|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I saw Howard Dean this morning as well, Willie.
I am so NOT use to this user name. When I saw "Willie" in your post, I thought for a second you were patronizing me! Then I realized that for some reason, I didn't use the old standard username.
Sorry Big Ol'Willie. ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif)
I didn't mean anything by it, I was just trying to informalize a little by abbreviating. I apologize for the confusion.
I'm often abbreviated as DaveTWB, to differentiate me from other Daves lurking here. :)
klinton, I know we clearly have a difference of opinion. But it is only a discussion, and I hope my words were not interpreted as more angry than they were intended. I'm attempting to clarify my position, and it's entirely possible you mean no deception, but just strongly believe what you do.
While I sometimes feel frustration with repeating myself, I feel no anger.
And while I'm clearly not gay, I've been friends with, and talked with, and worked with enough gays, and heard their views enough to know that it's not easy to deal with the feelings that motivate you to be gay, or with the clear discomfort that many have with the gay lifestyle. I feel that homosexuality is a choice. But I realize many feel it is not a choice.
I have to disappear for a while. Chat with you guys later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Benefits to gay partners should not be a moral problem. The Bible doesn't say you can't or shouldn't hire gay people. Using your logic I would think you would have a major problems with Thou shall not kill, during times of war. Yes organized religions let you off the hook but it's clearly against the commandment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
DTWB- I meant to have a smiley by the Willie thing. II just thought it was funny.
klinton- I was referring to the judge not lest ye be quote.
Man-eater- I have always heard it as to mean "Thou Shall Not Murder". Thou Shall Not Kill, while the popular phrasing, is more oversimplified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Klinton, I'm not linking the two..well, not really. There is a difference between homosexuality, pedophilia and also homosexual pedophilia..they're all different things. But anyway I'm just pointing out the fact that the Pedophilia lobby seems to try to ride the wake of the homosexual movement. The only movement that is even close to homosexuality is the fringe group within the gay lobby..."the Man/Boy Love association" that's another underage lover issue though and I know it deviates from the majority of gay realtionships...
My major point with that is that they are linked in a way, not because the gay movement wants it, but the pedophilia movement does...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Ooops a quick check on the web I did find that the original Hebrew word could be translated as murder or kill. Considering that people who were breaking other commandments were supposed to be stoned to death I guess murder makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Considering that people who were breaking other commandments were supposed to be stoned to death I guess murder makes sense.
LOL. Good point!
Biblical Dude One: "We can't kill!"
Biblical Dude Two: "But we are supposed to 'stone' these guys who killed are people."
Biblical Dude in the Crowd: "Give 'em the bong."
Biblical Dude One: "Moses is wise. He will lead us!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
The only movement that is even close to homosexuality is the fringe group within the gay lobby..."the Man/Boy Love association" that's another underage lover issue though and I know it deviates from the majority of gay realtionships...
I didn't think this was a real organization. They were parodied in a South Park episode, and I thought they were just an absurd made up group.
I don't know whether to laugh or be outraged. What a world we live in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Ok...sorry for the delay:
One original prophecy fortelling the passing of the Law covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31, 32 - "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Isreal, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with thier fathers in the day that I took them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break, although I was an husband unto them sayeth the Lord:"
Jesus declaring the new covenant:
Matthew 26: 27, 28 - "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it;
For it is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Actually what you've taken out of context, misinterpreted is when Jesus and his disciples are at the last supper and Jesus is giving them comunion.
quote:
St. Paul's further acknowledgement of the Law Covenant's passing:
2Corinthians 3:6 - "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
According to the dictionary at the back of my Bible, the definition for covenant is as follows (this is the one that pertains to all the scripture your misinterpreting):
The promises of God for salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,134
Knowledge is Power! 1000+ posts
|
|
Knowledge is Power! 1000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,134 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I have no problem with a gay union that is clear and distinctive from marriage.
I WOULD have a problem with a legal standard that forces Christians to hire and provide benefits to gay individuals, whose lifestyle Christians clearly don't agree with.
These are just my thoughts. . .
Christian faith doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists all have marriage rites and customs.
Like here in Australia, lots of countries also have Civil marriage ceremonies, which have been performed for decades now.
Non-Christian marriages have been performed all over the world in some form or other. Are all of these somehow illegal or less worthy than a Christian marraige? I would like to think not. Is a Protestant (Church of England) marriage less worthy than a Catholic, Muslim (* see quote below) or Jewish wedding? Once again, I would like to think not.
In the past Protestant weddings have been declared illegal. For example, the Catholic Queen Mary of England (the daughter of King Henry VIII, whose actions brought about Britains split with the Catholic church in the first place) declared the whole Protestant faith illeagal. Was she right in her beliefs and actions?
* "Although Muslims pray to Allah, this is in fact the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews by a different name. Allah is an Arabic term comprising two words: Al which means 'the' and Illah which means 'God'. To Muslims, the name Allah is preferable to that of God. . .it has no male or female gender, and it cannot be pluralised in the same way that 'God' can become 'gods'."
K. Farrington. History of Religion. p. 132
In relation to Dave's second paragraph. The purpose of a democracy, like England, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Australia (where I am from), is to represent all of its citizens, despite their heritage, beliefs and customs. This is also covered my governement legislation.
Though all of the above countries historically have a leaning (some more than others) towards Christian faith, they are not Religious States. Therfore the laws and services of these countries should have to benefit all of the population, not just Christians.
We can elect our representatives of our respective governements every 3 or 4 years. However, we do not have a say in where every cent of the taxes we pay, go towards. Though it would be nice sometimes ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
So what am I trying to get at with all this. Later this year I will be getting married. My fiance is Vietnamese. Her family are Buddhists, though she does not practice her faith as much as her mother would like. I was baptised Anglican (Church of England), though I do not practice this religion. Therefore getting married in a Christian Church (to me) would seem hyprocritical and an insult to the Church.
I do not practice a particular religion, because I can not believe that one set of people's values out-weigh the others.
I can not walk up to someone and prove or disprove their faith. I can not say which is the true God or in the case of some religions, Gods. Also as has been noted Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim faiths are all interrelated (and we haven't even mentioned Orthodox or the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), yet their "differences" have caused so much conflict through the ages in their God's name. Who is right and who is wrong? They all have sacred texts and scriptures. They all have "right" on their side.
Having said that I like to think there is a higher being (or even higher beings), who helped shape this little Universe of ours.
On the morning of our wedding day later this year, we will perform the Buddhist marraige ceremony (mainly as my future in-laws will be coming to Australia for the wedding). However, this will not be legally recognised in Australia. That is why we will be having a Civil marriage ceremony later in the day. The later ceremony will make our marriage or our union or our partnership or our life-long commitment to each other legal in the eyes of the Australian government (which will then be legally recognised in the rest of the world).
So if I am not religious, why am I getting married? Is it for economics?
No. In Australia lots of couples do not see the need to be married. That is their right. They can still have children and still claim defacto relationship benefits from the government.
Then why marriage?
Because I ![[humina humina]](graemlins/love.gif) LOVE the woman I am going to marry!
We want to declare to our family, our friends and to the world that we love each other so much, we want to spend the rest of our lives together as husband and wife. To help realise each others dreams and to be there for each other in the difficult times. (All that, plus we then get to stay in the same hotel room when we go back to Vietnam ) The only way to do this is through marriage (though everyone has options on how they get married - religious or civil).
So if my fiance and I can get married in a Civil ceremony because we love each other, why can't homosexual couples? And why can't they call it marriage?
Unfortunately, if a homosexual couple wish to have a Church wedding I can see problems. Obviously the Church's beliefs are going to out-weigh that of government legislation. Even if it technically goes against the "spirit" of anti-descrimination legislation.
Once again just my thoughts. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
According to the dictionary at the back of my Bible, the definition for covenant is as follows (this is the one that pertains to all the scripture your misinterpreting):
The promises of God for salvation.
Well, I'm glad your bible has a dictionary and all, but according to 2 years of theology class, and the work of hundreds of scholars, that is exactly what was going on. I am not 'miseinterpreting' anything.
There is a reason the Bible was long ago seperated into two sections: The Old testement and the New.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
How did we get 6 pages on what should be a no-brainer?
If gays want to get married, good luck to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
According to the dictionary at the back of my Bible, the definition for covenant is as follows (this is the one that pertains to all the scripture your misinterpreting):
The promises of God for salvation.
Well, I'm glad your bible has a dictionary and all, but according to 2 years of theology class, and the work of hundreds of scholars, that is exactly what was going on. I am not 'miseinterpreting' anything.
There is a reason the Bible was long ago seperated into two sections: The Old testement and the New.
You know I really hate to drag one of the pastors from church into this because I know what I'm talking about, and so does my one friend that saw that post of your last night and said the same thing I did. And as for the 2 parts of the Bible, the Old Testiment is before Jesus's time. It tells how everything was created, and fortells Jesus's coming, among other things. The New Testiment is of Him and His life, death and resurection.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Drag whomever you want into the discussion. Yes, you are right, there are thematic differences in the Old and New testament...There is a whole new order of things in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Quite frankly, my main point in engaging the bible itself was to point out the differences in current church doctrine and Chirst's initial message to his followers. Hatred and suppression were the farthest things from his intent. There is no justification for telling me that I am entitled to less of an existence because I am gay. None. This is a cruel and violently incaurate reading of the texts...but such practices are not new to the church, and are not likely to dissapear from it. You cannot begin to deny that history proves over and over again that the church is inclined to misenterpret biblical passages and twist them to thier own ends. It is simply and irrefutable fact, documented with countless examples in history texts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How did we get 6 pages on what should be a no-brainer?
If gays want to get married, good luck to them.
I wouldn't call it a no-brainer at all. It is the basic alteration of hundreds (even thousands) of years of tradition and policy. I think one can reasonably expect people to disagree on such a matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How did we get 6 pages on what should be a no-brainer?
If gays want to get married, good luck to them.
It's scary when we are on the same page........I was just saying the same thing to myself. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
klinton, it is frustrating, to say the very least, to see your interpretation that so completely distorts and bastardizes the word of God away from its clear meaning. Here are the verses you quoted, in their full context: quote:
Jeremiah 31:
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD .
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD .
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD .
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
The old covenant is so obviously the Old Testament (i.e. the Mosaic law, and the books of the prophets, foretelling the coming Messiah).
The new covenant is the FULFILLMENT of those prophecies, in the life and person of Jesus of Nazareth.
God, in humility, came to Earth and lived as a man, to live as we live and experience all the vulnerabilities and temptations that we face. And then died to pay the price for the sins of all mankind, on the cross. And then, very importantly, was resurrected. And all who believe in Jesus as Messiah and follow his teachings will be resurrected as well.
I have absolutely no clue where you're trying to go with this alternate "new covenant" notion. But it sure isn't some loophole that allows for the endorsement of homosexuality by the Bible.
The new covenant is, again, the fulfullment of prophecy in the events of the life of Jesus.
In the new covenant, every faithful person who repents will know Jesus personally, and be forgiven personally. THAT is the "new covenant".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I don't understand how you see that I've bastardized anything...You've simply repeaded what I said.
The Old (Masaic) Covenant had served it's purpose. It was given to the fledgling nation of Isreal to aid them in their goal to become God's chosen people. Yes, in this context, it is perfectly understandable that homosexuality was counterproductive to His wishes. Yes, it is understandable that one cannot partake of pork and certain foul, as these were hard to preserve and consuming them often lead to disease at the time. Yes, even the guidlines of how many lashings were to be administered was appropriate to the Isrealites at the time. None of this makes theses laws appropritate to us today.
Upon Christ's arrival, he fulfilled the Covenant and removed it's bondage from the people. Isreal had lost it's favored status. The gates of heaven were open, and He showed us the manner in which to access them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I'd also like to add that the very fact that God felt a need to forbid the Isrealites from actively pursuing homosexual activities is a nod to the fact that he realized it existed in his human creations. It merley didn't have a place in helping the nation to grow, as he desired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Which , again, corrupts the word of God, and attempts to omit verses that unquestionably condemn homosexuality. You might as well try to say the Bible's teachings about murder and adultery are obsolete. Homosexuality is, ultimately, a form of adultery. As I answered at length in the first post at the top of page 4 of this topic, certain rituals were more for hygeine, and to culturally set Jews apart from other neighboring cultures and religions. They are/were ceremonial manifestations of spiritual faith (circumcision, not eating pork or shellfish, etc). These were NOT considered acts of extreme decadence if disobeyed. But Homosexuality clearly was, and is, described as extreme decadence. One of the few acts punishable by death, in Mosaic law. And a frequently referenced manifestation of a society that has plunged into decadence so deep that God has deemed that culture so hardened to God laws and teachings, that it is abandoned to its own self-destruction. Marriage, on the other hand, is a sacred and essential part of the Bible, I cannot emphasize that enough. The New Testament, particularly Revelation, refers to those of the faithful as "the Bride", and those who disobey are referred to as "The Whore" (i.e., the unfaithful). "The Whore of Babylon" is the AntiChrist, and the followers of the false one-world religion, who all bear the mark of the beast, 666, on their body. Embracing homosexuality is embracing sexual immorality, and is, by definition, ceasing to be of "the Bride", and becoming part of "the Whore". Sexual immorality (and on the topic of this discussion homosexuality specifically) in any form, never becomes "outdated" as a perverse act, and suddenly permissible. Sexual purity, sex within the bounds of marriage, sexual faithfulness, is highly valued, and one of the most powerful metaphors for spiritual faithfulness in the Bible. Gay marriage is, in combining these two Biblical portrayals of homosexuality and marriage, a violated, corrupted bride. A whore. Not faithful. A perversion. You again try to re-write the Bible, to serve your own extra-Biblical lifestyle. Homosexuality is repeatedly referred to Biblically as among the ultimate perversions, and most destructive manifestations of a culture, that manifests that culture is doomed to destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example (Genesis, chapters 18 and 19). http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+18&language=english&version=NIV God destroyed those two cities because they were so evil and depraved. And the term sodomy endures from that time, a city so known for that homosexual practice that it became the enduring name for that act itself. A city destroyed by God for its evil. The geographical point on Earth that is the lowest --the furthest below sea level-- is the Dead Sea, which is believed to be the ancient site of the former Sodom and Gommorah. An enduring geographical metaphor for God's opinion of the civilization that once existed there. Verses throughout the Bible repeat over and over the severe misfortune of any culture that allows homosexuality to flourish on a large scale. Once again, Romans, Chapter 1: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ROM+1&language=english&version=NIV quote:
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
This is getting tiresome. Yes, Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed. But the reasoning given for that destruction are not of God's lips, but Moses'. Yes, he was a prophet, but he was also a man. If you want to accept that these words of hatred came from God's mouth, then I guess we have nothing more to say to eachother.
St. Paul's words in Romans again come from a man noted for his rashness, as well as mysogynistic veiws of women. I repeat again that such statements were never uttered by Christ, but those who came after him. These were additions to his comments, therefore further examples of exactly what he came to fix. If it was so vile a thing in his eyes, one would think he would have mentioned it...even in private to his apostles so that Paul might have invoked his words in this rant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I agree with Dave on part of the issue. The Bible is pretty clear it considers sodomy a sin. We can talk about extraneous passages, interpretations, contradiction, etc. but from a simply reading of the Bible, homosexuality=bad.
My take on that is, the Bible was written by men in ancient times. Unlike DTWB, I am not a "direct word of God" student of Christianity.
I didn't see any cites on this from the Gospel that were directly on point, so everything else is secondary authority to ME (I understand that DTWB and others disagree).
I am also a lawyer and believe that we should have more reasoning for laws than someone doesn't like it.
I guess I just don't agree with DTWB's definition of freedom of religion.
There is case law that suggests the government can take action to ban ACTIVITIES of a certain religion as long as it is not targeted at the religion itself (is the Peyote/Indian case still good law? If not, use bigamy prohibitions instead). Likewise, they may allow activities that a religion dislikes, and have to deal with, even if they go against the teachings of that religion without infringing.
As long as the law is religiously neutral it is allowed.
This type of law would not be written to upset Christians, so it would not legally infringe upon one's right to free religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Perhaps you're right Willie...I've said before that I'm completely aware that the Bible does indeed contain passages that condemn homosexuality. Out of need for personal peace of mind, I have examined and re-examined the Bible for reasons behind these passages, as I cannot beieve that God in his eternal love would hold me in conpempt for living the life he gave me. I cannot imagine that he would rather I spend my life lying to myself and those around me by making me prentend to be someone I am not. This simply doesn't fit with the overall message of the bible, and would really be trading one 'sin' for another.
Dave, I do appologize if my conclusions have offended you, that was never my intent. I was merely trying to show you a different way of looking at things that to me seems more in accord with God's love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
klinton,
I believe God loves you no matter what. Try the best you can in life and believe your maker will spare you.
As a heterosexual conservative, I have the same prayers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
What you say to me here, in trying to rationalize your homosexuality, is simply not true. It is either a deliberate attempt to deceive me, or self deception in your own mind. (Precisely the mindset described in the above quoted verses from Romans, by the way.) quote:
2 Timothy 3,verse 16 (among many other verses):
"all scripture is God-breathed..."
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=2TIM+3&language=english&version=NIV
Meaning all scripture in the Old and New Testaments is directly inspired by God. Moses, the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus who wrote the New Testament, including Paul, were essentially transcribers, whose written words come directly from God.
And again, in John 1, verse 1:
quote:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
, and John 10, verse 30:
quote:
30 "I and the Father are one."
(as I already quoted, in above posts, exhaustively and indisputably)
And again, whether you choose to accept it, or deny what is consistent and clear within the context of the Bible, ALL scripture in the Bible is from God.
The verses you want to arbitrarily reject from Genesis and Leviticus were quoted from God the Father, by Moses. (Jesus and God the Father are the same person, as the quoted verses above, and others, clearly establish)
The verses you reject from the New Testament are from God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (three different manifestations, or faces, of the same God).
You either believe the Bible is true, and that all its scripture is from God, or you don't. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe, and still claim to represent what it teaches. Particularly homosexuality. Which is so clearly, absolutely, beyond any question, condemned in the Bible.
What you've said here paints such a clear picture of what I've been saying: That homosexuality is a threat to the Bible and Christianity, because it attempts to corrupt and warp scripture.
If I had any doubts, we've seen it played out pretty well over the last 6 topic pages.
In saying that, I don't mean that homosexuals as individuals are bad. But the Bible clearly teaches homosexuality, as a belief system, as a lifestyle is bad and corrupting in nature.
For this reason, while gays have a right to choose their own lifestyle as American citizens, within our democracy, I don't like the idea of gay marriage cloaked in a Christian marriage guise, which clearly distorts the meaning of Christianity, and tramples on the rights of Christians within our democracy, forcing Christians to accept as "moral" homosexual practices that are in clear opposition to what the Bible clearly teaches is immoral. Which infringes on Christians' freedom of religion.
Again, gays can create some alternative form of gay union, but do not have the right to change the meaning of marriage as it has existed and been defined as one man/one woman for at least 6000 years in Judeo/Christian culture and many other cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I guess to a degree, you are right. My intention in re-examining biblical texts is contradictory to your (and by extension, the churh's) understanding them, and thus undermining concepts that you hold as fundamental and unshakable. I suppose if this makes me a force of evil in your eyes, then that's a lable that I'll live with.
As a gay man, I cannot simply excuse my natural state as a deviant and immoral existence. I just can't. I tried in my teens, but it led me to personal misery and contempt for God. Perhaps if you and I could switch places we might understand eachother better.
The only real sin I can comprehend in this world is that of inflicting harm on others. So long as my actions are not hurting another, I cannot believe that God would begrudge me my happiness. If you can reconcile your hatred with your faith, then I guess I'm happy for you. I think we've reached an impass here, so it's pointless to continue, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Perhaps you're right Willie...I've said before that I'm completely aware that the Bible does indeed contain passages that condemn homosexuality. Out of need for personal peace of mind, I have examined and re-examined the Bible for reasons behind these passages, as I cannot beieve that God in his eternal love would hold me in contempt for living the life he gave me. I cannot imagine that he would rather I spend my life lying to myself and those around me by making me pretend to be someone I am not. This simply doesn't fit with the overall message of the bible, and would really be trading one 'sin' for another.
Dave, I do apologize if my conclusions have offended you, that was never my intent. I was merely trying to show you a different way of looking at things that to me seems more in accord with God's love.
I appreciate that, klinton.
And I again want to emphasize that all I've said is within the context of debating the issue. As I said, I've felt some frustration in discussing contradictions that are so obvious to me, and attempted to clarify with scripture. But my words are not intended with anger. We're just discussing an issue, and we hold different opinions on it.
What you say about attempting to reconcile the Biblical position on homosexuality, with your clear personal homosexuality, I have similar (although clearly different, in obvious ways) struggles with my desire for women, as a 40-year old single, never-married male.
I've often abstained for long periods, and at other times gotten lonely, or for various reasons taken sexual opportunities, when they were available to me.
And I've found that even my desire for women, what I expect from a woman, as a Christian man, or just as a sexually torqued-up heterosexual man, has changed a lot over the years.
A pastor once told me, when I voiced lament over not being married: "You haven't missed anything, Dave. Others who married at your age are now getting divorced, because they had the wrong priorities in selecting a partner. And now they're getting divorced. You've only spared yourself that grief." Or words to that effect.
So I experience some, not all, of what you're going through.
Regarding homosexuality specifically, it is one of the basic beliefs of the gay movement that you are born that way, that it is a genetic inborn desire, and that it should therefore not be resisted.
As I said, I believe that it is a compulsion, an impulse, not inborn, and that it can be resisted, and virtually eliminated. There are many Christians who were practicing gays and lesbians, who are now happily married heterosexuals.
So for some at least, perhaps all, homosexual desire can be overcome and eliminated. Not repressed, but just eliminated as a desire by a change in goals, perspective and priorities.
I hope this is not insulting, because my sexual desire for women fits into the same category, but... well, I'll begin with my own desires, and struggles with them:
I meet women who are clients that I desire to have sex with. And I have to not act on that desire, because to do so would be a patient/client violation (I'm a massage therapist). And believe me, there is a great intimacy and a great temptation, and a great OPPORTUNITY with many attractive women I meet professionally. And I've seen many who want me to cross that line, I like them and they like me.
Likewise, I meet a lot of beautiful women outside of work.
Even if I were not a Christian, there are limits I have to live within, if I want to have premarital/extramarital sex with women.
I've met under-age girls in their teens that I found incredibly beautiful, that I certainly had the opportunity with, but obviously that would be a bad idea. I could even get away with it, but that is a line I exert self-control maintaining, and have never crossed.
(When I was 30, I dated and had a sexual relationship with a 19-year-old girl, and even though she was over 18, I felt like a cradle-robber).
I was born with that desire. But in many cases I can never act on it.
And I consider myself a very sexual guy, too. It's not like I don't have the desire. It's very often difficult to say no and exert self-control.
Likewise, someone who has a compulsion to gamble, or rape, or murder, or steal, or have sex with children, or a drug addict, or an alcoholic. It could be argued that any of these people have an inborn compulsion toward these things. But it is destructive to act on those desires, destructive to others, and also self-destructive.
Likewise, even a married person doesn't suddenly stop having desire for other people. Couples grow apart, they argue. Married couples can have very bad periods in the relationship, and when each is frustrated with their marriage, and lonely, and someone attractive comes along to offer what's been missing, it's very easy to cave in to that temptation.
So even the ability for heterosexuals to marry is not a license that absolves them from struggling with the same inborn desires as everyone else.
~
Willie, your points are well taken also.
I understand your stance that differs from mine on the love-triangle of freedom, homosexuality and Christianity.
As I said, I made it clear where I think the line should be drawn. (a separate term for gay union that parallels spousal benefits, while making it clear and distinct from the definition of marriage. That does not distort the long-established definition of marriage. )
But I'm not sure I'd be happy with that either, because that legal line is always moving with new legislation, and I'm concerned that it could at some point tread on the freedom to practice Christianity, as well as the very meaning of Christianity, should part or all of the Bible ever be banned from public speech, by further legislation later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
My thoughts on the Bible being the unaltered word of God...from another thread...
.................................................
It's all true or it's all delusion. If it was inspired and God wrote the bible through prophets then I assume if anyone wrote false things god wouldn't allow it. So either the hebrew God is not real or he is real and the entire Bible is true. If any of the Bible is trumped up then there were no miracles at all IMO. While historical cities and figures may have actually existed then all they did was propaganda and illusion.
If anybody believes part of the bible (miracles, divine inspiration, creation, angels) and not all of it then they are surely misguided. If God is omnipotent then I'm sure he wouldn't let someone tamper with his manual.
I really dislike when people pick and choose religion like eating from a buffet. If it's just a lifestyle choice, a way of living fine. But if you honestly believe some of this and some of that...don't believe any of it... It's insane and schizophrenic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
klinton,
I believe God loves you no matter what. Try the best you can in life and believe your maker will spare you.
As a heterosexual conservative, I have the same prayers.
I sometimes overlook posts when the exchange is rapid-fire, as it has been in this topic.
Big Ol' Willie, this is a wonderfully kind statement. It expresses so much love, in just a few words.
We all have a shared, and flawed, human experience. We all fall short in different ways.
After a spiritual trial, God changed Isaac's name to Israel (meaning "he who struggles with God")
I think we all struggle with God, to be close to Him, despite the imperfection we all feel.
And what we struggle for most in life is often what's most fulfilling.
One sinner to another, I'll pray for you, klinton.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
I really dislike when people pick and choose religion like eating from a buffet. If it's just a lifestyle choice, a way of living fine. But if you honestly believe some of this and some of that...don't believe any of it... It's insane and schizophrenic.
It's not about 'some of this and some of that' (I assume you're reffering to me here). It's a matter of looking at the theme of the bible and questoning the merits of some of the included works therein. The bible is a big book, and there are plenty of admonitions within it that don't seem to flow with the overall picture...as well as many that modern people wouldn't dream of employing (do we still murder our children when they don't obey?).
My point was that despite all of the conflicting messages that the bible contains, the most predominant and reocurring theme is that of love and compassion. I mean, yes the word of God is the end of any argument, but Jesus himself clearly outlined his principles for those who would follow him. His message stands in opposition to several statments that were uttered by his diciples in letters after his passing. I will not dispute the words of Christ, but I will dispute the presence of certain writings being included as biblical cannon. Does that make sense? As I said, I may be in eror in this evaluation, but I know I am not alone in this view. Bible cannon is a constant source of theological debate. There are books refered to by biblical scribes that have not been included...are they any less relevant than say "Song of Solomon" (a lengthy love poem by a king to a woman)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I can't get free of this thread!!! ![[AAAHHHH!!!]](graemlins/aahhh.gif) Let's see... You are a person. You commit actions. You are not your actions. Therefore loving a person does not require condoning their actions. And refusing to approve of a person's actions is not the same as rejecting that person. I am reminded of a child stealing cookies from the cookie jar and getting caught by his mother. That child may have wanted those cookies, and that child will feel he is entirely right in his own eyes - in which case he will instantly conclude his mother must hate him because she didn't approve of his actions - stealing the cookies. But the child's mother knows better than the child, and she punishes him because she loves him. She opposes his actions because she knows his actions are potentially harmful to him in the short term, and would encourage patterns of self-destructive behavior in the long run. The rules in the Bible aren't put there to justify social evils or to divide societies or to make people feel inferior. They're put there to promote people's mental, physical, and spiritual well-being. The fact that the Bible stresses the importance of love and compassion in many places does not mitigate its statements on what is right and wrong. While you cannot pick and choose what passages of Scripture you want to believe without rendering the entire Book useless, you have to interpret any passage in the context of Scripture as a whole, which precludes attempting to justify a position specifically condemned elsewhere. Homosexual acts are specifically addressed in both Old and New Testaments, and in both places they are addressed as sins. Not worse than any other sins, granted, but as I've been saying homosexuals are no worse than anyone else. The difference is this. In both the Bible and the laws of the United States - both church and state - we have laws against stealing (larceny), lying (perjury), murder (homicide), cheating (fraud), and so on. Now, you can nitpick about things like adultery and covetousness and so on, but... ummm... yeah, stones. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) When Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery, He told her He did not condemn her - and in the very next sentence instructed her to 'go and sin no more.' Clearly, while God's love reaches out to a person despite their sins, it does not excuse the sin, nor does it mitigate any potential consequences. Honestly, to push an argument through for gay rights, you'd have better luck dispensing with the Christian faith entirely - in which case I'd probably be out of your hair. I'm not gonna pass judgment on people, just actions. I'm still your buddy, klinton - if you really feel like putting up with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I think it's safe to assume most of us are sinners here according to the Bible. What we have with homosexuality is basically a sin that doesn't hurt or harm anybody (unlike the other sins) Actually it's the act of sodomy itself that is being talked about in scripture as an abomination not the person. It goes against what he created. The thing is it's an abomination because men & women were made to get together & procreate. What would God say about the pill? Probably the same thing he said about masterbation. Thou shall not spill! Again we all seem to be in the same boat yet some have to sit in the back because their different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How did we get 6 pages on what should be a no-brainer?
If gays want to get married, good luck to them.
I wouldn't call it a no-brainer at all. It is the basic alteration of hundreds (even thousands) of years of tradition and policy. I think one can reasonably expect people to disagree on such a matter.
I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Pig Iron your all or nothing argument makes sense yet ...He used man as his instument. Man is not perfect. History has many examples of organized religion being corrupt & doing ungodly things in God's name. Also the Bible has that warning to those that would try to alter it or add to it. Why would that be needed if there was no danger of that happening? Why does Paul at one point tell young people not to bother getting married because the end was coming? Can't we safely assume he was wrong about that one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".
I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Klinton, my post was not directed at you personally or atleast you alone. I had just seen several posts that were disputing certain parts of the bible and then claiming other parts. I see that all the time and it bothers me. Matter Eater man, I will have to research what you were talking about and I know the verse about adding or subtracting scripture or meaning already. You've given me something to ponder.
Sammich, I basically agree with you myself. I'm just here rambling...trying my best to help, not that it's needed. Crazily enough this conversation has been very contained and orderly..amazing.. usually people on either side can't be reasonable at all...
It's nice hearing sensible and knowledgable people dicussing isues. And if people read this they might just learn something if they have an open mind and actually listen..on either position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Pig Iron, I'll try to find that bit where Paul is talking about marriage this evening. Kinda unfair throwing things at you & not sourcing them. It is nice seeing a long thread on this topic by many people remaining civil.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I was actually thinking of the SAME section of scripture regarding Paul.
I was also thinking of the one where he says you can't drink.
Water to wine, man. Water to wine.
I don't care for the writings of Paul. That johnny come lately!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
It's nearly impossible to sort out a debate like that without a long, drawn-out examination of different passages and how they relate. Probably not good material for this particular thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Pig Iron I'm still looking but can't find the dang thing! Captain Sammich your right. I would add that also pertains to other passages Dave the wonder boy has used. Put in their historical context those passages that seem antigay had different meanings than what they do today. I recommend "What the Bible really says about homosexuallity" for anybody interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
I think a large part of what this argument boils down to is whether or not marriage is a solely Christian institution.
And yes it is, if you're talking about a church wedding with a priest and rice throwing and bibles and such.
But then there's simply weddings as a union by the state, which is practiced by many non-Christian heterosexual couples. The latter is what the gay marriage advocates are pushing for. Does the church have a monopoly on that? Can the bible dictate which couples the government is allowed to say 'yes, you are married, with the legal privileges and responsibilities that entails'? I don't think so.
If the bible is truly against homosexuality (I haven't done the research some of you have, so I can't say definitively... it's obviously a touchy subject), and the church takes it's instructions straight from the bible... then okay, maybe gays can't have a church wedding. As much as the homophobia inherent in that sickens me, and as weird as I find it that people take their orders from a two thousand year old book, we can't force people to change their rituals or beliefs.
But from what I've read and people I've spoken to, a church wedding's not what they want. It's just the piece of paper, the legal recognition. Which, at least in my frame of reference, constitutes a perfectly good 'marriage'.
|
|
|
|
|
