British Medical Council, not some poorly qualified, fly by night graduate who might, unethically, I might add, base their conclusions on what they wanted to see, rather than the evidence itself.Now...if the man whom a woman has sex with is diseased and she developes HPV as a result...that is not the result of semen...that is the result of sleeping with an unhealthy person.
The more I've read your post the more convinced I am that you haven't read the article from the other link I pasted. This particular article discusses the relationship between cervical cancer and a hormone found in semen, not the HPV virus.
The apostles were not sinless.They were not perfect just like we are not perfect.
hookedhuntress...you are correct the apostles were not sinless...they were not perfect...and we are not perfect either. The apostles were human witnesses to a divine set of events that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made an account of those events that they personally witnessed. The Word of God says that "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." That means every person to include the apostles have sinned and are not perfect. So you are correct...but that does not bely the fact that what they said or accounted to have happened and what they have done in the name of Jesus are not all true...because they are all true.
There are only three choices in this matter. The first is that God loves everyone and everything everyone does is absolutely wonderful. The second choice is that God loves everyone and hates the sin they commit. The third choice is that God loves those who keep His commandments.
If God loved everyone and the things they do, He would not have given a set of laws for man to obey.
If God loves everyone and hates the sin, He would have told people that He loves them and given a law that specifically defines the sins he hates. (right wing Christian theology)So Jesus shows everyone that God loves them and says He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.
And the third fact is that if God did not love the sinner no one would be saved. Therefore, God loves everyone and hates the things they do.
Now if you are really bothered about the right wing Christian, you might be bothered by the God who has declared in His word the same belief.
Do you have a better explanation for us?
Clearly God loves the homosexual and hates what he does. At least the Bibles declares it that way.Why god go about voyering? Isn't that a sexual perversion?
Why do you mock God in Eastern Block English?
You are struggling too much for an MD and a college professor. Why god no go to you school and learn good? You smart! You teach god real good to be smart.
When you are here to correct, why should I bother?
Unlike your god(whatever that is) I don't peep, to see what people do behind closed doors!God doesn't need to peep. You will have an experience with this God that you mock.
Because I don't do what your god do?
By the same token,(if you are Christian) I might be an adulterer too, for I don't impregnate others betrothed, and you too(an adulterer), if you don't do it.Are you sure you want to do this? You are fumbling all over the place. I do not to want this to be no fun to for you. As you skill at English debate done be lacking. I not want to be impregnated by you, or you me. Get my drift, pardner?
You speak well for a theist!!
And that is a great art, to edit once the reply is posted!
"God doesn't need to peep. You will have an experience with this God that you mock."
Still he wants to know what people do behind closed doors.
By the way, what is this "god"?"First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye"
Nice, jomine. Hold on, I've got to get that damned tree trunk outta my eye.
Now . . . you are quoting scripture from a God who doesn't exist. It has power!
Scripture written by humans who attributed it to a god.
jomine, do you ever get time for some surgery? You spend an enormous amount of time here blogging and arguing, I suspect you might have been kicked out of the operating room because of your distractions.
OH, sorry, did I miss that point? Apparently you are an eye surgeon getting locks out of sight.Now I get more time for the following reasons,
1. I found out how I could use my mobile phone to use hubpages.
2. I'm a general surgeon and consultant. On my duty days I don't have to see all the cases, only those requiring surgery, the rest will be seen by my juniors.
3. I get time in between cases, during elective OT days.
4. It is Easter time, people avoid surgery if they can.
5. I have no family to take my time, so If I'm not reading something that doesn't need much concentration, I spent my time half -halfThanks Jomine, I was only have a gentle rub at you, in good humour. Thanks for clearing up those questions, it's always good to see your comments.
No bad feelings jonnycomelately! I explained only because, somebody else too asked me the same question.
You are one of the few hubbers I have respect for, and I don't take offense at people making a laugh out of me, rather I enjoy it. I'm of the the opinion that a good laugh is always better than the usual bickering that happen here and any day better than telling others they are sinning because some book said so.
ha ha ha ha ha. Made ma laugh. Thanks. Are you saying you'd do it in German, Italian and French if you could?
Disappearinghead,
The definition of an apostle is "one sent out." The Lord Jesus Christ sends them; therefore, Paul is an apostle sent out by Jesus. The Disciples learned at the feet of the Master and were later called apostles when they were sent out. Sense Paul did not meet Jesus until the Damascous road, you conclude that he never knew Jesus. But according to his testamony, he knew Jesus as well or better than many know Him,
And when you limit scripture to Hebrew, you nulify the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Of course that is the difference between the Jew and the Christian. And yes, people are free to disagree with any scripture or any Christian writing.
The traditions of women wearing hats and men have long haor is an excellent examply why people disagree about the writings. They misintrepret them.Who is going to decide who interpreted correctly and who did it incorrectly?
God.
He judges your heart.
If you were selfish or not.
If you wanted to do good [his way] or change it for personal gain [your way].
It's ultimately up to yourself to be sure you are searching for God when you are trying to understand it.
It doesn't need interpretation, that's already been done.
It doesn't speak verbatim or direct.
He teaches through meaning.As judged by you. You seem to say God and God only judges, but you are telling us how you think he judges. Some critical thinking is in order. Don't look to the bible to tell you what to think about homosexuality or anything else. What if god changes his mind? What if you were mislead by your bible or your interpretation of the bible? As I said before the bible says a lot of things that we know is simply not right.
Perhaps God wants you to think for yourself. What's right. Respect for your fellow human or judging him for his homosexuality?Is this not about Christianity of which the doctrine comes from the Holy Bible?
Quit trying to spin-off for leverage.
God, by The Bible, never changes.
I have millions of people who agree with me, I'm not making this stuff up - it was here 2 THOUSAND YEARS before I got here and that's only the New Testament [with Christ]...
Blah, blah, blah.. Not right to you, duhh.. you AREN'T a Christian..
I don't judge anyone, I tell them what the Bible says. It isn't a riddle book if you don't try to twist it. If they don't like it's teachings, they have the choice...
You're chasing your tail and wasting my time and thread space.Not all christians think like you. Not all christians believe in the literal word of the bible. Catholics make up a pretty big percentage of Christianity and they don't believe in the literal word of the bible and they have worked evolution into there teachings. You still need to ask yourself what is right and what is wrong regardless of what it says in the bible. Using the bible to influence government policies because of your interpretation of the bible would bring us back to the middle ages. We don't get our moral compass from the bible, nor should we. We get our moral compass from the society we live in. Lets not fill our society with hatred and bigotry.
If someone takes the bible literally, it should be a threat to no one, only a blessing. Please, forgive me for falling short. Where do we go from here? What can I do to help?
I believe music is a good place to start. I will jam with anybody. Here's some stuff my friends in Florida did in the late sixties. You think California had good acid? Try some from FSU or Gainesville.
http://youtu.be/hdmyY4MTwHc
I know my way around. Bring your argumentation here, and leave the babies alone.Forgive me WD Curry, but I think going back to the middle ages with heresy charges and with the churches inquisitions are a serious threat. If you need to see what a country looks like when they rule by religion have a look at Iran. Iran has itself convinced they have no gays. There laws dictate that going against the teaching of the Koran is punishable by death. Take the case of the Canadian that traveled by to Iran and once there was charged to promoting pornography because his software was used by a pornographic site. He is scheduled for death.
If you think Christianity is any different when governing a society just look at the Inquisitions of the middle ages.
It should be a threat to all when any religion puts there religious views ahead of our governmental laws. As I've said before (this upsets Vector) but, the bible condones slavery, rape and murder and hatred towards homosexuality. We know these things are wrong, but have been used to enslave and kill. I don't take this lightly.>Excuse me, for all of my claims, I am an ignorant man. I only wan't us to find common ground. It is fruitlessness for us to stand in opposition, when all we really want is common ground. I love you just as you are, but you don't seem ready to receive it.
Hey, I never claimed to be perfect. Let's find common ground!
Wow the internet is crazy! I only wrote half of what is attributed to me! What a trip! I am cool with that. If it is a fihgt you want . . . you came to the right place, Let's get it on!
Has someone hacked into your account or are you bi-polar?
Maybe a little of both. Your guess is as good as mine! Not bi-polar so much, just dangerous to totalitarianism.
http://youtu.be/DUKt91wvPE8
Okay, lets stay out of each other business. I'll stay out of Christians hatred towards homosexuality and Christians stay out of politics. Never again demand to know what religion a politician is part of or try to define what a marriage is passed upon what the bible say and I'll leave you alone with your book.
Fair. Good. We're done right?Whoa! No one ever said they hated homosexuality more than the crazy stuff I have done! How about music? Do you play an instrument?
http://youtu.be/fdtU3Ff96JEA mouth organ with Love doth Harmonica Make.
I hope you mean harmonica when you say mouth organ. I can blow one all day long. Or, suck if it it is cross bar blues. Don't get your hopes up. It is all about music. Right?
Who decided Paul's letters were scripture? Paul? No, he'd consider that blasphemy. God? No, none of Paul's letters state " thus sayeth the Lord". Who then? The Church by committee, that's who. Who gave them the authority? Nobody.
The NT is useful, don't get me wrong. We take Jesus words seriously and can form doctrine from them. But Paul? We can acct that what he wrote was a matter of his opinion.Don. Who decided Paul's letters were scripture, and when? Was it Paul? No. God? No. A catholic Church committee? Yes.
Thus we cannot form doctrines from them. I've never suggested dismissing the gospels, we should take note of Jesus words and from doctrine if necessary. But Paul was expressing his own opinions.
What is there to misinterpret about silly hats and long hair? And for the record, I'm a Christian.Disappearinghead...Nicaea was no Catholic Church Committee...and the Canon of Scripture was no simple meeting with opinionated bias. There were some very strict and balanced standards by which Scripture were canonized. Please do further research?
There were very many opinions about which books constituted cannon. some bishops rejected Jude, 2 & 3 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation for example. The decisions about what constituted cannon appear to have been decided by who they believed the author to be. If was believed to be an apostle it was in, if not an apostle it was out. From what I have researched, the decisions had little to do with content.
Further it was Iraeneus to decided that there would be four gospels. He stated that there cannot be more than 4 or less than 4. His logic was that here were 4 corners to the Earth, 4 winds, and 4 living creatures around the throne. Thus any other candidate gospel was excluded irrespective of what its content might be.
Nevertheless, it was man made decisions based on the majority opinion. My view stands, that letters written by Paul or apostles to the churches do not necessarily scripture make.It doesn't automatically disqualify them.
I am not disqualifying them, I'm merely stating that they are not necessarily scripture just because that was the majority view 1700 years ago. We are free to disagree with what Paul wrote for example. After all the church already does this with regards to women being silent in churches, being leaders, and having to wear silly hats.
Dang! How can I argue with that?
Although, if you have ever been to an AME Church in the South or a Jamaican Church . . . the hats are off the hook! They kind of make the day for me. Dinner is the coup de gras. Meanwhile, the whole experience is a drop of the taste of heaven.
If you are a wise person, you will not argue this case!
http://youtu.be/Iblfvzn7Rc8
@jonniecomelately.
I am confused as to why you directed you comment to me. My comments about the subject of homosexuality are based on Biblical interpretation. I neither hate nor judge homosexuals. Neither do I hate nor judge thieves, adulterers, liars, or anyone else. Neither am I required to respect them. Respect is earned based on the integrity of a person. Once again, it becomes obvious God love the sinner and hates the sin.
Notice it is God who loves, and man who tries to destroy the knowlege of God. Exactly what Paul writes. But when people reach out to God, He forgives them. But people will not reach out to God if they do not believe He exists or if they prefer the live of sin. Therefore, God loves them but not the things they do.
It is your relationship with God that determins your relationship with Christians. John tells us that we have fellowship with the father; therefore, we have fellowship with each other.
People associate with each other because they have common ideas and beliefs. That is a eneral rule, and there may be exceptions.
Nut no one has to respect anyone until that person has earned it. That too is God's wprd.I'll find a link for you. Some years ago, when researchers were looking for a causal link to cervical cancer, they undertook some research involving nuns, amongst other women (don't laugh) Cervical cancer was none existant in nuns (at the present time, and historically) From there (as I say I'll find the link for you) further research concluded that semen (or some by-product) was linked to the disease.
Hollie Thomas...I have read that article. And because I have discovered that people on this site are ultra-sensitive and I can get in trouble with the site if I say certain things so I will be careful. That article says nothing about cervical cancer being caused by sperm...wow what an outdated research from the 1950's. Can you imagine how many women would have servical cancer if it was caused by sperm? And the fact that only 13,000 nuns were tested...what a small test group? And if I can remember the very short article it simply referenced that women with many sexual partners or a woman with only one partner can contract HPV if that person already has the virus and that is along with poor diet, smoking, and the weakened immune system of the woman. Really Hollie...sperm causes cervical cancer? ok
Gaeparks,
Firstly, if you feel that my post was offensive in someway then please, feel free to say what you please. I won't report you. I believe in freedom of speech. I have noted your post and would like to respond as follows.
1. You are correct, that article says nothing about cervical cancer being caused by sperm. There are, however, other studies that suggest that it is. You will find the relevant information here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5303054.stm
2. I didn't include this link for fear of taking the Livelonger's thread of topic. Nevertheless, you are quite right to ask for some evidence. Really gaeparks, you shouldn't be quite so sarcastic without viewing the evidence first.
3. Did I mention that this was a very old study? I think I did, scroll up. I didn't mention the size of the sample, however. My mistake, I think that I assumed that anybody reading that article, and noting my comments about how dated it was, would be intelligent enough to work out that I was saying the research was flawed, but nonetheless important.
4. Poor diet, smoking and a weakened immune system are at least contributers, and frequently causes of cancer (along with genetics) However, and I'm sure you are aware of this, once researchers have identified that particular characteristics are present within the onset of disease, but also establish that some sufferers of said disease did not smoke, have a poor diet, a relative who suffered from the same condition, or a weakend immune system, they begin to look for other links. I guess that's the nature of the inquisitive mind of the scientist.
5. Like I said, this is a very old study but important in terms of later discoveries leading from that research. Go figure.
Hi Hollie, I just want to say that even some nuns may not have been celibate their entire lives, I don't know, but imagine so.
Good point though, and I look forward to the links!Hi lorlie6,
I think you're right. That was a very old study, but probably important in terms of the discoveries it led to, which concluded that it was highly unlikely that virgins would contract the disease. (trust me to end up going completely off topic here)
The human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine prevents infection with certain species of human papillomavirus associated with the development of cervical cancer, genital warts, and some less common cancers.
Radman, forgive me, but I'm completely missing your point, here. Could you expand on this?
Sorry, I was just answering an older post. Someone was arguing that even heterosexuals have there diseases that is inherent only to heterosexuality. And they were right. Cervical cancer, it turns out is primarily caused by the HPV virus. We have vaccines for HPV and in some parts of the world grade school girls and boys are given the vaccine to prevent the spread of HPV and in turn cervical cancer
My mistake, it's 11pm here, and my brain's frazzled.
I believe the person arguing that case would be me.
@DoubleScorpion
Paul's writing did not require women to wear hats. That is the basic misinterpretation of thumpers. Not scholors@Disappearinghead
I would assume that Paul would say that Scripture was in the old Testament. The Gospel is in the New Testament. It would appear that Paul was something of an apostle because the Holy Spirit was working in him. And that is exactly why Jesus was different from the other religionists. He said that he did the things that the His Father told him to do. Should that not qualify as a very close relationship? Did Paul not have a very close relationship with the Father. And why is it any different today? It isn't. Christianity is a relationship--not a religion.- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
"Biblically sound doctrine..." but only what some humans consider to be sound doctrine. One against the other. Still only human-based. Still not requiring the existence of a "god" out there. Only dependent on what you want to believe.
"God, by The Bible, never changes." Rubbish! Of course He, It, She, whatever changes according to your every whim of emotional need. The paintings, statues, poetry, hymns, carols, all try to convey some kind of image as perceived from scripture. Even the "morality" perceived from ancient teachings in the bible gets changed over time. "Why?" Because there was no god to write it. Only the human mind through the medium of the human hand.
Believe what you want, Victor, you don't fool me.Settle down, brother. God is not the problem.
http://youtu.be/38LmeqHHW2wWell.. my goodness..
I didn't think I posted any of that your way.
I already knew your stance, but uh..
I'm not the only one here saying these things.
I guess I should feel privilaged.
@Disappearinghead.
Do you suppose that God might have determined which books were included in the Bible? I would think that if we read the entire Bible, we would have to conclude that God is on His throne, and is also in control of many historical events. Unless you believe in coincidence, you would have to conclude that the Bible is telling us pretty much what has happened and what will happen. At least, that is the way I see it.Besides the whole cervical cancer thing, let's not forget the women who die from childbirth/childbearing related issues each year. But even without the whole death factor then you have to consider the incidents of vaginal injury due to normal heterosexual sex. I personally don't know a woman who hasn't been torn at some point. But I guess that doesn't matter because the injuries sustained by gay MEN (once again lesbian sex is the safest) mean that God disapproves and it is unnatural while the injuries sustained by women during heterosexual sex are part of God's plan and therefore are good and right.
Ahh, but the childbirth thing was Eve's punishment!! Of course there will be women who suffer and die from it, silly!
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
Chris, you used this expression. I ask you, is this the real focus? Is this what all the anti-homosexual stance is all about? If so, would you care to give me your understanding of what "Heaven" is?
What's the real issue here? Do those who believe that homosexual sex is an abomination reason that the problem is men having sex with men or the fact that it's anal sex? Do they believe that anal sex between husband and wife is ok but between men is not?
Not all specifically homosexual men do it. Some specifically heterosexual men do do it.
So obviously not part of the definition, and one more reason the anti- group should not need to worry their heads about the subject.What is this obsession with how gay men have sex? Please, why does it have to come down to this? Gay men and gay women have relationships, just like straight men and women, the majority of times sex is only a part of that, a part which often gets smaller as they relationship progresses. Is it just me, or are some straight people obsessed with the sex lives of others?
I've been staying out of the topic, in spite of the feed "feeding" me every post submitted.
But is it not obvious that humans are sexual creatures and that wild animals don't have this problem. [they only mate with the appropriately designed opposite sex]
And I'm sorry, but no. Sex is what put everyone on the planet where they are (no thanks to homosexuals) If my parents were homo I would not be alive.
Obsessed? It's kinda of a limited requirement so I'm not sure why it is ongoingly discussed as if a mystery.
Homosexual men know and admit they use their colon as a vagina, and gay women know and openly admit they use fake male genetalia.
It is the major point as it denotes an obvious abnormality and denial of personal born parts.
Men do not have vaginas and so misappropriate their colon to appeal to their non-fitting attraction.
Women do not have penises and therefore do not have the required tools for full intercourse without artificial help. [artificial is your key here]
And I have had many male friends I was very close to and loved them very much as a person, without once having to have sex with them.
This IS what makes them GAY is THE SEX. It is an abnormal act due to their bodies not being appropriate to fit accordingly.
It's not normal. If it were then Mr Buck would be chasing around Mr Buck instead of Ms Buck.
No other species has this problem. (please don't refer to captive animals)HUH?
But is it not obvious that humans are sexual creatures and that wild animals don't have this problem. [they only mate with the appropriately designed opposite sex]
Seriously, you appear to know very little about nature and wild animals. Quite telling that you appropriate gay men and women with wild animals, though.
Having read the rest of your post, and deciding that you appear to have taken either a) some mind altering substance that has left you devoid of any ability to reason, or formulate any sensible argument fit for human consumption.
or B) You are one of life's unfortunates who can only think in terms of bitterness, hatred and judgementalism.
I have now decided that I feel very sorry for you and hope you overcome this affliction very soon.Thank you but no thank you.
And please stop the childish act of making this about me.
I am not alone in that statement, and your reply is the very reason I've hesitated to post at all.
Get off your horse there little miss princess. I'm a little sick of 'royal' people walking around the threads like they 'deem' people this and that.
I've had MANY homosexual friends that I love very much, so if you will - get back on topic and quit turning toward me.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but drugs are not a hobby for me, and slandering people because they disagree is childish.
Compare them to wild animals? Half the people in this thread believe in evolution....
You really should get off that horse miss....
It's aggrevating when people start attacking character personally.
I think I'll take this as a lesson to steer clear of such topics as people can't keep from accusing people of doing drugs.
How very appropriate and noble..What's with the little princess comment? What exactly do you mean by that? I actually think it's quite funny that you accuse others of "deeming" people this or that, when you compare other human beings to wild animals because their bodies are not appropriate to fit accordingly, whatever that means?
I wasn't making this about you. You were making this about you, when you suggested that you had resisted posting to this thread, despite the "feed" having "fed" you. Poor you, the temptation must have been overwhelming.
Obsessed? It's kinda of a limited requirement so I'm not sure why it is ongoingly discussed as if a mystery.
What's that supposed to mean? Obsession, a limited requirement? you make absolutely no sense at all. If you are obsessed with the sex life of another, you need help. Seriously. No mystery.
What do you mean by "royal" people, exactly?
And, btw, if you are unable to communicate logically, to put forward an argument that has no rhyme or reason and makes no sense whatsoever, then some are bound to think that you have no clue what you are talking about, or perhaps have limited control of all your faculties. Your problem, not mine.
It's aggrevating when people start attacking character personally. Yeah, perhaps this is how gay men and women feel?Have you not read where I said I have gay friends?
I think the misunderstanding is yours, not mine.
Where have I attacked gay men or women Ms Thomas?You have called gay men and women abnormal. You haven't "suggested" that they are abnormal, you've just come out and said it. That's an attack on them personally. You can hide behind the "I have gay friends" comment all you wish, but you have inferred that you are "normal" because you are straight and that they are "abnormal" because they are gay. Therefore, suggesting that they are somehow "inferior" to you. Can you honestly not see how your comments might be deemed as a personal attack?
Sorry, never have and I've likely been involved with more women than you. You've got some serious misconceptions about lesbian sex... and likely gay sex as well. SOME gay women use "fake male genitalia"... of course many straight women and couples do as well. You are using the lesbian pron stereotype that most people who don't actually KNOW anything about lesbian sex (or really female biology) use.
For many women vaginal orgasm is rare and achieved only with great patience. The majority of woman orgasm only through clitoral stimulation either directly or -more likely- the accidental stimulation that comes from other parts of the male anatomy rubbing against the area during sex. Therefore "fake male genitalia" are largely useless during lesbian sex. That also means that the real thing is also largely useless for orgasm in heterosexual sex. Sorry. "God" designed women the same way as he designed men... our sexual stimulation is largely exterior... no penetration needed.You very well may have indeed been involved with more women than me.
Rather the point was still made no matter if you drag out nit-picky details or not.
I don't need your personal details on female sexual preferences Ms Barrett, and find that a little useless.
Some people get their jollies from feet, balloons, and getting beat until bleeding.
Just because it arouses them does not change the relative abnornality to the original stimulation which is procreative sex.
I'm sure you have some form of detailed explanation, but I'm hoping I can exit.
Not only this, but I don't hate or dislike gay people, and have gay friends.
But I will tell them the same and they agree, just like I've said plenty, they cannot do so and claim to be adhering to Biblical Christian doctrine.
I know you have your "personal" touch to the scriptures.
But they do not promote or allow homosexuality, or any sin in direct rebellion irregardless if you think so or not.
I have had issues and still do with many sins, but I don't wallow in them. I try to do what pleases the good Lord, my God.Wasn't commenting on your feelings towards Gay people. Personally, I don't really care how you feel about it or how you think God feels about it. I would have to respect your opinion to care whether or not you hated me and why. I would have to think you knowledgeable about my religion to care whether you think God would consider me a sinner or not. As you are not of my faith then your rules don't really matter to me nor do they affect my relationship with God or Jesus.
I was just pointing out that you seem to know very little about lesbianism, which is ironic since you seem to be so strong opposed to it. I was making my observations from a point of view that is far more knowledgeable about the subject than you are. (Unless you are a lesbian... then I digress I guess) I was also pointing out that you seem to be lacking in knowledge about how normal female sexual response works. Everything I stated in my post relates to MOST women... not fetishes or abnormal. I am sorry you were unaware. Consider it information that might come in handy one day while you are having sex for procreation only.
Hollie, I'm not interested in how gay sex works; I'm just trying to understand what the issue is with those who are anti-gay. It's not enough just to quote a bible verse and say that's it; a rational root explanation is required.
Yeah, I get that Disappearinghead
It just amazes me that the anti-gay lobby, once they have finished quoting scriptures, cannot move away from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship and accept that sex is often just the extension of a loving relationship.
Well, from a Biblical perspective of course, any sex between anyone other than a husband and wife is forbidden.
From a human perspective, people are fascinated by something that is so "other." And no matter how you slice it, relationships notwithstanding, gay relationships are "other" to a lot of straight people.
If it wasn't that, it would be something else.
And yes, some straight people are obsessed with the sex lives of others, it's called "gossip magazines." Although I wouldn't say all gay people are equally obsessed, gay people as a group are not immune to it.
The real issue is that some straight men are terribly sinful, and they believe that sinning will mean an eternity of punishment. So they elevate two sins to be paramount that they'll never be guilty of themselves: homosexuality and abortion. That way they conveniently feel like saints.
I think that's a very shrewd observation on LL's part, one I hadn't previously thought of.
I don't know whether most anti people reckon that as a major part of the problem. I think that Genesis 2:21-24 would be more germaine.
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
Vector7, did you not read my post? This does not define a person's sexuality.
Whatever happens between two persons which does not involve you, is none of your business, and does not need to be. If it's consensual, it does not involve anyone else and is entirely the concern of the two persons involved.
You do not have to agree. You do not have to indulge or otherwise get involved. No one has given you the right to judge. And it does not have to be a problem for you if you just ignore it. Turn your eyes elsewhere.
I for one am not being hateful towards you, you are welcome to this discussion. Put your views, there is nothing against that. But allow me and others our right to conduct our lives as we see fit. Please.I didn't say they were 'banned' from doing jack.
Why does everyone put words in my mouth?
I stated colons aren't vaginas and plastic penises are artificial and used to replace something that seems to should have been there naturally.
They can do whatever they please, but I'm disagreeing it's normal.
I have gay friends that will tell you it isn't normal. [out the horse's mouth you know?]
When did I disallow you to do anything?
I've ignored it plenty, what about everyone else here?
I think people are hateful because I won't keep my opinion to myself.
I'm sorry, but I don't have to. And please stop acting like I'm telling people what to do... lolI must be missing something here, But Where does the colon fit into gay sex?
Forgive me for not being 'specific' enough..
This disturbs me slightly to have to address, but seeing as it looks to be required, I hope this is the last misunderstanding involving this subject....
The term I should have used, though the point remains unchanged, is Rectum. And it is not a vagina, which is what gay men use it for.
Awww... Victor! You're talking about the colon... again???
Klara, hows it goin? Nice photo! It's cute.
Just doing some clarification.. ahem.. That's all.
And rectum actually.. heh
(you're the only one getting away with "Victor" btw - how am I doing anyway? - I'm sure you've got a few people's gears turning. lol)
You are forgiven. It wasn't that you were being unspecific, just that you had incorrectly used the colon to demonstrate how gay couples had sex. Fr a moment there I thought you had information that the rest of us did not.
But Vector, many heterosexual couples use artificial penises together and enjoy anal sex. Do you think that is sin?
@Hollie Thomas
I would ask you why you believe that male and male sex or female and female sex are natural. Does not nature tell you that sex is for procreation only. Tht is unless you simply wnt to have fun. The Bible would call it lust. That is an observation. so tell me why Gay or Lesbian sex is natural.
Paul uses the argument in Romans 1 that Gay and Lesbian sex are unatural. Now that is a scientific observation
But you have concluded that anyone who agrees with Paul must be on some mind altering substance or fill with bitterness, hatred and judgmentalism.
It is obvious that anyone who disagrees with you must be judgmental because they are not as bright as you are. Really? It is obvious that you are bitter and filled with hate because someone disagrees with you. Read your post and see what the logic is. See if you have any reason to reach the conclusions you have reached,
Vector7 made an observation. Paul made an observation. Does that make them wrong because you disagree with their observations? If so, we can logically make the same conclusion about you that you made about vector7It is obvious that anyone who disagrees with you must be judgmental because they are not as bright as you are. Really? It is obvious that you are bitter and filled with hate because someone disagrees with you. Read your post and see what the logic is. See if you have any reason to reach the conclusions you have reached,
When did I say I was bright and that people who disagreed with me weren't as bright?
I'm not the one who puts myself in a position of judgement of gay men and women, that is you, is it not? I don't hate gay men and women, I do not sit sit in judgement of them, that is you, is it not? I'm not bitter and filed with hate, I do not believe that my sexuality is the right one, that is you, is it not?
Personally, I don't care whether sex is just for procreation or not. I actually think it;s fun, too. When I have sex, it;s just for fun, whether that be with a man or women. I just do what comes naturally. So, to me, gay sex is pretty natural, too.Until you pull out a choco-lolli-pop.. [apologies, sometimes details are necessary to reveal the obvious]
I'm sorry, but man or woman, the waste exit is not meant for "fun"..
I don't care what you do, or anyone else for that matter.
But irregardless who does what, homosexuality is not normal.
It's fun to do lots of things, but they aren't all normal, and the same applies here.The term normal is subjective. It varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. You are using the term normal because of your beliefs, yes?
And if the "waste exit" is not meant for "fun" why does it contain hundreds on nerve endings that can make the experience of anal sex pleasurable?And what exactly do you mean by pulling out a choco-lollipop?
If that isn't detailed enough I'm sorry, the spoon feeding stops there.
I'm starting to see why this discussion is still going...
Hang on a minute here, you have consistently stated throughout this thread that you consider gay sex, unnatural/abnormal because that it what the scriptures say. Have you not?
They try every angle. They try the scriptural route until you point out that it does not unambiguously condemn homosexuality. Then they switch tactics and talk "natural law" which is also easily disprovable. Then they say it's disgusting until it becomes clear that most people are not obsessing about what gay people do in the bedroom. Then more outlandish claims, the kinds promulgated by Kirk Cameron, Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson, that gays are causing the destruction of civilization, etc., start to surface out of desperation.
When you point out that Jesus did unambiguously condemn divorce and remarriage, calling it adultery, that's when they quietly slink out of the conversation.You're right to a point. I think the Bible does unambiguously condemn homosexuality and Jesus did unambiguously condemn divorce and remarriage, calling it adultery. I don't think anyone slinks away because you believe you had a gotcha moment, both homosexuals and adulterers can ask for forgiveness and be forgiven. The difference seems to be that you don't think you need to be forgiven but that the adulterer does. Who is judging whom?
No, the Bible does not unambiguously condemn homosexuality, but certain translations do.
I'm not Christian, so, no, I don't think I need to be forgiven, but there are Christian gays, most of whom are just as repentant as straight remarried people who don't want to return to their first spouse as Jesus commanded. Do you put them on equal footing?I'm not concerned with what others do, that clearly is the difference between you and I. If you're gay, have fun. If you're an adulterer, have fun. I am not either one and won't condemn those who are, I'll leave that to people like you.
I don't condemn anyone, you've misread my posts (are you vector7?). I don't have anything against homosexuality or divorce (I do against adultery, insomuch as it can hurt another person, but I don't agree that remarriage is adultery).
My point is that those that are quick to condemn others using scripture as a basis are usually employing a double standard, and they're counting on others not knowing scripture as well.I don't know what vector7 is, as for the rest, whatever you say.
Are you serious?
Because the man posts logic you accuse ME of hiding behind another persona?
This place is ridiculous......
Fortunately, I'm glad you compared me to someone that's making sense.I didn't understand why he was responding to the post. So I asked him. Didn't accuse you. Asked him.
I'm getting there, LL. The argument does seem to be going round in circles somewhat.
I said my Bible is ONE of the reasons Ms Thomas.
Not every reason.Ok, fair enough and your other reason is, what, functionality?
And you should start quoting where people are being judgemental.
Where is Don sitting in judgement?
Honestly, I think you are putting a lot of pushy notions on people, and that is being judgemental... just so you know.
I would really like to see, especially, where Don said something so wrong.
Any sentence you choose will suffice, if there is indeed one that is judgemental.
It's a little saddening that it has turned to this.
The point is they aren't a follower of Biblical Christian doctrines if they don't adhere to said doctrines.
No one gives a rat what they do, but they can't do it and CORRECTLY claim they are following Biblical Christian principles in doing so.Thank you Vector 7, for definition of the word judgemental, I was however, aware of its definition before your lesson.
Let me see, where is Don being judgemental? By putting herself in the position of judging gay men and women and suggesting that they are not natural. She is making judgements about them, that is judgementalism..Mr Crowson is a he Ms Thomas.
And no, that is an observation.
judgmental (adj) - Bing Dictionary
judg·men·tal
[ juj mént'l ]
Audio player
tending to criticize: tending to judge or criticize the conduct of other people
Synonyms: critical, hypercritical, condemnatory, negative, disapproving, disparaging, pejorative
Bing Dictionary
He stated his observation regarding the topic to be scientific, meaning he subtracted his personal beliefs for a moment to come to an unbiased and clearly unmotivated conclusion. And of course he believes his opinion is correct. You believe yours is correct as well. And you accused me of being an addict because my opinion differs from yours.
He states the Bible calls it lust very clearly. If the question involves Christianity it involves the Bible, and the judge of Christianity wrote the Bible and is therefore the guiding principle for Christians.
No one cares, personally, what you do, or anyone else, but saying "we can't say anything is wrong" is silly. Just because you believe something opposite we do does not make us hateful, or judgemental. The Holy Bible is the standard, and we are not judging anyone personally, but stating what it says.
Rectums are not, by nature, used as vaginas.
Female animals, by nature, aren't aroused by females.
Nor are the parts, human or animal, functionally compatible.
This is the observation, and if you don't personally like it it doesn't matter. It's an obvious and truthful conclusion.
I'm not hateful, and am not telling anyone what they should or should not believe, but you trying to say that non-functionality is normal and being upset because we say otherwise is getting quite silly.My apologies to Don for referring to him as a woman. My rather poor eyesight can not make out the images from avatars too well.
There you go again offering lessons in the meaning of judgementalism. Both you and Don have been critical, disapproving, condemnatory, negative and perjorative in respect of gay people. So much so, that Don actually suggested that he was not required to respect gay people and catagorised them in a similar way to murderers, liars, thieves and adulterers. When you have decided that a particular group of people are unnatural and not normal and that you are not required to respect them. You are being judgemental. Your negative, perjorative, disapproving, condemnatory attitude towards gay people exemplifies the term judgemental quite well.
He stated his observation regarding the topic to be scientific, meaning he subtracted his personal beliefs for a moment to come to an unbiased and clearly unmotivated conclusion
Subtracting ones personal beliefs to come to any form of conclusion, can not be considered scientific in any way, shape or form. There's quite specific methodology that has to be employed before any conclusion can be considered scientific.Not just the absence of your personal beliefs/opinions. As as for unbiased. I'm sorry, now I think I need to provide a definition for you in relation to those two terms.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with a science or the sciences.
2. scientific
regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science.
3. scientific
systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.
How can Paul's teaching or Don's interpretation of of his teachings possibly be referred to as scientific?
Unbiased:
1. (adj.) unbiased
not biased or prejudiced; impartial.
Etymology: (1600–10)
Definition of 'unbiased' Princeton's WordNet
1. (adj) indifferent, unbiased, unbiassed
characterized by a lack of partiality
"a properly indifferent jury"; "an unbiasgoted account of her family problems"
2. (adj) unbiased, unbiassed
without bias
Definition of 'unbiased' Webster Dictionary
1. (adj) unbiased
free from bias or prejudice; unprejudiced; impartial
I'm afraid neither of your comments in respect of this matter can be referred to as unbiased or impartial. Opinions are exactly that, they are opinions. Observations and opinions are not the same thing. Look it up.
Btw, I did not call you an addict, I suggested that you might have taken some mind altering substance, based on your post. That was my INTERPRETATION based on what you had written. Yet, you are outraged that someone could make such a comment, you find it offensive. How do you think gay men and women feel when they are referred to as "unnatural" "abnormal"? And yet, you have no qualms when it comes to your INTERPRETATION of the bible and using offensive language. Double standards, me thinks.
Rectums are not, by nature, used as vaginas.
And rightly so. Anal sex can be far more pleasurable than vaginal sex, but I guess you didn't fully understand Melissa's post with respect to the female anatomy and pleasure.
Female animals, by nature, aren't aroused by females. How do you know this? Please share.
When you are challenged regarding your own offensive comments, the topic then becomes, silly, to you. Again, double standards."And rightly so. Anal sex can be far more pleasurable than vaginal sex..."
This is what disturbs me.
I don't care what you percieve as 'normal' but it certainly doesn't involve functionality standards...I don't understand how you can feel "disturbed" by what two consenting adults, who are no hurting anyone else, by the way, do?
"sex is for procreation only" got a bible verse?
As far as I'm aware the bible does not state that sex is for procreation only, otherwise I would have only done it three times in my lifetime. Sex is to be enjoyed for the fun that it is. If I lust after my wife, is that sin?That is very silly, and I will not entertain it.
If I must address that then there are more issues needing to be touched on first and I'm not beginning down that road.
It may not be meant for 'procreation only', but it certainly isn't meant for 'fun only'.
Sure your opinion differs, but I'm happy at leaving it at that as many people have issues with my Biblical devotion.
@ Don Crowson.
Does not nature tell you that sex is for procreation only
No, nature does not tell me this.
Paul uses the argument in Romans 1 that Gay and Lesbian sex are unatural. Now that is a scientific observation
That is not a scientific observation, that is yours and Paul's observation. There's a massive difference.Honestly folks, I have never had sex for the purpose of procreation. It's always been for the fun of it. Just occasionally it's been accompanied by quite a bit of lust, but never at the expense of the other person's welfare and his sense of self-worth. Without the mutual trust and sharing of the enjoyment it would all be completely worthless.
If, as Vector7 says, the god he worships and whom he believes wrote the bible, loves us, would he be against us having a bit of fun?
Our world is becoming over-populated with humans. We are ransacking the earth with pollution, decimating its resources, because we are so good at procreation and preserving ourselves against disease and famine, etc. Same-gender relationships are the way to go. This will allow us to have our fun; live in meaningful relationships; support each other and our communities. All without further increasing the population.
While heterosexual ("normal") people continue to do their christian duty and procreate, we gays can support them with love and encouragement.
A happy case of "co-habituating," if you ask me.The Bible states what it states, and does so clearly.
If you don't believe in the Bible then so be it, but it is clear cut about it's position on homosexuality.
If you don't like it, fine, follow whatever you want.
How many times I have to say we don't care what you do personally, as everyone is judged by God alone, not us.
But don't expect for us to change our statement that the Bible states in God's eyes it is wrong.
That will not change. I'm not being judgemental.
Take it up with the creator.
If you don't believe in Him then do what you want and leave us to believe until we both die and find out personally.
I didn't say anyone had to do anything. I said God said it.
May be Paul forgot to tell animals!! So much for naturalIs that a scientific observation, Jomin?
Who cares if someone is gay, lesbian, bi, or straight take the labels away and we are all just people. If we want to believe in god we will. If we don't want to we wont. Let people be who they want without anyone criticizing them. You have your beliefs other people have theirs. Anyone who tries to say someone is less of a person for being who they want to be needs to spend some time staring at the mirror and seeing if they really like what they see. Are you just upset that gays have more audacity and drive to be who they are no matter what other people think? I am a Bi-sexual and I am a christian. I go to church, I read the Bible. Does that make me any less of a person? NO! I am who I am don't like it? Tough!
It's not about anyone not liking you.
It's about what the Bible says.
No one here is the judge.
But it doesn't mean I'm not going to stand for what the Bible truly says.
And it says homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God.
What you do is between you and God.
What the Bible says is what God says.
God loves you.
I love you.
But God in the Bible doesn't say "it's ok to sin."
It says in 2 Timothy 2:19 let every one who nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
I'm not your judge.
It's not tough on me.
please dear sir if you're going to quote from the Bible do enlighten me as to where exactly it states that being gay is a sin..
Gladly.
Leviticus 18:21-23 [notice it is in between sacrificing children to an idol and having sexual relations with animals here]
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9
It's right in line with fornication and every other sin, and the rules apply the same with all sins.
If you have fornicated, it's ok, you can be forgiven.
If you have lied, it's ok, you can be forgiven.
If you have worshipped idols, it's ok, you can be forgiven.
If you continue to do these things, it's not ok, and you won't be forgiven.
This is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by Biblical Christianity, and Christ teaches [Matthew 12:31-32] continuing in sin without any remorse or concern for the fact that God's Word says otherwise is the only sin that will not be forgiven.
It's no different for me if I say it's ok to fornicate, or easier still - lie - and do so without caring about what God's will is.
Christ means that, He will forgive every sin, but will not forgive those who say "I'm forgiven, so it doesn't matter what I do" and continue sinning even though it's wrong and they know it.
Sincerely trying not to sin and slipping up does not fall under blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
God knows when a person is trying not to sin, or is not caring and doing what they want.
Of course, you are not judging Gay. You are judging Vectpor7 and me. We have not judged anyone. we have quoted the Bible. But you claim Vector7 is on something of hates Gays. there is no evidence of that. You jump to concl;usions.
I am a woman who resides and shares my life with another woman. If you wish to use the term "gay" or "lesbian" then so be it. I have also been married to a man whom I loved dearly. I do not put myself into any 'social' category, instead I celebrate and embrace who I am as a person. I consider myself to be a good person with good values and morals and live my life as selfless as I am able. I am a Christian.
I think the problem is that people,very often out of ignorance or indeed prejudice view homosexuality as a 'sexual or behavioural' orientation and are unable or even refuse to view it in a social context .They are unable to look beyond this as a creative process of the development of fulfilling relationships. This for me is tragic and very sad. Unfortunately it is a direct result of this ignorance that the search by many for a satisfying self image is often thwarfed.
Jesus taught 'love'. All his teachings were to this purpose. I do not for one minute believe that he meant we must only love our own sex and not display any affection for the other. Pro-creation will always be regardless and the 'family unit' will never be threatened as long as children are brought into this world with love and family around them.
These are very brief comments I've made to this forum as unfortunately time prevents me at present to expand on my views. However.I will definitely come back to this thread when time allows. I feel I have much more I would like to say.You say you are Christian, but you are doing things that are opposite the Bible's teachings?
Can you be a vegetarian if you eat meat?
I don't need to judge anyone. Have you not read where Christ said in the parable the master would judge the servent by his own words?
If you sincerely think it's Biblical to be homosexual your understanding of the scriptures isn't accurate.
I'm getting a little insight on why everyone thinks Christians are hypocritical.
Some of the ones who say they're Christians don't follow the Bible. [self admittedly]
I grew up where people got drunk on saturday, and went to church the next day.
I see no difference.
Don't call me 'judgemental'.. If I didn't care I'd say " do what you want and go to :ahem: " But I do care.
The Bible, the standard for Christianity, says don't do something and you blatently state you do it anyway. I don't need to say anything, you've said it all.
John 7:24
24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
The righteous judgement is the Bible, not what we personally want.
So I guess you can be a vegetarian and eat meat after all?
I just want this clear is all. Christ doesn't intend for us to do what we want, against what God wants.
John 14:15
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
This is Christ speaking, and the scriptures are Christ's commandments..
Jesus Christ is God.
Hebrews 1:8 states, God the Father speaking [read context]:
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
God calls the "...Son..." --> "... God..."But Vector, how can someone obey one of Jesus commands that he didn't give? He talked about adultery and all manner of social issues, but never once about homosexuality. Paul was expressing his own opinion, not the words of Jesus. Leviticus was the commands to the priests.
Now if a married heterosexual couple enjoy anal sex and the use of sex toys, is that sin? Are these acts mentioned and forbidden in the bible? No. So the only issue you have is when the couple that are doing these things are of the same sex. So to you it is the physical expression of love between them that offends you. Yet there is no evidence that it offended Jesus.How much evidence do you freeking need DH?
I mean I try to be sensible and keep my thoughts, but seriously?
Common sense never struck a nerve before I guess?
A little two plus two never hurt and if you understand the basic principles of God the rest fall in place.
You people turn God and His Word into some puzzle..
It's simple, and obvious. And I'm being sincere here -
I'm tired of the nit-picky silliness. I'm not that old of a man, and the ONLY thing I can't understand is WHY AND HOW SO MANY PEOPLE ARE LOST ON WHAT GOD MEANS.. lol
It's NOT rocket science. The whole Bible is set out in EXAMPLES.. It's FOOLPROOF if you don't "well this could be" or "but theres no evidence"..
How about Jesus is called the Word, for a reason.. He is named God in Hebrews, and elsewhere though denied [so hard believe by me as it's plain as sunburn lines on a canadian indoorsman]
How about Jesus Christ rebuked WITH SCRIPTURE OVER AND OVER..
EXAMPLES!! LOL
I'm so close to concluding that the 'obvious' is a hopeless case for people studying the bark of the tree to understand the forest....
I'm sorry, but you have an entire Bible worth of evidence..
I'm sooo tired of explaning things for people to tell me I'M confused..
lol, ok....Doctrine can only be based on explicit statements, and not inference or interpretation. If Jesus was not explicit about homosexuality one cannot form a doctrine on it. Thus it is left for the individual to decide.
But the Bible does define marriage as between one man and one woman, which Jesus quotes, including that for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.
Pretty specific.So there are times when you should cling to exactly what was said, and then times when you must "read between the lines?"... Sketchy.
Again, either Jesus had no foresight and therefore never spoke specifically against homosexuality because the Jews knew it wasn't "right," OR he did not mention homosexuality because it WASN'T an issue, and he didn't need to specifically say that a woman could cling to another, and a man to another... etc
"Cultural context" excuses are irrelevant, if, with foresight, Jesus knew that not only Jews would be reading the scriptures, and that in the future homosexuality would've become an issue of confusion, along with many others. If Jesus knew His words would be written down, He should've have been CLEAR. Clear on homosexuality. Clear on Hell (and it being a place of Eternal Torment as popularly believed today). Clear on many things, so that NO ONE would need to ask a question. It is faulty to assume anyone would know when or when not to "read between the lines."Very good point. First, the Talmud doesn't talk about homosexuality as a sin, so the idea that ancient Jews were obsessing about the ambiguous verses that right-wing modern Christians obsess about doesn't have much historical basis.
Considering homosexuality was a widespread practice in the Greek-speaking world, it does seem strange that Jesus didn't bother mentioning it once. But maybe that was deliberate.More on that later...
OR...God gave us brains to actually look into what was said and why. Jesus constantly quoted from the OT (but not the Apocrypha!) so it would stand to reason that He who said He came to "fulfill the law, not abolish it" would expect that people would think He would want us to know that law.
There IS one aspect of the law He specifically released us from, which is dietary. He said it was what came out of a person that made them unclean, not what went in. He did not IN ANY WAY countermand any of the OT sexual laws. He DID quote Genesis 2:21-24, which outlines that God created man for woman and vice versa. I'm not a fan of glib bumper stickers like "He created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and..." but Genesis is pretty clear of the design plan here.
"Cultural context" does apply, but it also works forward. The fact is that for close to two millenia, whether homosexuality was okay or not was simply not a question in most cultures.
And, while we're speaking of culture, the tendency to want to put God in a box ("because He didn't specifically say x, y or z He obviously can't be who you say He was because if He was He would have said it!") is more a sign of limitation than actual critical thinking. The ability to connect bigger dots is more what God is looking for. He created us to think big, and nothing is bigger than God. To paraphrase J.B. Phillips, if you want God to be specific to just what you want, you're God's too small.
Now, if you're still with me after all that, let me be clear about something that I've written before, although maybe not to you specifically. There is an entire laundry list of actions that, if you're actively engaged, will keep you out of Heaven when Jesus comes again. It includes a whole lot more sexual activity than just homosexuality, including adultery and fornication (i.e. sleeping with someone other than who you're married to and sleeping with anyone if you're not married.) They also include lying and cheating. A lot of people key in on homosexuality because (as I've written to someone else) of the 'otherness' for most people of it. I've known a lot of gay people, many of whom were/are quite nice people and willing to help out a neighbor in a jam, but for many straight people wanting to be with someone of the same gender, let alone doing it, is just unfathomable. Not all straight people, but a lot. But what many have pointed out in this forum is true, all people are sinful and keying in on someone else's sin is often an excuse to not have to look at your own.
One more thing, I don't know if people are "born gay" or not. I've known gay men and frankly most of the ones I've known I can't imagine them ever having been straight any more than they can. But I've also heard of many lesbian women who made an active choice to be lesbian because they had been hurt by a man/men, not because their natural proclivity is in that direction. I personally don't believe that having gay feelings is an automatic rejection of going to Heaven.
Can you be a Christian if you systematically and consistently verbally abuse your fellow man?
Ah... so you Vector 7, then, read the Bible as accurately as is possible. I understand now. There's no way that YOU could be wrong. Excuse us, I don't think that we knew that we were in the presence of "Greatness."
I can be wrong.
But, it's not that hard to understand and knowing God changes the understanding of the message.
I am nothing, lol.. thanks for the sarcasm though. Made me giggle a bit.
But I know God. I don't just believe because I like the idea. He shows me things that I could not have possibly understood on my own.
God is loving, and has never, ever did anything unloving or unjust.
Christ said Himself the Holy Spirit would be the teacher. YOU don't believe in God, but He is with me all the time.
2 Timothy 2:15
You can be sarcastic all you like, but my words are direct scripture and I don't see the Bible as being able to be misunderstood if the personal agenda is set aside.
It teaches through the simplest method there is. Example.
Even Jesus taught parables for 'examples'..
Say what you want, but I know my God, that you have said doesn't exist or is evil in some way.
God is good, and nothing but. And just like He tells you in that Holy Bible Satan is a liar and accuses God of doing everything that he done himself.
No. I'm not great. But don't sit there in righteous judgement of me when I can back every understanding I have with scripture.
The BIBLE is "greatness" not me.
I'm just doing what I'm told.I see you hold on to it, very intensely dude and I don't expect you to change, and I understand what you mean more than you think I might... But, when you say arrogant things that you aren't even licensed to be arrogant about, like "those who understand/read the Bible accurately," I must say something about it.
I think Jews might have a better understanding of the word of God, but you often refute what they say about certain scriptures, because they make some of the other scriptures that you cling to seem to be incorrect. Yet, these people are JEWS, mind you... and probably have considerable more insight about the Tanak and everything than you would... You use the fact that some Jews were converted as an excuse that the current Jews get it wrong.... but have you ever wondered why the majority of Christianity is NOT located in Jerusalem, and that's actually who Jesus' claims to have come for?
P.S. Half of the things you say about "God" are because you see him with rose-colored glasses, sorry.
-He personally killed who knows how many first borns of Egypt because Pharaoh wouldn't "let" Moses' people go, even though God HIMSELF had hardened Pharaoh's heart. And they were first borns many of whom were only small children. But of course, if you say that children go straight to Heaven when they die, then God cannot be called unjust for this, cuz it's "not that big of a deal," anyway.
-A woman on here, (I can't remember her hub name, but I'll find out, and get back to you) said that growing up, her father raped her almost every day. And she prayed and cried out to God, but He never came, and He never saved the poor thing from such an experience. If there's never more reason to doubt His sense of "justice," it's this circumstance.
-Countless times in the Bible, God judged an entire place, supposedly killed off entire Nations of people who were only living life the way they wanted, a right they should've had from the BEGINNING because God created us with the ability to express "free will" as you put it, but time and time again, God demonstrates that expressing free will in a manner He doesn't like will end in your destruction. Backwards and unjust. Certainly smells of a malevolent dictator.
-There's so many more that could go on this list, but I don't have the time.
We say that this idea of God is unjust because "He" is. This is the territory of Dictators. If you choose to keep believing that He is all good, ever loving, etc., go ahead. But watch it man, because you ooze arrogance, and that's frowned upon in your religion (though a characteristic that many dogmatic Christians seem to share).A Thousand Words
All I can say is this..."if the only tool you have in your toobox is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail." (no I do not claim the quote....lol) If all you can see and dwell on is the negative of the world...then the entire world is evil...not so in reality. If all you see is where you think that God does not do something that you want Him to do or think He should have done...then you will never see that many, many, many miracles he has perfomed and how good and full of grace He is even to you. "For the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." "His thoughts are not our thoughts..." We cannot begin to try and comprehend based on our own selves what God does and why...we simply do not have the capacity. One of your most famous unbelievers (Carl Sagan) stated in one of his books "People cannot completely fathum a grain of salt that contain 10^16 sodium and chlorine atoms because theoretically the human brain at full capacity has only 10^14 neurons and we theoretically only uses 10%.) I ask you how can you or any other human even begin to understand God who created the grain of salt and the human.Au contraire, friend. It is Christians, and often religion in general that puts "God" into a box. I do not. I simply refute the omni-benevolent, anthropomorphic God pushed by most Christians, within their black and white view of reality. Eastern thought is considerably more open-minded than Western. A hindu could accept a Christian as a brother following a good path, but a Christian, completely ignorant of Hindu "theology" most of the time, condemns them to Hell.
And it seems, Sir, that you cannot begin to understand how "god" would be accepting and unconditionally loving a homosexual person, a homosexual union, a homosexual act. Because you have pre-empted "god's" judgment, based upon trifling interpretations of scripture which was written in a long-bygone age.
Please, love and support gay couples, do not judge them and do not tell them they are going to Hell, because Hell is only what YOU make for them here on earth.
If you read the bible in the original language...(the actual "original" copies we have, would be even be better)...You might...notice I said might...Have a different understanding of the bible than you currently hold....
I might, and I'm working on it.
But Jesus explained my point rather well for me when He wrapped ALL the laws and the prophets into two commandments.
Matthew 22:37-40
I don't claim to be the expert, but I know of commentaries of plenty who are. The resources are there, and those people can and have read the original copies languages.
It's a two sided coin...
If God isn't real and I love an idea then the Holy Spirit doesn't teach me and I'm basing my understanding on my personal thoughts.
But if God is real then the words are true and because I seek His will and not mine He teaches me.
I do agree it would be beneficial in explaining things to non-believers.
But the main point, Jesus saves, and the reasons for it, I don't think are compromised in the translating.
Do you think, from your studies, Matthew Henry is an accurate scholar in his work DS?I like Matthew Henry...I don't agree completely with everything. But then again, when do two parties ever completely agree 100% when it comes to biblical interpretation.
Here is a good site that I like to direct people to who want to do study but don't have access to alot of different resources...
http://onlineparallelbible.com/
This has a variety of bible versions including the Greek,Hebrew and Latin. As well as the Strong dictionaries and multiple Bible reference guides and commentaries.Hey man, I use this site all the time.
I never knew they had a parallel section though. (vectically that is, with full passages)
I was just on there today before I left the forums. I've been using it more and more often lately, and they have greek and hebrew tools I've been trying to find time to look into.
I usually type the verse in the search for commentaries and translation comparison, but haven't dug into the site really deep.
Think I'll go exploring. Surf time.
Then you will be even more in the dark regarding the bible and it's texts.
How on earth can the average person, in this 21st century, understand the real meaning and implications of text written in that age? Don't even bother! Come into this modern world, open your eyes, for clarity of vision; your brains, for some good sense and understanding; and your hearts for a bit of unconditional loving. You will find all of the answers you need, here and now.
Our world today has close on 7 billion human inhabitants. The solutions we need today were not even thought of 2000+ years ago.Why should love be unconditional? I think its rather stupid to love your significant other unconditionally and even more so to love total strangers unconditionally. You may have guessed I'm not God or Jesus, I'm one of them thar sinners.
Funny how some will tell you God loves unconditionally, but he has his conditions... Believe in me, praise me, do as I say.
LOLI think you are confusing the word "to love" with "to like."
Obviously not one of us can like every other person unconditionally. However, if you can see yourself on a level with your neighbour, no difference in status, importance, needs, and you can treat the other person according to his/her needs, without being greedy and selfish, then that is applying love to your neighbour.
To love another person is not necessarily to like them. I know that when we come to talking about marriage, then we speak of "being in love." In this case, love can be synonymous with liking.If you wanted to say like you should have. I am not on the same level as some of my neighbors, some of my neighbors beat their wives and children and I don't. Am I supposed to be understanding of them because they happen to be humans? As I've said before, I judge my fellow man because I am imperfect.
It stands to reason that you will apply normal, reasonable rules to the situation. Of course. We are not super-human, just human.
To "love" them means trying to see them as fellow human beings, to start with. If you can imagine yourself in that situation, and someone tried to understand where you were coming from, what had driven you into that "bad" family state of affairs, then their reaction towards you would be a bit more reasonable, understanding and, therefore more helpful in the situation.
Transfer all that sort of principle to your own reaction to the "difficult" guy next door, and you have the makings of a better community. It might be that you can't stand the sight of him.... normal and common reaction. Yet still a bit of fair play might be possible.
Of course, none of us is perfect. We all fall short of the ideal. But a bit of effort towards the right course of action is all that's asked of us.
IMHO!
Tad short sighted, don't you think?
The fact is that many people who have studied (and I'm not just talking Christians) the Bible in original language have also studied the cultures of those times. And the language isn't so opaque that we basically need to rewrite the Bible in order to understand it!
To say that modern man is inherently incapabable of understanding anything about ancient man is to sell human beings short, IMHO.I am saying that we don't need to delve into what they did 2000 years ago in order to arrive at the best way of living today.
All the worries about what "god" wants us to do, what was declared or accepted as moral way back in history, might or might not apply equally today. We are intelligent enough to work out what is best for the society in which we life today.
Each community is free to make such decisions for itself. When you are a person with a particularly christian perspective, and think that you have the prerogative to dictate to other communities what they should be doing, are you trying to play god?
Certainly, of course, if cruelty and restriction of liberty is at stake, then one might have cause to intervene. But the mere presumption that, because one is christian, one has a duty to tell people how to conduct their lives is, I feel, the height of arrogance.Being as I am a person with a Christian perspective who is NOT trying to dictate to others how they must live, then no, I'm not trying to play God.
The rest of your point is predicated, of course, on whether God exists and if He is the God laid out in the Bible. Obviously I believe "yes" and "yes." So trying to figure out how people two to five thousand years ago understood things doesn't mean we have to live like that, but it does help us understand what God wants better.
Isn't there what is known as "apocryphal?" i.e. understanding the text in the light of living conditions and accepted norms of the day?
How could people of those days have any idea of what we would be experiencing today? So why should "moral code" of those days be applied verbatim to today's conditions.
The relevant content of your post is most interesting. Usually, humans have the capacity to understand they no longer will do what they're told especially if what they're told to do is wrong.
What do you think makes people continue to do what they're told when they begin to understand it's wrong?
And Christ taught THE WILL OF GOD above all else.
And God's will is love, but not lust. And the Bible states homosexuality as lust.
I did not say this, GOD did in the Bible.
Unless you deny the Bible, you cannot deny what I've stated.
I've already posted scriptures in this thread addressing this.Vector: What if homosexuals feel it only as an act of love, but not as lust? Does that mean it's still lust despite their true feelings of love? Just seeking your opinion on that.
Well, that goes to personal belief.
I preach Christ crcuified. And it was for a reason, [John 3:16] which is to save the world.
Now if they don't believe in the Bible or Christ, I can see the 'love' often times, but I personally don't see the sex as loving. Maybe sharing lust in love.
If they don't believe in God and Christ Jesus then nothing I say is going to change their opinion, unless that changes first.
I believe a man can love a man with all His heart. Peter loved Jesus so much people always try to twist it into homosexuality. I have loved people so much I call them brother when their parents are not mine. And we would die for each other.
THAT, to me is the strongest love there is.
It takes undeestanding God to see what I see. Lots of people have had 'sexual urges' about things that aren't normal, including me as a teen and younger adult 'party man'. [say no to drugs]
If you don't believe the Bible it seems to change the 'looking glass' so to speak. God isn't trying to take anything from them.
The sexual acts are the only aspects that differentiate between 'gay' and 'straight'.
And to me it's like saying you can love anything enough to want to have sex with it, even if the shoe doesn't fit, in less descriptive terms.
A person may love their animal so much they want to have sex with it. I'm not saying they're normal at all, but by the people's judgement I've encountered here they can't rightly say that person is wrong because that person can say the exact same things as argumentation.
And that person can say, "Who do you think you are to judge me? You aren't better than me. Who are you to say my opnion is wrong??"
But I don't think [or at least hope] no one here sees that as normal.
I'm sure they will say to me, "wow vector. Comparing homosexuals to people like that." But wait? Didn't they just say that it was about love and pleasure and we heteros have no right to judge? Yet to say that is not normal, they have to make a judgement on that person.
[I hope I don't get someone telling me that's normal.]
If they don't believe in God, the first issue is that. Otherwise nothing I think or believe is relevant in their mind, as many of the standards are changed.
I'm not here to make them believe, just tell them why I do and that it's the truth.
Aside from that, I don't think they are unloving. I just see it as a misunderstanding.
They see me the same, but that's kinda my point.Fair enough answer, from your perspective.
I think you have every right to judge them to yourself. It's protected under freedom of speech -- we don't have thought auditing services yet. A judgement stems from your opinion on what is right or wrong or makes sense to you.
Where we may differ (and I say may because I don't know how you vote or your exact social stance); is that I want homosexuals to have the same freedoms I have, which means being allowed to legally marry, get benefits, raise a family if they choose, etc.
The only thing I can say is probably something you've heard before, but it holds weight -- sex with animals, sex with objects -- that's not the same as a human-human relationship. It's a slippery slope argument, for example, to suggest that if we allow gays to marry, then next we allow people to marry dogs. I am 100% confident a law like that will never pass. Dogs are not nearly as cognizant and self aware as we are; so there's no way they can even commit to something like that.
Most relationships are about more than just pleasure. They genuinely care for the person, but also in a romantic way. Homosexual or Heterosexual.
I was responding to a lot that you said; but I want to get back to my original question, which you seemed to answer in a round about way...
You said, "Aside from that, I don't think they are unloving. I just see it as a misunderstanding." and I find that as intriguing answer.
What I want to dissect, if you will let me, is that initially you said homosexuality is defined as lust, but now you also suggest that you do see it as loving. I am not trying to make you contradict yourself or twist your words, so please don't think that is where I'm going.
What I'm getting at, without trying to put words in your mouth, is that do you think that under the circumstance of true or what we understand to be the definition of love; not lust (no lustful acts at all) that two members of the same sex could be Christian and maintain a homosexual relationship/marriage/family? Let me ask you that same question again, but without the "could be Christian" part?
Thank you!jdflom, you know me and you have an understanding and I have high respect for you even though we disagree completely on certain things.
But I can't see two men as a family, personally. Even without any sexual acts.
I've had many brothers and there is no love stronger than what we have, which is why we call each other brothers.
Just because I love them and even lived in the same houses, went everywhere together, talked about everything... It's still not a mariage type thing, which involves creating a child that is a part of both the mother and the father, which is a gift from God when you see so much of yourself in your child. [yes, believer themed statement, lol]
I mean, the father has a contribution that a mother can't provide, and and a mother has a contribution a father can't provide, for the simple fact there are things women are good at that men will never be capable of - in thought and action - and the opposite is true of men doing things and understanding things women cannot.
I've come to where I'm pretty sure the Bible says let men choose their own destination.
I personally don't see how anyone thinks a systematic world that is so delicate continues operating for thousands or [and in their mind, not mine] millions of years without ever ceasing to function without God.
But they do, so we all disagree.
If I had only a mother, I would have been screwed as a child.
If only a father, same.
And I don't see the relationship as two people as anything but love, but the sexual aspect turns it into lust, and most gays say they like men, because well, they like men parts [I know because they are my friends].
If they didn't have this desire, then they would have brothers, instead of lovers, like me.
I used to be one that didn't believe all this and thought most Christians just had standards created by the rich or 'homeowners association' type that fed off of restricting people and enjoyed being the 'enforcer.' [I see myself looking like that a lot defending Christian values, but I'm just teaching scripture, not trying to 'force' people to do what I say.]
But it wasn't the case. They had reasons. Just like we all do. [not that every reason is the best reason]
So to wrap this drab seemingly failure of an explanation up. [just don't seem able to word things well today]
Christian - no, because it is against the doctrine.
Non-Christian - Can they do it? Well yeah, but it's not something I can say is the best idea, because I can't see that for a split second.
More than one way to skin a cat. Heard that right?
Next saying is key. But not every way is the 'best' way to skin it.
The point I guess I'm trying to make is I see it as a seperation of values, and they can live in tolerance of each other - but not in complete agreement.
I've already been over, what and why I believe is right or correct, is, what it is, and, why it is, I believe is right or correct . [the thread is saturated..]
I still LOVE the people. I just don't agree with them. I joke with Gay Ryan about being 'Gay' Ryan [his nickname] but he is still my friend, and a really good one.
I don't think the disagreeing part is ever going to change. It would be nice to do a persuasion hub that was more like these convos than most of the ones I've been in.
Maybe we can start a seperate dicussion involving certain disgreements and why we disgree.
Check in soon, I'll see what I can come up with.I'm glad you at least addressed single parenting and your opinion on that. Often times that is brought in as the other example to a non-traditional home.
But, you have to admit, there are people raised by single parents that aren't screwed up.I am a partial product of that, and I've been fine. I have several friends that I think are both ends of the spectrum -- raised by single parents and some are probably screwed up and some are so normal. I think your situation is unique to you and I believe you when you say you would probably be screwed up. That's valid.
I say this because I have seen it first hand. I have also seen single parents screw up a child -- I know of one right now that is really doing a number on her kid; and I also know traditional parents - a mom and a dad -- who have screwed up their kids. Why would a homosexual set of parents be any better or worse?
That's just my stance on it though, in response to what you said.
I think what you said regarding needing a mother and a father holds some weight, and single parents not being able to do the job correctly, but I also think that it's a narrow scope, or a small sample. Just because it doesn't work out all the time, doesn't mean it won't work ever.
I don't ever expect you to think it's a good idea, so I know we won't go in circles trying to convince each other otherwise, but it's nice to get a deeper understanding of it with each other. I don't think it's a good or bad idea -- I just think it's an idea that should be just as equal as heterosexuals and the things that go with it. I think 2 people getting together being good or bad is also based on a case by case basis. I have seen many straight friends get together with someone whom I think it will be a bad idea... But it's not up to me to tell them who they should or shouldn't date -- and that has nothing to do with orientation.
This kind of goes back to what gaeparks originally said, in that he suggested that his interpretation of the Christian-way should be the standard -- now at this point, it's slightly out of context, but that is what he originally said -- I hope that you can agree that for the sake of America as a country, it shouldn't be the standard for everyone, even if you want it to be; but I wouldn't say it doesn't have a personal place.
I agree, we are to display affection for members of the opposite and members of the same sex. I may get in hot water here but I don't believe that having gay feelings automatically keeps you out of Heaven.
But...
There is a long list of behaviors that DO keep you out of Heaven if you're actively participating in them. They include, sleeping with anyone you're not married to, lying and cheating. And the Bible does define marriage as between one man and one woman. So a man who is married to one woman and sleeping with another is not going to make it.Chris,
So all those Christians who have divorced and remarried, who according to Jesus are in adultery, are not going to make it. But those who are homosexual, Jesus had what to say exactly......?Repeat lesson. [Also addressed this in detail above]
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 12:31-32Nice try.
Jesus was quite specific about marriage being between one man and one woman.
Constructive, loving, sensible. Thank you.
- And, that completely annuls and responsibility on your part. Hilarious.
eh? Do you actually have anything constructive to say? I would genuinely love to hear it and a little respect wouln't go a miss either
Don, you have the presumption that you are superior by way of your "born-again" christian status. Right?
I just read the article and wanted to share some thoughts.
Those who are Christians should know that the greatest commandment is to love, and that choosing to hate others (no matter who they are, what they believe, or what they do) is wrong. Jesus did not teach hate by any means. One may choose to believe that certain things are wrong or not a part of God's will,(and people are entitled to their beliefs), however, it does not make hatred, bullying, out-casting, etc. acceptable.
"For God so LOVED the WORLD that he gave his only begotten son, and ANY one who believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
I believe that Jesus died and rose for everyone.
Being a Christian is about being "born again."...choosing to follow Christ under God's grace...choosing to live for Christ over our fleshly desires/nature...thus, taking on a new nature. Though this may seem difficult at times, we have a God who forgives and the Holy Spirit who helps us along the way.I agree, but I also see my duty to take my cross and follow Christ.
Christ set the example and taught right from wrong, and used scripture to correct those in disagreement, including Satan himself.
Mark 1:15 Jesus is preaching "repent"..
I love them all, and want them saved.
Even if 99 hate me, if one changes their mind because of two words that opened their eyes [amazing grace, once blind - now see] then every hurtful thing or false accusation toward me is worth it to me.
I used to tell people "I know the Bible, leave me to myself and you worry about yourself."
But, because a few of those who loved me, even when I said hurtful things, tried to explain the Bible I changed and seen my mistake. I claimed Christianity but did not act it before then.
I am now, today, thankful they would not shut up. lol
Eternally grateful.
And if someone claims Christianity, you can bet I'll be doing my level best to clear any fog regarding scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I serve God, not man or money, and I'd rather people despise me than Christ be disappointed in me.
I love them dearly. More than they know.
@disappearinghead
Sex is for the basic purpose of procreation. Sex within a marriage is always a part of the marriage. Sex outside marriage is classed as fornicarion or adultery. It is natural for men and women to have sex. Their sex organs are perfectly suited for sexual relationships. Outside that relationship is unnatural. Does not nature show that?Sorry Don, I don't see the logic of this expression "unnatural." So many things which we do, make, work by, etc., can be considered "unnatural." I.e., don't seem to have come through the natural course of events which have led to our existence(by way of evolution, of course).....on the contrary, that have come about by the direct hand/brain/industry of us human beings.
Applying the criticism predominantly to sexual activity is unhelpful. Would you have us accept ONLY natural things? Would you ban men from concentrating on a woman's breasts? These are intended for a baby to suckle, surely not for sexual gratification. Suppose we all convert to living without clothing of any kind. Would this be satisfactory? Clothes are pretty unnatural appendages.
Yes, all this sounds very silly and far-fetched on my part. Well so is your argument, in my opinion.Seriously? lol
Jump off the cliff there..
"Clothes are pretty unnatural appendages."
-jonnycomelately
What are your suggestions doc???
Your observation agrees and upholds the Bible's [God's] recoreded history in Genesis.. ironically.
Or maybe clothes should go? That would really help all the divorce rates decrease right?
Maybe sin isn't so hidden after all, rather hidden right in front of people's faces.
They say if you want to hide something, put it right where they won't look..
Smack dabb right in the open..
Well.. It works better than I thought. lol
It's entirely NATURAL for male animals to be colorful and ostentatious.
Therefore, those who espouse the natural argument must agree that gay queens who dress up and flaunt their sexuality are totally natural!@jonnycomelaty,
Your logic is flawed in making the statement that the breast is not involved in the sex act. The entire bodies of both partners are engaged in the act. The sexual stimulant may be the woman's shape, her smile, her eyes, her haIr, her breast and every other part of her body.
You logic tries to show that the act of sodymy is limited to a penis and an anus. Is sex limited to a penis and a vagaina. No, it is far more that=n that.You say that sex is not limited to a penis and a vagina, but entire bodies are engaged. So if the couple are a man and woman, then your statements agree that sex including the penis and the anus are also valid. So your issue is when this act is carried out between two men. So if Jesus talked about adultery and all sorts of social issue, why did he never talk about physical expressions of love between those of the same sex?
Christ probably didn't see a need for it as it's addressed clearly by Moses who Christ said is a prophet. [And Christ never mentioned "man leave his parents and cleave to his husband" if that's any indication.]
And the entire Bible is full of Godly men who were heterosexual. [examples]
This is not a coincidence.Because he was talking to devout Jews who already understood (based on their knowledge of the Bible) that physical affection was not proper between same sex partners.
Had He been talking to the Greeks, where homosexuality was more accepted, you might have something. But almost all His speeches were to Jews and all of them took place in Israel, where homosexuality, although I'm sure it existed, was thought to be about as unclean as you can get.
I have absolutely no interest in a woman's body, Don. Never have had. Yet I respect women as fellow human beings.
I do have an interest, occasionally, in a man's body. If circumstances are right and he and I are in agreement, something further might happen. Whatever happens is none of your business. I don't care a dam about what you interpret from your bible. It is not my code book, because it was written so long ago, in very different times. It is open to various interpretations, which are always biased on the side of the reader.
You are biased. You, Victor7 and your ilk have no authority to dictate my life based upon your interpretations of such a book, unless I give you that authority.
I am biased on the side of personal freedom and personal responsibility.
Simply return to the edicts of the code of conduct which you espouse, enact Love instead of talking about it, then leave others to their own lives.
It is interesting, that those of you who so vehemently oppose gay relationships, but claim they love the sinner, yet hate the sin, have yet to discuss how their attitudes have very negatively affected a young boys life. ( The young boy in the article and no doubt many others) Having read about his feelings and the way he considered hurting himself, do any of you feel any level of remorse, whatsoever? How would you feel if a man or woman actually took their own life, because of the way you had made them feel about themselves? I'm not suggesting that any of you would do this deliberately, but now you have read first hand, the damage your negative statements can do to another human being whom you are supposed to love, how do you feel? Is this the outcome He would have wanted, is this what He meant by loving the sinner?? If so and IMHO, this seems like a very convoluted to way to love, if we could call it that.
Well said, and that really was the thrust of the original article. It's strange to see people talk about love, but as an empty, sugar-coated concept that they can check off their list but not really put into practice.
Yes, and then prefer to quote scripture rather than face up to their own behaviour and address it.
Quoting scripture would be fine if they were willing to admit the quotes are ambiguous and translated a certain way, and that they're ignoring wide swathes of scripture that don't fit their perspective (which fully support more loving behavior). It's the inconsistency that's most disappointing.
I have gay friends and love them. They don't believe in the Bible, but respect what I believe and know what it is I believe. I respect their choice regarding the Bible as well, and love them irregardless.
We disagree and pick, but they know I love them very much.
What scriptures are being used incorrectly exaclty?ok,i respect that.but the fact still remains,man.
Vector7, you claim to be heterosexual. But are you really gay, hiding your fears behind the scriptures?
Just wondering.I often feel quite confused when people state that they love everyone. For me, love is a powerful, involuntary emotion that develops when you have come to know someone personally. I can't, therefore, honestly say that I love everyone, but I can say that I value and respect my fellow human-beings. Vector7, do your gay friends truly feel that you value and respect them? How can you love someone if you do not respect them?
I didn't say anything about correctness, but rather inconsistency in adherence and application. You've misquoted me before; it might be helpful to read something thoroughly before reacting, instead of making an assumption based on a couple of words here and there. You might consider a more careful approach to reading scripture, too, since pronouncing certainty based on a reading of one modern translation doesn't give you or anyone else bulletproof insight into what the Biblical author(s) were intending when they wrote it thousands of years ago.
(Irregardless is not a word, by the way, but regardless and irrespective are...not meant to embarrass you, but I thought you might like to know)Well, you are correct about irregardless. I've so often seen it used I seemed to have adopted it without dictionary policing them.. Which isn't like me. [I'm a dictionary addict]
Thank you.
And if I misunderstood what you meant, apologies.
Where is the inconsistency then? I simply meant what is it that you are shedding light on?Well, let's start with this: is remarriage wrong? Should it be forbidden? Are remarried people living an adulterous lifestyle and are they destined to hell? Would it be good to tell a small child that mommy and stepdaddy are going to hell, because Jesus said so?
No. Biblically they are not going to Hell.
A person that 'continuously' divorces people out of disregard for the sanctity of marriage or God, then yes, [Matthew 12:31-32] because they are rejecting God as a useless head figure and aren't attempting to do any good or follow His will.
Divorce may be a sin, but so is lying, which everyone has done plenty and will probably fall short and lie again.
Lying, nor divorce, send you to Hell.
Not believing in Christ [accepting salvation], and sinning without any regard for what God said repeatedly send you to Hell.That's your belief, but it runs counter to scripture. Which one matters: your opinion, or scripture?
Jesus said remarriage (not the wedding day, but the marriage itself) is a sin and he equated it to adultery. As you know, adultery is every sexual consummation outside the bounds of marriage, not just the initial decision to do so with a particular person. In fact, Jesus said that the proper recourse is for the divorced person to return to their original spouse, since the divorce should have never been valid.
So are those that flout that commandment, out of Jesus's mouth four times (Matthew 5: 31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), but are otherwise good people, condemned to hell? I guess I'm asking for a scriptural basis in your response, since, as you said before, our opinions are really meaningless here.I gave it to you.
Matthew 12:31-32
King James Version (KJV)
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.OK - so that puts gay Christians and remarried Christian people on the same footing, right?
No.
Divorce is an act such as lying.. You can't just get up all willy nilly one day and say 'I'm going to stop sinning and get back together'..
The divorce doesn't make you 'constantly sinning'.. It is "A" sin.
You lie, you ask for forgiveness.
You get divorced, you ask for forgiveness.
If you keep lying you go to Hell.
If you keep divorcing you go to Hell.
If you keep on "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womenkind: it is abomination." you go to Hell.
If you keep sinning without caring what God said you are being rebellious and that is what puts you in Hell.
Matthew 12:31-32 It's fairly simple.
A divorcee is not a sinner forever because they divorced. If they try not to divorce anymore and fight to sanctify their marriage they are NOT sinning any longer, but have changed their ways... 2 Timothy 2:19
A gay person continuously does the sexual act called an "abomination" which is sin, in Leviticus 18:22Sorry, no. You are letting your personal feelings interfere with your interpretation, presumably because you love divorced/remarried people more in your life than you do gay people.
Lying to yourself would include telling yourself that the divorce decree or the 2nd wedding are the sins, which an even cursory reading of the gospels would tell you is not the case. Sleeping with anyone else (even what the civil courts will deem a legal second marriage) other than your spouse is considered adultery by what Jesus said in the gospels. Every time you sleep with someone other than to whom you're bonded ("what God has joined let no man put asunder") is considered adultery.
I know that this is tough for you to stomach. In fact, I'm not surprised that you are fighting it. Maybe because it condemns someone you know and love, or maybe even you.
(What you see in Lev 18:22 is an idolatrous/ritual sin, which King James decided was 'abomination' and who conflated with moral sins - in Hebrew and Greek they retain two different words.)
Anyone who believes that the King James Version of the bible was written by God or Jesus is a fool, neither of them wrote a single word of any versions of the bible---they were "quoted" by those who knew or did not know of them but the two of them never penned a word of any bible and anyone who believes the King James version of the bible is "gospel" has no concept of the history of the versions, translations into and out of numerous languages and/or has never studied a foreign language, none of which translate word for word and anyone who believes that the KJV is gospel and identical to the original versions should never quote the bible and anyone who has not read and studied the seven lost books of the bible and anyone who quotes and believes the KJV is gospel does not understand the very complicated process of editing and revising and opining that came to be the KJVErsion of the bible or any of the other two or three dozen subsequent versions of the bible that sprang forth after the KJV and I bet none of you can say how many times MEN and not God or Jesus wrote and rewrote the original versions to get to all the modern day re-writes of a book that is a great way to live your life as long as you remember the only thing we are sent here to do is to love everyone who crosses our paths whether we like them or not and to accept and encourage all our fellow mankind to love one another as Jesus and God so loved the world---
I died and went to Heaven and at the time due to a horrific childhood I was an aetheist and although I am not gay,I had engaged in sex with more than one woman---it was the 70's---I had snorted cocaine and engaged in out of wedlock sex and had lied on many occasions and I had sex with a married man and I smoked pot and had dropped acid and I died and went directly to Heaven---I did not pass Hell but went directly to Heaven which makes everything most of you are saying a mute point---many, many books have been published over the past four decades since my NDE about the experiences of others in Heaven or Hell and mediums who talk to dead people speak to people who have commited suicide all the time and they are in Heaven and before anyone tells me that mediums are against the bible let me remind you that mediums are modern day soothsayers and prophets who were known to be the third most revered citizens of Jesus times and lots of people write about that in all the versions of the bible, so let me assure you that there is only one way to eternal life in Heaven and that is by many lifetimes and reincarnations until or unless a person can "get it" and live a life in which they truly and honestly can love all mankind as Jesus did during his three years of presence on earth that we know about and today we have drifted so far from this basic and ultimate commandment which has been repeatedly issued by Jesus and God according to the people who actually had earthly encounters with them and I believe many of us have had those encounters directly with one of them or the other as I have now had numerous times in my 60 years on earth and this is the only key to eternal life and lots of "bible thumpers" are going to be very surprised to know that God and Jesus did not write the bible and did not say the things that are often written in the bible and to preach it as gospel is the biggest sin of all in God's eyes I feel sure----does anyone think that many lifetimes of people arguing over their favorite version or interpretation of the bible and creating one absurd religion after another for centuries and killing people for being of a different religion or of a different culture which has happened among christians, jews, mormons, catholics, muslims and lots of other bible thumping MAN LEAD cults is pleasing to God or Jesus?????? Not no, but Hell no and until or unless a person has studied the whole history of the bible and done decades of work on reviewing the whole thing and trying to cram it down someone elses throat, he or she needs to ask him or herself every single day if he or she is "LOVING" every single human they encounter during every single moment of the day no matter what the Hell happens to them in that day and then begin to preach about that because, I can tell you first hand that it is the only key to the kingdom of eternal life and believe me when I tell you that everyone who goes there wants to stay there,so planning many lifetimes over and over to work off one's bad habits or karma or whatever you call it is very tiring when we could have just all loved each other from the beginningThanks.
I love everyone.
My Bible will always be my Bible.
It's why I love everyone, and it made me this way.
Jesus came to save me.
And God is the first love of my life.In other words, you love no one nor have any concept of love.
*grins* I love YOU ATM and it's my Bible too!
*ducks and covers*Careful how you bandy that word around. It's a serious one.
I suppose that's what I meant in a way. I, (and I know I shouldn't pigeon-hole everyone from the anti-gay lobby in the same way), think that some of them find it easier to hide behind a particular teaching, which of course of they will interpret in the way that best fits their own agenda, then admit that they are not really sure why they oppose same-sex relationships. Perhaps it's because of fear, ignorance, social-conditioning, who knows. Or sometimes because they may even fear, or suspect, that they are gay themselves.
I actually agree with you; sorry that wasn't clear. I was just adding my additional perspective. I think you're right. I think there are several reasons why someone will obsess about what's not said (or talked about in ambiguous terms) in the Bible about one thing, and ignore other things. You're right that the choice to focus on certain things and pretend other key bits don't exist is telling.
You just summarized what I wanted to say much better than I did.
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
And I am sure, Victor7, that the world had its fair share of men who loved men, and women who loved women. Even in those days, because the world has not changed that much.
They even had pharisees then, just like we have now!Your spelling Mr Cooelately isn't to par.
And your understanding of the Pharisees and Jesus' corrections for them isn't accurate.That 'to' is meant as 'up to par' miss Words. As in meeting the goal.
too (adv) - Bing Dictionary
too
[ too ]
Audio player
as well: used to indicate that a person, thing, or aspect of a situation applies in addition to the one just mentioned
more than is desirable: more of an amount or degree of something than is desirable, necessary, or fitting
extremely: used to emphasize a quality
I used it correctly.
Thanks though.Yea sorry, it was "Coolately" that you misspelled... I'm making a point, Vector...
Yes, miss Words..
Again, that was intentional, as was Jonny's mispelling vector.
I was making a point, as well. [or "too"]
And it was "Cooelately", I simply swapped an 'm' for an 'o'.. [but coo was the word intended there.]
As he swapped my 'e' for an 'i'..
Are there any other 'points' you would like to make?
I find this rather amusing.. lol
I was picking at the man miss Words.
@jonnycome lately
Being born again or a belief oin God does not make people superior. It might make thjem superior in the minds of others because the others assume thay are being looked down on. But no born-again Christian looks down on anyone.
God is the judge who condemns. He is the lawgiver, and the judge. Matt 5:17 says that Jesus came to fulfill the law not to destroy it.
As Christians, we simply read the law and obey it. There are times that we fail and ask for forgiveness. We repent in order to keep the right relationship with our Father.
You are free to do as you choose. god gave you freewill. But God hates the sin and loves the sinner. Obvioulsy, as the thread says it is nonsense to non believers.@hollie Thomas.
The way a person feels about himself or herself is determined by that person. It is not determined by what others think. If we try to mold our lives by what others think, we will be in deep trouble because we will never satisfy everyone. We will always bend to the will of another.
That not only applies to Gay and Lesbian behavior, it applies to every behavior pattern known to man. Do you not understand that people who have things in common associate with one another. I would love to be friends with Bill Gates. However, I cannot blame Bill Gates if we are not friends. Neither can you blame a Christian if he or she does not choose to be your friend.
Every person on the face of this earth is accepted and rejeceted by different people. That is because they are liked or disliked. It is not due to the fact that people do not love them. You cannot make people love you and it is foolish to think that you can. If you are going to be loved, you must be lovable,
BTW You need to distinguish between carnal and spiritual love. And it wouldn't hurt to note that there are carnal and spoiritual Christians. Hey, think about it--The Pharisees would make perfect Christians if you judged by the otward behvior.@Don Crowson.
The way a person feels about himself or herself is determined by that person. It is not determined by what others think. If we try to mold our lives by what others think, we will be in deep trouble because we will never satisfy everyone. We will always bend to the will of another.
I'm not suggesting that the way others "think" have determined how that boy feels about himself. I'm saying that the way others have "behaved" towards him and other gay men and women have created his misery, low self esteem and poor self image. As I'm sure you know, our self esteem and sense of self worth can be developed or reduced because of our interactions with others- Those close to us, such as immediate family members, and those not so close, such as colleagues, friends, members of the church we might attend, and yes, even strangers. There's a lot of research out there on this particular topic, if you're interested? But just to save some time, and perhaps to put things into a little perspective, here's an interesting link detailing why our low self esteem can be caused by others.
http://www.empoweredforgrowth.com/why-o … lf-esteem/
I fully respect the right of others not to be my friend. However, the issue in this young boys life is not about who chooses to be his friend, but the toxic , hateful environment which he has grown up in. You see, as your yet another Christian that states he hates the sin but loves the sinner, this is the perfect opportunity for you to evaluate how you have failed to convince the gay community that you "love" them. They feel hated and vilified by people just like you. Didn't that young boy, you know, that one that has suffered so much, say that he grew up in a Christian community where gay people were "hated"?
The thing is, I would not choose to be your friend because we are so completely different and I feel that your views are sanctimonious and hypocritical, nevertheless, I wouldn't bully, harass or deny you equal rights to myself. I would never falsely elevate myself to such a lofty position. I believe that all human beings are equal. I hope one day you get there, too.
You cannot make people love you and it is foolish to think that you can. If you are going to be loved, you must be lovable,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that gay people arn't lovable?
BTW You need to distinguish between carnal and spiritual love. And it wouldn't hurt to note that there are carnal and spoiritual Christians.
Btw, I don't need to think about the distinction between canal love and spiritual love. I already know the difference. And, if I lusted after someone and I wanted to sleep with them, providing that they were in agreement, not already in a relationship and no other human being would be hurt by my actions, then I would sleep with them. I would never say I loved them though if I didn't, because that would make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Having said that, this thread is not about my carnal desires, but the suffering of this young boy at the hands of some Christians. As I have never inflicted this kind of misery on another human being because of their sexual orientation (or for any other reasons for that matter) I'm not the one who needs to think and reflect. That would be you.
"Sorry, no. You are letting your personal feelings interfere with your interpretation, presumably because you love divorced/remarried people more in your life than you do gay people.
Lying to yourself would include telling yourself that the divorce decree or the 2nd wedding are the sins, which an even cursory reading of the gospels would tell you is not the case. Sleeping with anyone (even what the civil courts will deem a legal second marriage) is considered adultery by what Jesus said in the gospels. Every time you sleep with someone other than to whom you're bonded ("what God has joined let no man put asunder") is considered adultery.
I know that this is tough for you to stomach. In fact, I'm not surprised that you are fighting it. Maybe because it condemns someone you know and love, or maybe even you.
(What you see in Lev 18:22 is an idolatrous/ritual sin, which King James decided was 'abomination' and who conflated with moral sins - in Hebrew and Greek they retain two different words.)"
One - Don't tell me about my personal feelings. I've gave up many things I used to enjoy 'personally' for Christ.
Two - Another one? I'm not lying at all.
Lets see if I can skip past all your accusations and get back to the topic. Shall we?
Mark 10:11-12
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commiteth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commiteth adultery.
Now as Jesus points out here, the ONE person who leaves the other is committing adultery. Not BOTH because one of them chose to sin.
So I guess now that the husband sinned against the wife and left her alone she is doomed to live alone forever? No. She never sinned in the first place as she was left, not choosing to divorce herself.
And Christ does not say the divorce isn't effectual. He says it is indeed effectual because He says to 'divorce' - meaning leagally seperate - is a sin.
Therefore the one person sinned and the other did not. AND the 'divorce' in still 'in effect' because if it weren't then He would have said there is no such thing as divorce and there is ONLY adultery.
THEN they would be sinning for life. And as it stands still with divore 'in effect' the one who left, until he or she sees their wrongs and repents to God is agreeably still living in sin, as you can't be forgiven for a sin you refuse to confess.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Leviticus 18:22 - It is directly in between sacrificing children to idols and sexual relations with animals [beastiality]
There is no nit-picky way out of what that verse means in it's context.Or that neither is off the hook.
Yes, the onus is on the husband to reconcile with his wife and stay married to her. Don't put words in Jesus's mouth; the scripture is patently clear.
Luke 16:18:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
If you married someone who was divorced, you're committing adultery.
Even if you were still confused by this, Paul, speaking on behalf of God, makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11:
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
Reconcile or be alone (provided your spouse is still alive).
Again, I understand your interest in defending what the Christian Bible says is indefensible. You must have friends or family members that you love very much that this affects.No.
Although it's quite agitating you keep repeating it, it is not true at all and you are making an assumption about me.
Did you notice he didn't say "and the husband she departed from, let him remain unmarried."
It's like you are saying that if my wife divorces me (sins against me) then the divorce isn't valid because my wife sinned against me and so I'm hopelessly screwed into being alone because of her sin against me.
I haven't been married yet, and have no one to defend. (The Lord is the judge and I don't care what He says to do, I'm a follower. Period. I trust Him)
You, by your own words are extending the scriptures direction toward both parties. The person that done the wrong is the one needing to reconcile which is why Paul states so.
Christ said "except it be for fornication" didn't He?
I'm growing kind of weary trying to explain things that are so simple..
Peace and love..Yes, very simple. I can certainly understand your exasperation.
Getting back to scripture: yes, if you get a divorce, you're supposed to stay alone ("hopelessly screwed") if you can't reconcile with your spouse, according to Jesus. This is probably why his disciples said to him that if that was the case, then it was better not to marry at all. (Matthew 19:10)
As for the "except for fornication" that's another mistranslation by King James's translators. Since I believe you worship Jesus and not King James, we can look at the actual word he used: 'porneia', or premarital sex (it was common among Jews at the time for a marriage to be invalidated if it were to be found out after the fact that the wife was, in fact, not a virgin when she was betrothed). If he meant "except for adultery" then he would have used the word 'moichao'.
I understand that the words of the Bible can be difficult to digest. But if you call yourself a Bible believing Christian, then you must.LOL!!!
We'll let God be the judge on that Mr livelonger...God is the judge for everything.
I've already been over the scriptures in this thread multiple times.
What they do with the scriptures is between them and God.
I simply want what the scripture clearly says to be obvious to everyone, not paraphrased incorrectly.
They can still say I'm wrong, but the New and Old Testament cover the issue pretty clearly.
I never, ever, stated I forbid anyone from doing anything.
Matt. 19:9- I say to you, whosoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. So divorce is allowed. My question to you is? In some books it will read adultery, and He also says if you look at another with lust you commit adultery, if my wife looked at another with lustful intentions, could I divorce and remarry without sin?
Divorce is allowed, under extremely limited circumstances. No, just because your wife looks at another with lust is not sufficient grounds for divorce. But aside from that, a key verse that Jesus Himself quotes is Genesis 2:21-25 "21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[a] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[b] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
Marriage is a very serious commitment in the eyes of God, and should be treated far more reverently than it is.There sure must be a whole lot of extremely limited circumstances supporting the incredibly high rate of Christian divorces.
But, of course, it isn't treated seriously, especially by Christians.You skirted the question.
According to bible when somebody looks with lust they are committing adultery and adultery is a ground for divorce.
So instead of quoting some another verse answer the question. Can he divorce his wife because she looked at someone with lust?
When Jesus himself say lust is adultery, on what grounds you say it is not? Are you a greater authority than Jesus?
PS. You are NOT asked whether marriage is a serious issue.You asked:
I answered:
In fact, that was in the writing of mine that you quoted!
You asked:
I answered:
(Translation, "No, I'm certainly not a greater authority than Jesus. In fact, this is what Jesus Himself actually said.")
In fact, that was in the writing of mine that you quoted!
I didn't take it upon myself, I quoted Jesus quoting from the Old Testament.
P.S. - Nobody asked you if I WAS asked if marriage is serious! It doesn't change my response. Marriage IS serious, and should be taken seriously! And that is an underlying point of the question, how seriously should we take marriage if even looking at someone else lustfully is grounds for divorce?
New International Version (©1984)
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
English Standard Version (©2001)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.
American King James Version
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
American Standard Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.
Darby Bible Translation
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.
English Revised Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Webster's Bible Translation
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
World English Bible
"'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.
Young's Literal Translation
And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.
If you would like to say every single english translation is incapable of conveying the correct meaning, I think I'll pass of attempting to persuade you into the obvious any further.Haha if god hates gays then why did he create them?
Almost all of them are derivatives of the KJV, a translation made by 47 people sixteen centuries after the time of Jesus.
The Hebrew word translated by KJ as 'abomination' is toebah, and the Greek word is bdelygmia. Why not read a little to see what that word meant in Biblical Hebrew and Greek?Quick Question...
Are Gentiles subject to the Mosiac Laws??
Or the Levitical Laws??The Law of grace through Christ Jesus.
But the Law is still a representation of what is sinful, as Jesus shows speaking of Marriage and using Old Testament scripture to verify all His doctrines and teachings.
Rebuking the Devil with it is a pretty good testimony that it is a foundation for the Law of grace.
Did I understand your question right?You understood correctly...
And what of the other 613 laws? Are they still sins as well?Well lets see. Biblically.
[Hitting me hard today huh DS?]
The Law of Christ [Matthew 22:37-40] is the foundation for the Law period.
Of course the Old Testament Laws also included specifics regarding circumstances of life only applicable during their time as well, such as stoning them for certain sins was abolished by Christ as He is the Law fulfilled. [ "No one comes to the Father but through me.." ]
Most any questionable "law" (such as what we are discussing) is also addressed in the New Testament, or New Covenant.. (agreement)
I'm guessing you're testing me there Mr books?
Correct me if I'm wrong.I am not testing you per se...I am attempting to ask questions that allow you to test yourself.
The OT laws, the teachings of Jesus concerning the laws, and Paul's take on the laws, and if they apply to only the Hebrews (Jews) or to the gentiles as well is a very touchy subject and not one that can be easily explained.
This is one subject that causes alot of debate between believers as well as between atheists and theist alike.Well, as far as things go in that regard, I take the Bible as God's working through man, just as I believe He inspired the men who wrote it.
That is the very heart of the disagreement between most I've encountered.
If they believe the same concerning whether the Bible, written and brought together, is inspired and the working of God... then there is usually must less in the way of disagreement.
I believe it splits the trunk here, and the rest of the disagreements branch in both directions.
And I agree the explanations are not easy.
VVVEEECCCTTTOOORRR!!! Preach my brother...Preach!!!
Let they who are without sin, cast the first stone. There are sins of the body and sins of the soul.
Wow Rad Man, you hit the nail on the head. You have the choiceto return his love or not return it. Hey, no big problem. Just think about what your post says.
I believe! If that means I must walk alone, then so be it. People may judge me and probably do... it is not their opinion I seek. At the end of my days, I will know the truth. In the meantime, I believe.
Thank you for sharing this article. When first reading it, I found the mother unforgivable, but as I continued reading on about the impact her son's letter had on her, I felt differently. Ironic in a way, about myself that is, something like the Paradox of tolerance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I shared the article to my friends. Hopefully they're find a powerful message in it as well.Mr livelonger,
I understand your stance and what you are defending here. I don't believe anyone should be hated at all, in any way, or for any reason.
But, I myself, not pertaining to gay issues have many, many times asked God "why am I like this?"
I have very powerful sexual urges, for women, and right now I'm not married.
Christ said if I look on a women in lust I have commited fornication in my heart already, and have sinned.
Is my sinful desire that God says is a sin and not to do any less an issue to God because my human nature is hard to resist? Is my issue any different to God than is those of people with gay sexual urges?
I'm not saying I know God's final judgement pertaining to every person, as that's obviously a judgement God makes from the heart. But my point is, do we love our human nature more, or do we love God more? John 14:15 is one of my favorite verses because it reminds me when I start talking to a beautiful young girl that acts interested in me physically to ask myself, "How much do I love Jesus?"...
John 14:15 says "If you love me, keep my commandments."
That's Christ speaking. Do I fall short at times? Yes. Do I feel ashamed about what I've done afterwards.. YES. Should I? If I love Jesus, then yes.
Homosexuals aren't to be hated, as they are just sinners with an urge for a different sin than the ones we struggle with.
A scholar I was reading today stated it very, very well:
God sent Jesus Christ to save us from our sins, not in our sins..
Will we ever be able to be perfect? No. But it doesn't mean there isn't a standard and we should just give in to the sin. [Romans 6]
Believe me, I struggle with my sex drive and women flaunting their every part makes it no easier at all, but it doesn't mean I get to say "God made me this way and I can't find someone that loves me for me to marry right now, maybe not ever, so I am what I am."
No, we all have issues with our human nature, and if we love Jesus Christ then we will try harder every day to follow His commandments [the Father's will].
I will stand next to you and every other person in the world against hating ANYONE. But, I won't tell them sin is ok, because God doesn't say it is.
Were they born that way? Sure, wasn't I born this way? Should people hate them, or me, because of what we feel or believe? No. But does that change what God says is right and good? No.
I sympathize with them a lot because my situation is extremely hard on me. But if I don't love God enough to try to fight my human nature [sinful nature] and do what he says is right by Him, then when I tell God I love Him and pray to Him every day, all the time.. how truthful am I really being to Him?
If we are to have a relationship with God and love Him more than anything else and put Him first, then who are we to be most faithful to? God? Or ourselves?Don, I have a question. I was taught respect was a given. How do we know if a person has integrity or not if we have'nt viewed their attitude or actions. If we see someone for the first time and assume they lack the integrity to EARN our respect and aproach them likewise, without knowing anything about them, we could be asking for trouble, don''t you think? Hey Mischevious, a few more lines of your time please. Livelonger, during the Messiah's time on earth the people of Israel and Yahudah (Judah) were'nt Jews. They were called Israelites and Yahudi. The name Jew was a nickname for Jewish culture (Judaism not Judah). Talmud- the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial laws and legend comprising the Mishnah and Germra. The Talmud is one of the "holy" books of Judaism. This book is held higher than scriptures in some forms of Judaism, this is stated in the Talmud, Erubin21b(Sonicins edition): My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah." The Talmud is a collection of rabbinic writings. It was created sometime in the 2nd-5th century. It is not found in Hebrew scripture, they had no knowledge of a Talmud, they only new Turah and scripture.
I'm sorry, but your post is full of inaccuracies. You don't understand much about Judaism at all if you're claiming these things. But since this thread is about Christianity and homosexuality, start another thread if you want a dissection of how all these things you've written are either wrong or a gross distortion of the truth.
Are you saying that Jesus lived walked the earth during the divided kingdom of Israel/Judah? Are you saying some other man was Messiah and was around at that time? You're giving new information here, and I'm interested.
What you are arguing, and so is Don Crowson, is that gay people have simply sexual (carnal) urges towards members of the same sex. What you are choosing to ignore is the overwhelming scientific evidence, accepted by every non-evangelical professional organization, that homosexuality is not a simple sexual urge. Gay people can fall deeply in love with each other, and develop relationships that last for decades, just like heterosexual couples do. They can have children, raise families, and contribute to their extended families and communities as a couple.
It's sad that you're willing to ignore what there is ample evidence of, and choose a viewpoint that harkens to a period of ignorance, one that harms gays & lesbians in the civil rights sphere. Furthermore, your belief, completely unfounded in even Christian scripture, that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin, causes terrible harm to young gay & lesbian people, who are impressionable and internalize messages like this. Think about that long and hard and think about what G-d's message has always been.PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THE ALL CAPS....I USE THEM TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND MY RESPONSES AS I WANTED TO ADDRESS EACH SECTION IN PIECES.
gay people have simply sexual (carnal) urges towards members of the same sex. THIS STATEMENT IS IN FACT THE TRUTH.
What you are choosing to ignore is the overwhelming scientific evidence, accepted by every non-evangelical professional organization, that homosexuality is not a simple sexual urge. WHERE ARE THE EVIDENCE YOU SOEAK OF? THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THIS. PLEASE DIRECT ME TO SUCH EVIDENCE SO THAT I MIGHT BE EDUCATED.
Gay people can fall deeply in love with each other, YES THEY CAN...JUST LIKE ANY TWO HUMAN BEINGS CAN "FALL IN LOVE" BUT WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THAT LOVE?
and develop relationships that last for decades, YES ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS THAT LASTS FOR DECADES...FRIENDS, COWORKERS, ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN "LOVE" EACH OTHER FOR DECADES.
They can have children, NO THEY CANNOT...THIS IS A NOT TRUE ONE HAS CHILDREN BY MEANS OF FIRTILIZATION OF A HUMAN EGG BY HUMAN SPERM,,,LAST I CHECKED...EGGS COME FROM WOMEN AND SPERM COMES FROM MEN...YOUR ASSERTION IS DEAD WRONG.
and contribute to their extended families and communities as a couple. AGAIN ANY TOW PEOPLE WHO LIVE TOGETHER CAN DO THIS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENETICS OR ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
MR VECTOR DOES NOT SHOW IGNORANCE NOR DO ANYONE ELSE WHO SAYS THAT THE WORD OF GOD DENOUNCES HOMOSEXUALITY...THEY ACTUALLY SHOW WISDOM AND TRUTH.
IF ANYONE SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN DOES GROSSLY MISUNDERSTANDS THE BIBLE AND THE WORD OF GOD...THERE IS ONLY "ONE" UNFORGIVABLE SIN AND THAT IS TO DEFAME OR DISDAIN OR DENY OR SPEAK AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ONE CAN SIN AGAINST JESUS OR GOD AND BE FORGIVEN BUT NOT AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN BUT A FORGIVABLE ONE. THROUGH REPENTANCE.
one that harms gays & lesbians in the civil rights sphere IT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT ONE WILL ATTEMPT TO ATTEST THAT HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS HAVE A CIVI RIGHTS ISSUE FOR LIVING THAT LIFESTYLE. YES IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE THAT WAY BUT DO NOT TRY AND PUT THAT IN THE SAME REALM AS AFRICAN AMERICANS, OR ASIANS, OR WHITES, OR INDIANS, OR ANY OTHER ETHNICITY...PLEASE DO NOT.
FINALLY YOUR PIECE SAYS THAT GOD REQUIRES REPERATION FOR SIN...THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE AS THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE AS HUMANS CAN DO TO REPAY GOD FOR ANYTHING HE HAS DONE, IS DOING, OR WILL DO. HE DOES REQUIRE REPENTANCE...HE DOES REQUIRE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...HE DOES REQUIRE GIVING YOUR LIFE TO HIM AND FOLLOWING HIS WORD AND ACCEPTING HIS SON JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR...HE DOES REQUIRE THOSE THINGS BUT NEVER REQUIRED REPERATION.gaeparks, you are a very, very ignorant man! As one who has taken on the task of looking after a flock of gullible human fellows, you are not well informed about homosexual people.
"gay people have simply sexual (carnal) urges towards members of the same sex. THIS STATEMENT IS IN FACT THE TRUTH." Absolutely not true. Some individuals have "simple sexual (carnal) urges towards other individuals," yes. I bet YOU have too, if you were honest enough to admit it.
During many years as a member of the "gay fraternity," I have met numerous homosexual couples who have lived long, happy, productive and moral lives. Those lives are diverse in their "style," as you put it. There is not just one "style." Some might engage in anal intercourse, some do not. Neither you nor I would ever know whether they do or they don't. It IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! But it's certainly not a forgone conclusion that any two guys, in a relationship, will engage in anal intercourse. YOU KNOW that some heterosexual people do engage in it. Again, in most cases you would not know if they do....it's none of your business. Again, engaging in anal sexual intercourse is not a prerequisite for being considered "gay." Indeed, some partners do not engage in any sexual intercourse at all. NOT YOURS OR MY BUSINESS. It's theirs alone!
I have a suggestion for you Sir. Concentrate on shepherding your flock, with love, energy, compassion and humility. Get educated. Do NOT get involved in a subject in which you know NONE of the facts.jonny...I am not ignorant in the least. And all that you've said in your response are simply a repeat of the same old rhetoric. I did not question what one does in private as being my business....but it is God's business. And the heterosexuals who engage in anal sex are sinning just like anyone else who does and that is called sodomy...and is actually illigal in some states and in the military. You obviously did not read my piece but only skimmed it and saw that I was not pro homosexuality and decided to respond with your obviously pre-rehearsed argument...and that sir is your right to do. But to call me ignorant is quite inaccurate but then that too is your right...you should check your facts about your own lifestyle...please do. Yes it is your right to choose to live that way...but own up to what it really is....your right to live that way.
If you regard that as sinning, I suggest you set up a "God Squad," that goes around houses at night, looking through windows to see that people are "doing it right." You, gaeparks, will be included in this procedure. You will have to leave your curtains open, otherwise how will we know that you are in fact doing it right?
You do not have to be pro-homosexuality. Just get on with what is important in life - and that ain't getting into bedrooms to find out what other people are doing!
You speak of God. I do not accept the existence of such an entity, at least not a judgmental being who sits up on high, and spanks my butt for doing what is "wrong." The judgment, as I have stated several times before, is made by humans, much like yourself, who have distorted ideas of right and wrong. The god bit simply gives you added authority of your own making.
If there is a god that I would have (infinite) time for, it's the mystical, unfathomable creator of all which I see wonderful in this world. Such a creator can only be imagined in my mind, and that imagination is my personal possession, which can only be shared with others through metaphor.As I have already stated...what people do is none of my business. I am not the "sin police" nor do i wish to be for the Bible says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." to that end we are not to judge unless we ourselves will be judged by the same law...that is alose a text from the Bible. That being said i am not to judge anyone, however, i am to proclaim the Word of God to all I come in contact with whether digitally or actually. I do not judge anyone for anything they do...only God who is perfect can and does judge. I am mandated to love all people regardless of what they do or say or believe. However, I am also mandated to reject sin even while I still love the sinner. We are not what we do...we are who we are and because of may reasons that i cannot nor do I wish to try and list as we have new reasons each second of every minute, we do things for those many reasons. What a person does is between them and God...whether you believe in God or not. Because he does not stop being because you or anyone else choses not to believe in Him. Just like the wind does not stop blowing just becasue we cannot explain it fully. God is God just like the day is the day and the sun will rise tomorrow and every day until He decides that it will no longer be. And about your accusation og God being a "judgemental being" please be careful. But then the fact remains that Jesus died for your sins and mine and therefore allowed grace to become the dominant attribute of God. God is love, but just like you live your life nased on certain rules so do God and he expects us to do so based on His as He operates in and out of time and therefore in omnitient as well as omnipresent. You very description of who you think a god would be is a contradiction of itself in that you say that the being could only be imagined in your mind and therefore limits that very being to whatever limitations you have and cannot be called a god and most certainly not God...so by your own limitation you placed on yourself you then therefore limit God. It is a wonder that you cannot believe...you cannot see or think or believe beyond yourself.
Again...I do not judge...so please stop trying to accuse me of what you think I should be just to substantiate your own limited beliefs. And God determines what is sin and He has stated that homosexuality and sodomy are sins. Thank you and have a great day...much love brother.But you do judge, no amount of stating that you do not judge will detract from the judgements that you have made. You just claim that it is G's judgement and you are merely carrying on his message, because you have a direct channel to him. These judgements regarding gay men and women are YOURS, you own them, yet consistently refuse to accept responsibility for them.
gaeparks' statements are ALL based upon his (and that of others) presumption that "god" exists in reality. Without that presumption, EVERYTHING he says and preaches falls apart.
He cannot understand that "god" is metaphor only, viewable by each individual in a different way, according to the individual's needs and preconceptions.
The insistence that a god exists and that "he" demands certain things of everyone in the world, is the basis for wars and cruelty and division.
Drop that insistence and you have the basis for concord, love, forgiveness, understanding, patience, union and joy. Simple as that. All the attributes which Paul described in Corinthians.
Christians, WAKE UP!I know you did not just say that with a straight face! I can picture you laughing behind the scenes at whoever might actually take your words seriously! LOL.
Who do you expect to believe your rantings and whinings?Laughing, Brenda? You talk to me about "believing?" I am talking about real life, what is happening in this down-to-earth world! YOU are the one who turns to belief, instead of facing up to basic common sense facts.
Religion is used by people such as yourself in order to free your mind from serious assessment of reality.
Now we will get the same old hog-wash story invoking "god" to back you up.
Numerous times here and in other Hubs I have given genuine concern and respect for those who have a personal faith, whether I believe it or not. However, blind, unintelligent nonsense I do not need to stand for.
That's absolutely true. If God doesn't exist, then I'm wasting my time. I've said that many times, echoing Paul, and will say it again.
Based on what? Why do you believe that God is only a metaphor? That's a serious question, not an accusation.
Yes, that's true. It's also been the basis of a lot of good in this world. And frankly, I've still never been shown how humans would have been less cruel and warlike without religion. In fact, societies that are specifically irreligious are not any less cruel or warlike.
Except that Paul couldn't envision them apart from Christ.
I did wake up.
I do respect that you believe differently than I do, but you're yelling at me. And I am always interested as to the reasons why people beleive what they do. Not the "Christianity is stupid" beliefs, but the real base reasons for it.
Does gae stand for gas or gayparks?
Was that YELLING and PREACHING at the same time. You say Homosexual can be saved if the repent their sin to your God (Yahweh).
On behalf of the 10% of people in this world who are Gay, I forgive you for what you had just said.
Gee, I feel much better for forgiving you, Wow it works..ha ha ha....i forgive everyone who says 'sex is baaaaaaaad'...that's what it's all about right...sex!......whateva!
hey CP...how ya doin'? sun shining over there?I hope I didn't sound gay, just then, I really dig the farm women out here,
Me too, I forgive anyone who has not had the greatest pleasure of sex, like gaeparks.
It's been cold and a little wet in Creston, My 4 season greenhouse has done very well this year, regardless.
How is the the island in the Pacific?
As I stated at the beginning of my piece...the all caps was simply to distinguish between original material and mine...so not yelling...but the preaching might have been accurate...lol
Castle...no the hae does not stand for gay..it is my first three initials
God will forgive me for that
I don't know if God will forgive you for picking on gays or any of the other religious group who do not pry to YahwehWhy wouldn't He? If He forgives everything, then He forgives that too.
When most of us are yelling and screaming in hell, will he forgive us for not thinking Christianity is plausible?
I was being sarcastic.
Of course He won't. He's made it very clear that He won't. There's a ton of stuff that will keep people out of Heaven. And everyone has been guilty of it as some time.I can't worship a God who punishes worst than the crime, generally people are more intelligent and kinder than that.
My God intents to be all lovingSo, Chris, can I ask you again a question which was asked before, some time ago, what is this "Heaven" that you and many others talk about? What exactly do you expect to find when you have at last "left your body?" You and everyone else has never got to answering this question.
What is that place called Hell? What will happen to a person who does not "believe" the existence of a god, or a Christ? What will happen to a homosexual person, who has enjoyed some love and some fun, and been very considerate of most people around him, yet committed that "unforgivable sin?" What do I expect to find in that Hell when I have left my body?From checking from the the 9 levels of hell, because I'm not over obedience and love sex, I'll be going to level level 1 or 2, which most people will be going to. Maybe it's like a hot NIGHT CLUB
If you chooses to be gay and practises homosexuality YOU will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but rather enter the gates of hell at level 6, I thinks that animal will be eating your flesh and you will burn in oil, pretty bad
Maybe we can dine in Hell, if the screaming is not over powering.Do they issue a new set of hearing aids as you enter at Level 6 ? Or is the overpowering screaming part of hell's punishment?
Sitting at the front of a bus full of yelling school girls is as close as I can describe Hell.
(Signed: Grumpy Old Man)
Did you ask me that before? I apologize for not answering you then. I will, but it will take a little time. The questions are valid and good, and I'm truly sorry for not getting back to you. I don't think I see all the postings.
When we die, we will be absent from the body but present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8.) What that means, exactly, I don't know. Personally, I don't think that's Heaven, but I don't know. There will be a Judgement Day (Matthew 12:26, Revelation 11-15.) At the end of time, there will be a new Earth and a new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2) which will be where everyone who God has justified will be. The city has twelve gates, each a single, gigantic pearl (Revelation 21:21,) which is where the "pearly gates" came from. In the city will be the Tree of Life and God will be there with everyone forever. In other words we will see Him face to face. (Revelation 21:22-27, Revelation 22:2.)
As for Hell, I know that Jesus did talk about it, and Mark 9:42-48 is pretty colorful, "42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] [b] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[d]
49 Everyone will be salted with fire."
What exactly hell will be like, I don't know but I know it will be unpleasant. Revelation makes it clear (Revelation 22:15) that there will be many who are stuck outside the new Jerusalem, i.e. in hell. There is a Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10.)
I know you're not a big fan of Scripture quotation, and you've written that you're "immune to the evangelization," but I quote Scripture show you what I believe and why.You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe, and I respect that, Chris.
For me, it's all metaphor. Very real and pertinent metaphor, yes, and it can cut right across generations, millennia in fact. Being all humans, with the same sort of emotions, desires, difficulties and personal journeys, we can understand each other through the metaphor, as long as the metaphor is colloquial and modern enough to be understandable.
The metaphor which is located in a long-gone culture might not be fully understood in our time. So it might need to be re-phrased in some cases. However, mostly we will understand the meaning. For example, those bits about chopping off the hand or the foot were not meant to be taken literally, although maybe in biblical times the punishment was all too common. I am sure the words of that person Jesus were being used as metaphor and anyone listening with inner wisdom would have seen that.Thank you, that was appreciated.
Of course, most people don't dispute that Jesus was using metaphor for those examples. Jesus taught in parable, a style of story-telling which was very Jewish, with a lot of allegory and metaphor as well as a moral.
What I'm curious about is why you view God as a metaphor.Why do I view God as a metaphor?
1. God has always taken on the attributes of the person(s) believing in such an entity. "God" has always been a way of projecting one's attention, hopes, aspirations, emotions, away from "me," the individual person. I have no problems with any one of us doing this, especially if it helps to cope with the world we find ourselves in. However, to call that "god" real, generally for everyone, instead of imaginary, I see as a mistake. There are artistic minds which feel a need to do that; their choice, but not to be promoted as real for everyone.
2. All of my intelligent understanding of life and logic tells me that there is no such thing as a personal, individual sense of existence beyond this physical state (body). I see such a proposition as man-made, to satisfy what I wrote in the second sentence of (1) above. It's all analogous, metaphor, intended to explain stuff which cannot be explained in any other way. Being "born again," was metaphor, for sure. Being raised up into heaven was metaphor primarily, but obviously taken by some more primative minds as being for real. (Did they know in those days that the sky is not a real shell of blue? That it is just an optical illusion, and that space goes on for ever, infinitely? We must assume that they did not. They thought that the "gods" inhabited the sky, because they had no way of knowing any different. TODAY we have science to tell us more.
3. I don't want to believe in any afterlife, or superstitious understandings such as are taught in churches and synagogues and mosques. Reality, for me, finishes when my mind ceases to function and blood no longer flows in my heart.
Thus, for me, god, Jesus, etc., are all metaphors to be used ad infinitum by anyone who chooses to do so. Anyone can disagree with me 100% if they wish. It does not have to change my way of understanding. My understanding does not have to prevent anyone else having their own belief.
But if some one puts their belief in the way of my choice and thereby tries to limit my life, then I have the right to stand up and defend my choice.If there was ever any cause to continue this discussion we would need to go back to the very beginning of this Hub, where "livelonger" made this statement in relation to that video (referring to the young teenager and his mother, the powerful story about feelings and automatic response to "gayness").
Livelonger said: "...Homosexuality is not an act, it's a fundamental orientation, and when you attack that orientation, very real people feel attacked."
Away with the theoretical responses of persons who are christian, their vindictive assessment of people who regard themselves as homosexual and, instead listen to real people, who ARE homosexual, for what ever reason, what ever cause. What harm can it do anyone to listen patiently, with kindness and simple acceptance? Homosexuality is not a disease, it's not contagious. NO ONE has the right to subject a fellow human being to "reversal therapy" or to label him/her sinful, simply because he/she finds love and intimacy in a person of the same gender.
If christian thought is towards forgiveness, oneness with creation, love and understanding, then this alone would prevent any individual from making judgment on behalf of god. Conversely. the fear of possible judgment and some kind of punishment which goes with the judgment is what turns people to condemnation. In some cases it can just be a matter of running with the crowd. In others, but not all, it may be a smoke screen to hide a hidden desire.
Sign it , and that will be your hell on earth, if you really believe that nonsense
I forgot, the unforgiveable sin is not accepting Jesus. If you commit that sin, then it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, male or female, black or white or brown or yellow or red.
And if you do accept Jesus, then it still doesn't matter!I have just started looking at a Hub about Cyber Bullying. It's been close to that sort of thing here in this Hub for some time, I feel. Maybe I have been guilty of it a little bit, not sure. There has been a tendency for each side, christian and non-christian/atheists, to battle the other side saying there is "no other way to think. The way I think is the only logical and right way." Absolute insistence and unwillingness to bend either way has led to stalemate in most cases, certainly not fools' mate!
Such a stand-off has got us no where. You, Chris, continue your faith in Jesus. I don't accept for my self that Jesus was any more than an ordinary, albeit enlightened, human being.
With a basis of mutual respect and willing to ALLOW difference, we can live together. Ultimately, when each of us dies, there is no telling whether we were right or wrong.... we will be in a different plane of existence, if there is such a place.
This here, right now, in this finite world, is where we need to apply our intelligence and good will. Discussion, even when it's heated and opinionated, can be fun; energising; frustrating; down right annoying; divisive and in the end utterly pointless, because it's most unlikely to change people's minds. It might be illuminating of the other person arguing; and it might even be educational. But not really useful in joining us as fellow humans.
This Hub might be nearing its natural end. I just wanted to get these few observations in before it does.Well, obviously I hope that you will at least think about why I remain so steadfast, just as I try to find out why you believe some of the things you believe, but ultimately it is the responsibility of every individual to choose for themselves.
I do respect you and I have (mostly) enjoyed our conversations. I apologize for any times when I got a little too, ah, aggressive. I wish you well.
The worst concept in the world is the concept of hell
Sometimes hell gets my goat. Not really downing your religion Chris, it's just I will probably never understand it in my life times, because I have really tried to understand itWell, I think you're pretty familiar with what I believe.
I didn't used to be a Christian, and I didn't really understand a lot of it myself. Even after I first became one, I didn't understand it. To be honest, I've been a Christian over half my life, and there are things I still can't wrap my head around.
gaeparks
Castle...no the hae does not stand for gay..it is my first three initials
Either way, it's only words, like in the Bible
Castlepaloma
My brother...attacking me does not change a thing about me nor does it change a thing about you. I am not what you say I am nor are you what I say you are...that honor belongs to God and God alone.God is a big word, there are 10,000 gods to choose from, I choose everyone as God, that way.it's live and let live, loving rather than fighting who is the best group, if God honestly loves everyone as equal. Whatever God maybe, he/she will love me for who I am and I am what I am and judge me by my fruits.
What happens, if I was born a gay fruit?
Vector7- you lack understanding of human sexuality. At puberty the human male develops attraction (sexual) to the corresponding gender. It's that simple. Male sexuality isn't as fluid as female sexuality. Males are hardwired to their corresponding gender. In your version of human sexuality you preach that any male at any time in their life could be "afflicted" with attraction towards their same gender. Male sexuality isn't that mysterious and random. In the last study I read gay males account for 1.5 - 6% of the U.S. population. In a country where in 2012 you still have religious organizations that support conversion therapy, it's obvious there is a corrupt financial factor involved in preaching your version of human sexuality. Yes, some heterosexual males in prison turn to homosexual acts to satisfy their lust but consider who these men are. They are the lowest of the low in society without any internal boundaries. Many would commit rape of women and children. Concerning gay males who marry women, the outcomes are nightmares. Just do a Google search. Both cases I described above are males acting against their nature. Perhaps you should consider an alternate interpretation of the Bible verses you use to condemn homosexuals as livelonger has presented. In the last 40-50 years our country has become very irreligious, cities are crime ridden, abortion rates are extremely high and for heterosexuals, pre-marital sex (fornication) and "shacking up" is very common. Divorce rates are also very high. Big cities have become true Sodom and Gommorahs - inhospitality abounds. Perhaps fundamentalist churches and belief systems like yours are losing the battle because of your sinful teachings that God doesn't approve of gays, thereby misinterpreting his word. And not only that, but in many cases, doing it for profit. Jesus became very upset when he entered the temple and found business being done there. Including the business of selling animals for sacrifice to God. God also said that, if you commit sin and are not aware of it, that you will still be held accountable. Once you become aware of it you are to make reparation for it. You could be missing out on an opportunity to save your soul.
Related Discussions
- 94
Are Christians Embarrassed of Their Faith?
by Emile R 13 years ago
THIS QUESTION IS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE. IT IS A QUESTION ASKED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. I keep running across posts on this site where Christians refuse to admit what sect they are affiliated with. The general comments include 'I'm not religious, I'm Christian. 'I don't...
- 86
Why do Christian judge those who are gay and claim to be Christians?
by Matthew Dawson 8 years ago
Though I know that being homosexual is not accepted still in today's society why is it individual feel it is there moral and civic duty to cast hatred animosity towards those who live within that population? Does not the bible say Love one another as Christ would love you and did not Christ even...
- 170
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Freegoldman 5 years ago
Is it a sin?
- 14
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexua
by Thom Hunter 8 years ago
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexual lifestyle?Culture and some churches are embracing the concept of "gay-Christian." The Bible discusses homosexuality, yet some interpret it differently than others. I write about it regularly as a...
- 38
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?
by ii3rittles 5 years ago
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?I have read scripture that goes both ways (no pun intended!) and I am honestly confused. Can some please quote scripture that shows God is against homosexuality or okay with it. And is it okay (with God) that I view it as wrong? I try not to in...
- 71
GAY MARRIAGE IS IT RIGHT OR WORNG?
by Jeromeo 15 years ago
The bible plainly shows that homosexuality is wrong. The Scriptures are thus consistent, not just showing the bad effects of this practice, but also properly condemning what produces those ill effects.So we read at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10: “Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are...