I don't confuse it, and I agree with you that we shouldn't follow what the church says, but what Jesus says.
I read the bible for what is the most plausible thing they are trying to say, with reference to their culture, and their accepted meanings behind the text.
I'd say that the Apostle Paul denotes quite well what the difference is between them within the bible, and that has to do with how the law was an application for the Jewish people at that time, and how some of the rules are for the benefit of the culture, some of them for sanitary reasons (such as menstrual issues, and keeping clean) others around dietary issues at the time (the best foods in that culture) and some of them for spiritual well-being. All these tied up in Levitical law.
Some no longer apply because their groups no longer apply (eg, sanitary issues can be laxed now, etc) and some do apply because they cross the cultural divide. I think paul makes that view about sexual practice, and speaks of how those laws relate to your body and mind, and aren't as subjective.
The only thing the non-Christian anti-gay bigots have to cling to in the New Testament is Paul. Not Jesus. Paul. I have news for you. There is a large faction of academics who have studied the Bible carefully who theorize that Paul himself was a homosexual.
As far as Leviticus goes, I agree with you that it's obsolete. Shrimp can be cleaned and refrigerated, making the disease factor of eating crustaceans obsolete. Men can wear condoms, making the disease factor of having homosexual intercourse obsolete. There's no difference in "subjectiveness". Just simply pick-and-choose proselytizing by false prophets.
And there are a lot of academics that would say that I, too, am a homosexual.
Oh, wait, that would have something to do with the fact that I like to have sex with guys... wait.. I AM GAY
If Paul was gay, which he may or may not have been, then it is more likely he would have been pro gay not anti-homosexual activity. It proves nothing...
And I would hold that Paul's words, though not Jesus' are still contained in the bible and were selected in the same way the Old Testament was - a collection of books Jesus backed as the word of God.
I actually sway to the belief that Paul was gay too, as a matter of fact. Whether he acted on it or not, is a different story. I actually would find comfort knowing I am in good company like that.
But there are more important things in life... like holding to Jesus teachings of loving others despite their sin. I won't yell at a Christian if they have a different interpretation to me... Heck, I know how hard it is to come to a conclusion, and I am not exactly a know it all and don't claim to be.
If you want to winge about Christians pushing their beliefs on you, have a look at this thread. I see 99% here are atheists trying to convinve the 1% christian population here they are wrong, and just throwing insults.
Gosh, why would you assume that everyone who disagrees with the Christian fundamentalist line is automatically an atheist? I myself am a lapsed Catholic, but I still believe in God.
In fact, most people do... the survey I looked at stated that the US is 78% Christian, of various flavors. Only 14% of people surveyed said they had "no religious affiliation", which I take to mean atheist, agnostic, or just doesn't care.
Thus, Christians in the US outnumber atheists at least 5 to 1, probably more.
So tell us again why you think this forum is 99% godless and Christians are being persecuted by the giant mob of unruly atheists?
Or is it more likely that many of the ppl who are fed up with fundamentalist Christian bullshit are, in fact, Christians themselves?
If Paul was gay, which he may or may not have been, then it is more likely he would have been pro gay not anti-homosexual activity. It proves nothing...
Wow... someone needs to tell Senator Larry Craig that, then... oh, and anti-gay evangelical preacher Ted Haggard too.
Is there room for a Mark Foley joke in here somewhere?
Why is it that so many conservative and/or very religious anti-gay crusaders and politicians end up being gay themselves? Too funny. They'll just end up as sad old queens who hate themselves.
Do I hate myself? No. I accept that I am attracted to men. Joke about it. Its a laugh, what many including a lot of gay friends see as a contradiction.
I see this as something God allowed into my life. Its a complexity. Its a uniqueness. It helped make me who I am and I am better for it.
Just because I don't want to act on it anymore, doesn't mean I hate myself. I kinda find some enjoyment in the joke of it all
Do I hate myself? No. I accept that I am attracted to men. Joke about it. Its a laugh, what many including a lot of gay friends see as a contradiction.
I see this as something God allowed into my life. Its a complexity. Its a uniqueness. It helped make me who I am and I am better for it.
Just because I don't want to act on it anymore, doesn't mean I hate myself. I kinda find some enjoyment in the joke of it all
Hey, I wish you luck in your own unique personal struggle. But I really hope that you don't end up a lonely old man who looks back at his life and wonders, "What if I had just accepted myself?".
But, I'm not gay myself, and cannot completely understand all that you're going through. Must be tough. I'd hate to be stuck with your problem... beliefs versus 'what I am'.
By the same token, you can sequester a gay male with a single female (called "marriage") and he will usually have sex with her.
But are you changing his essential sexuality? No.
People don't "become" gay or straight. They're born that way.
It doesn't mean you can't force them to have sex with a gender different from the one they would naturally choose--in extenuating circumstances like jail (or marriage, LOL).
No, I think it's much more accurate to assume there are some who will always be gay, some who will always be straight, any many who fall within a gradient of preference between the extremes.
In any case, absolutes don't pass muster when you are talking about behavior.
If Hell's gates are locked from the inside that should make it easy enough to unlock and leave.
Exactly.
But if you leave, the only other place to go is heaven, which is where God is. And hell is the place where people who reject God would rather be. They would prefer to be in hell than to be with God, so he says, "O.K., then, have it your way." God is fair and just.
No, I think it's much more accurate to assume there are some who will always be gay, some who will always be straight, any many who fall within a gradient of preference between the extremes.
In any case, absolutes don't pass muster when you are talking about behavior.
edit: wasn't satisfied with my phrasing.
I totally agree that there are gradients of sexuality.
But my point continues to be that those don't change over time. If you greatly prefer men over women (or vice versa), that basic preference is not going to change over the course of your life.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
No, I'm not advocating we change the age of consent. And, no, a consenting boy is not the same thing as a consenting adult.
So you have no answer to "2 consenting adults", do you? Of course not. There is nothing to argue there.
If you want to wait until you're married to have sex, that's your right. Personally, I think it's a rule that made sense when humans knew a lot less about preventing babies and getting diseases. Nowadays, there is lots of information on preventing diseases and children--it is very easy to be sexually active and disease (and child) free. So, what's the problem with having sex? Why is it so "special"? To me, sex is like eating or breathing--a normal part of life. Sex is a good thing; something to be cherished with someone special. But nonetheless a part of normal life.
To deny that seems ludicrous to me. But that's just my opinion, of course.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
Oh your naivety is soooo cute!!
Age of consent is far from arbitrary, it's been proven time and time again that children are far from mentally or emotionally ready to enter into a contract/serious adult relationship. The way it sounds, you don't seem like you're able to wear big boy pants, and you're what? Pushing 40?
On that note, talked to my ex's dad this morning (he's a retired pastor), there is ZERO mention of lesbians in the bible. All references to "gay is a sin" are Man/Man only, and pretty much confined to the hyperstrict rules of Leviticus.
So as I've been saying all the time... All Lesbians Go to Heaven!
Daddy, why do bad men get away with doing terrible things?
God punishes them after they are dead. In hell!
God gave us free will, which leaves open the option of doing wrong. If there is no judgement for doing wrong, then you would be free to do anything and everything you like.
We have all lied, cheated, stolen, spoken badly of some, committed adultery, or any combination thereof. We all deserve eternal separation from God. However, God has paid the fine, if we will accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Daddy, why does God let little children die with horrible diseases that He invented?
He makes it up to them later, in heaven.
God did not invent any of that. He intended our universe to be perfect, but our sin has caused a downward spiral of all creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
So when Jesus died, he knew he was gonna be awright?
Err... Yeah
So it was like, no big deal. Jesus said crucificion, what-ever! I'm gonna be in heaven dude.
No. It really really hurt. And he did it for us! He died.
Here you are much closer to the mark. Jesus "for the joy set before him, endured the cross." He saw beyond death and saw his suffering as worth enduring because he loved us and didn't want to lose us.
Jesus denied himself many things in this life because he was looking toward the end result in heaven, when he would be reinstated fully as God the Son, having paid the ransom for all of us to be with him in heaven.
Sometimes you give up something you want here and now for something better later.
On that note, talked to my ex's dad this morning (he's a retired pastor), there is ZERO mention of lesbians in the bible. All references to "gay is a sin" are Man/Man only, and pretty much confined to the hyperstrict rules of Leviticus.
False. Romans 1:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."
Comments
I don't confuse it, and I agree with you that we shouldn't follow what the church says, but what Jesus says.
I read the bible for what is the most plausible thing they are trying to say, with reference to their culture, and their accepted meanings behind the text.
I'd say that the Apostle Paul denotes quite well what the difference is between them within the bible, and that has to do with how the law was an application for the Jewish people at that time, and how some of the rules are for the benefit of the culture, some of them for sanitary reasons (such as menstrual issues, and keeping clean) others around dietary issues at the time (the best foods in that culture) and some of them for spiritual well-being. All these tied up in Levitical law.
Some no longer apply because their groups no longer apply (eg, sanitary issues can be laxed now, etc) and some do apply because they cross the cultural divide. I think paul makes that view about sexual practice, and speaks of how those laws relate to your body and mind, and aren't as subjective.
The only thing the non-Christian anti-gay bigots have to cling to in the New Testament is Paul. Not Jesus. Paul. I have news for you. There is a large faction of academics who have studied the Bible carefully who theorize that Paul himself was a homosexual.
As far as Leviticus goes, I agree with you that it's obsolete. Shrimp can be cleaned and refrigerated, making the disease factor of eating crustaceans obsolete. Men can wear condoms, making the disease factor of having homosexual intercourse obsolete. There's no difference in "subjectiveness". Just simply pick-and-choose proselytizing by false prophets.
then you best be getting back there before they send mommy to find you
Find/come up with your own jokes...if you can.
Oh, wait, that would have something to do with the fact that I like to have sex with guys... wait.. I AM GAY
If Paul was gay, which he may or may not have been, then it is more likely he would have been pro gay not anti-homosexual activity. It proves nothing...
And I would hold that Paul's words, though not Jesus' are still contained in the bible and were selected in the same way the Old Testament was - a collection of books Jesus backed as the word of God.
I actually sway to the belief that Paul was gay too, as a matter of fact. Whether he acted on it or not, is a different story. I actually would find comfort knowing I am in good company like that.
But there are more important things in life... like holding to Jesus teachings of loving others despite their sin. I won't yell at a Christian if they have a different interpretation to me... Heck, I know how hard it is to come to a conclusion, and I am not exactly a know it all and don't claim to be.
Humility in all areas goes a long, long way.
If you want to winge about Christians pushing their beliefs on you, have a look at this thread. I see 99% here are atheists trying to convinve the 1% christian population here they are wrong, and just throwing insults.
Gosh, why would you assume that everyone who disagrees with the Christian fundamentalist line is automatically an atheist? I myself am a lapsed Catholic, but I still believe in God.
In fact, most people do... the survey I looked at stated that the US is 78% Christian, of various flavors. Only 14% of people surveyed said they had "no religious affiliation", which I take to mean atheist, agnostic, or just doesn't care.
Thus, Christians in the US outnumber atheists at least 5 to 1, probably more.
So tell us again why you think this forum is 99% godless and Christians are being persecuted by the giant mob of unruly atheists?
Or is it more likely that many of the ppl who are fed up with fundamentalist Christian bullshit are, in fact, Christians themselves?
.
If Paul was gay, which he may or may not have been, then it is more likely he would have been pro gay not anti-homosexual activity. It proves nothing...
Wow... someone needs to tell Senator Larry Craig that, then... oh, and anti-gay evangelical preacher Ted Haggard too.
Is there room for a Mark Foley joke in here somewhere?
Why is it that so many conservative and/or very religious anti-gay crusaders and politicians end up being gay themselves? Too funny. They'll just end up as sad old queens who hate themselves.
.
I see this as something God allowed into my life. Its a complexity. Its a uniqueness. It helped make me who I am and I am better for it.
Just because I don't want to act on it anymore, doesn't mean I hate myself. I kinda find some enjoyment in the joke of it all
Do I hate myself? No. I accept that I am attracted to men. Joke about it. Its a laugh, what many including a lot of gay friends see as a contradiction.
I see this as something God allowed into my life. Its a complexity. Its a uniqueness. It helped make me who I am and I am better for it.
Just because I don't want to act on it anymore, doesn't mean I hate myself. I kinda find some enjoyment in the joke of it all
Hey, I wish you luck in your own unique personal struggle. But I really hope that you don't end up a lonely old man who looks back at his life and wonders, "What if I had just accepted myself?".
But, I'm not gay myself, and cannot completely understand all that you're going through. Must be tough. I'd hate to be stuck with your problem... beliefs versus 'what I am'.
.
Recently has been an especially bad patch.
Which scientists did some calculations?
Can you please provide a link to the research paper? PubMed link?
Also ignoring the fact that a protein has no need to randomly come together for life to form.
RNA world baby!
Of course, I'm guessing frugal probably thinks DNA IS a protein.
It's super when people who clearly have zero understanding of biology try to argue these things.
I hope frugal at least jacks off a lot.
By the same token, you can sequester a gay male with a single female (called "marriage") and he will usually have sex with her.
But are you changing his essential sexuality? No.
People don't "become" gay or straight. They're born that way.
It doesn't mean you can't force them to have sex with a gender different from the one they would naturally choose--in extenuating circumstances like jail (or marriage, LOL).
No, I think it's much more accurate to assume there are some who will always be gay, some who will always be straight, any many who fall within a gradient of preference between the extremes.
In any case, absolutes don't pass muster when you are talking about behavior.
edit: wasn't satisfied with my phrasing.
Oh god, I can't resist...
If Hell's gates are locked from the inside that should make it easy enough to unlock and leave.
Exactly.
But if you leave, the only other place to go is heaven, which is where God is. And hell is the place where people who reject God would rather be. They would prefer to be in hell than to be with God, so he says, "O.K., then, have it your way." God is fair and just.
Choose wisely.
And by accepting my sexuality I am saying to God "Thy will be done". Homosexuals who deny their sexuality are the ones denying what God gave them.
And a pedophile can just as well say, "God made me like this." Should a pedophile deny his urges?
And a pedophile can just as well say, "God made me like this." Should a pedophile deny his urges?
Does pedophilia involve 2 consenting adults?
No.
No, I think it's much more accurate to assume there are some who will always be gay, some who will always be straight, any many who fall within a gradient of preference between the extremes.
In any case, absolutes don't pass muster when you are talking about behavior.
edit: wasn't satisfied with my phrasing.
I totally agree that there are gradients of sexuality.
But my point continues to be that those don't change over time. If you greatly prefer men over women (or vice versa), that basic preference is not going to change over the course of your life.
Does pedophilia involve 2 consenting adults?
No.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
No, I'm not advocating we change the age of consent. And, no, a consenting boy is not the same thing as a consenting adult.
So you have no answer to "2 consenting adults", do you? Of course not. There is nothing to argue there.
If you want to wait until you're married to have sex, that's your right. Personally, I think it's a rule that made sense when humans knew a lot less about preventing babies and getting diseases. Nowadays, there is lots of information on preventing diseases and children--it is very easy to be sexually active and disease (and child) free. So, what's the problem with having sex? Why is it so "special"? To me, sex is like eating or breathing--a normal part of life. Sex is a good thing; something to be cherished with someone special. But nonetheless a part of normal life.
To deny that seems ludicrous to me. But that's just my opinion, of course.
God punishes them after they are dead. In hell!
Daddy, why does God let little children die with horrible diseases that He invented?
He makes it up to them later, in heaven.
So when Jesus died, he knew he was gonna be awright?
Err... Yeah
So it was like, no big deal. Jesus said crucificion, what-ever! I'm gonna be in heaven dude.
No. It really really hurt. And he did it for us! He died.
Daddy, you are making this shit up aren't you?
C.
What if it's a consenting man and a consenting boy? The age of consent is an arbitrary thing. Should we change it?
But the argument stands, though, that there are some sexual urges that are not to be acted upon.
And I'll point out again that sex is only for a male and female within the confines or marriage. That means we single people shouldn't be having sex, either. I can't argue that God made me horny, so I have the right to have sex. I don't. Only if I get married. Until then, urges need to be kept in check.
Oh your naivety is soooo cute!!
Age of consent is far from arbitrary, it's been proven time and time again that children are far from mentally or emotionally ready to enter into a contract/serious adult relationship. The way it sounds, you don't seem like you're able to wear big boy pants, and you're what? Pushing 40?
On that note, talked to my ex's dad this morning (he's a retired pastor), there is ZERO mention of lesbians in the bible. All references to "gay is a sin" are Man/Man only, and pretty much confined to the hyperstrict rules of Leviticus.
So as I've been saying all the time... All Lesbians Go to Heaven!
Daddy, why do bad men get away with doing terrible things?
God punishes them after they are dead. In hell!
God gave us free will, which leaves open the option of doing wrong. If there is no judgement for doing wrong, then you would be free to do anything and everything you like.
We have all lied, cheated, stolen, spoken badly of some, committed adultery, or any combination thereof. We all deserve eternal separation from God. However, God has paid the fine, if we will accept it.
Daddy, why does God let little children die with horrible diseases that He invented?
He makes it up to them later, in heaven.
God did not invent any of that. He intended our universe to be perfect, but our sin has caused a downward spiral of all creation.
So when Jesus died, he knew he was gonna be awright?
Err... Yeah
So it was like, no big deal. Jesus said crucificion, what-ever! I'm gonna be in heaven dude.
No. It really really hurt. And he did it for us! He died.
Here you are much closer to the mark. Jesus "for the joy set before him, endured the cross." He saw beyond death and saw his suffering as worth enduring because he loved us and didn't want to lose us.
Jesus denied himself many things in this life because he was looking toward the end result in heaven, when he would be reinstated fully as God the Son, having paid the ransom for all of us to be with him in heaven.
Sometimes you give up something you want here and now for something better later.
On that note, talked to my ex's dad this morning (he's a retired pastor), there is ZERO mention of lesbians in the bible. All references to "gay is a sin" are Man/Man only, and pretty much confined to the hyperstrict rules of Leviticus.
False. Romans 1:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."