And, now, the thread-crapping:
If there's no felching or golden showers in heaven, then I don't wanna go!
|
Meh. It's all opinion until they find "gene x means homosexuality".
Recent studies at Harvard (see NEJM 2011, #364 Feb) have shown a link between homosexuality in men and markers on chromosome Xq28. Xq28 is definitively recognized as the 'sex chromosome', and in gay men, 99% of those who participated in the study (over 4200 from across the US and the UK) showed a multipoint score of 4.0 where P equals 10-. This very strongly indicates that sexual preference for the same gender is at least 99% genetically influenced.
cher·ry-pickVerb1. Selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available: "the company should not just cherry-pick its best assets".
You've presented NO reason from scripture to say that Peter's vision applied only to food. It clearly didn't. Cornelius wasn't a stick of celery. Given that Peter's vision didn't apply only to food, you've presented NO reason from scripture to say that Peter's vision didn't apply to homosexuality.
You are arbitrarily selecting what Peter's vision applied to. That's called "cherry-picking".
So, yes. You are cherry-picking.
Actually, I am not even sure now we speak the same language. Peter protests the invitation to eat previously unclean foods. God replies "If I have not called it unclean, you don't call it unclean." There are two points, and this is only widely agreed on by most who have studied Acts: First, we are under grace and not the law, as expounded on numerous times by Paul later. And secondly that salvation is for everyone, not just the Jews. Are you attempting to apply the standard of grace to mean that all sin is no longer unclean?
In no way am I arbitrarily applying Peter's vision to anything. I think you need that to have your sort of blended view of Scripture, but it's not accurate. It seems strange for someone to accuse me of cherry=picking scripture in defense of homosexuality. Are you saying you think God doesn't care about a person's orientation since the NT?
Oh, it's Steven arguing. That explains it. I should check aliases more often.
I suppose then should not defend my beliefs, and alow ad hom and preconception to reign. Isn't it weird how some of you can rudely call me out by name and yet the assertion is that I'm the unreasonable one?
I have tons of nonChristian, or gay, or center-left, or country-music-loving friends. I'm honest with them, but I love them all the same and get along pretty well with them. I don't belittle other people for believing differently from me. I wonder why it's so hard for soem of you to do the same?
As an aside, I used to use my name when posting, until some people thought it worthwhile to complain that I was using my Contributor tag to bring extra weight to my posts. It's a ridiculous statement, but in an effort to keep peace I complied. more proff there are some people so intolerant there's actually no way to please them.
You'd have to go through every (or at least many) examples and EXPLAIN why your understanding of the message there is the right one and mine isn't. That usually requires a supernatural source who's legitimacy is rather circular.That's why I posted the Matthew verse and the importance to view scripture through the lens of the fruits of the spirit.
It is, also, why Ancient Sensei is just ecproctophatically treating you and I like he's the only person here who has spent any time studying the Bible.
That's completely untrue. And you know it. DOn't make personal comments. If you make a statement that doesn't jive with cripture, I'll tell you what I think it says. Let's not go putting words in anyone's mouth.
|
I suppose then should not defend my beliefs, and alow ad hom and preconception to reign. Isn't it weird how some of you can rudely call me out by name and yet the assertion is that I'm the unreasonable one?
Funny, I never said any of that. In fact, I haven't asserted anything in this thread for quite awhile. And I don't consider voicing my observation, so that other people who might have made the same mistake I did realize it, to be unreasonable.
I have tons of nonChristian, or gay, or center-left, or country-music-loving friends. I'm honest with them, but I love them all the same and get along pretty well with them. I don't belittle other people for believing differently from me. I wonder why it's so hard for soem of you to do the same?
I don't know why they do that either.
As an aside, I used to use my name when posting, until some people thought it worthwhile to complain that I was using my Contributor tag to bring extra weight to my posts. It's a ridiculous statement, but in an effort to keep peace I complied. more proff there are some people so intolerant there's actually no way to please them.
That is a pretty ridiculous reason to have to use an alias, I agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all this talk of gays, I wanted to bring up one point...
As Christians, we are to live and let live. We are not God's agents of retribution or punishment, we are supposed to be examples of his grace and goodness.
Whatever God thinks of homosexuals is between Him and the individual, and we have nothing to do with it, plain and simple. It is not our job to make a gay person's life a living hell through legislation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, not through legislation. Just by convincing him that he's damned and socially isolating him and driving him to deny what he is and pretend to be something he's not. The high suicide rate among homosexual teens is not due to legislation and it's not do to some innate flaw or weakness in gay people, it's due to hatred and social isolation and religion plays a huge role in that.
I chose to add the legislation bit becasue I feel that's how most Christians passive/aggressively persecute gay people, when they have absolutely no right to do so, and aren't supposed to.
Personal story:
I had a roomate several years ago who was gay and was a mess. He was raised Jehovah's Witness and his family would never have accepted him being gay, not to mention others in his church. This made him depressed almost 24/7, lead him to an addiction to morphine, and several suicide attempts. He asked me once if I thought he would go to hell. I told him that it wasn't my call, but the Jesus I read about would have rather had him go live his life than take it. I told him if he was gay, then he needed to go be gay, and let go of the guilt. He came out to his family, who acted exactly as he thought they would, save a few people, but he felt way better about it.
Later that year, he met a man, and "married" him in Vegas.
Compassion is what we are supposed to be about, plain and simple. Love your neighbor as yourself, and treat others like you want to be treated.
Christians who hurt or persecute gays (or anyone else for that matter) out of some misguided sense of responsibility to God is doing it wrong.
Intolerance is intolerance. Managing to subsequently convince yourself you hold the moral high ground is just...twisted.
I'd like to apologize on behalf of the heterosexual population to our homosexual friends that may have had the misfortune of reading the last few pages of this thread. We're sorry. Please understand that we do not all think we're doing you a favor by grudgingly accepting your existence. :(
I'm going to go take a shower now...carry on.
Intolerance is intolerance. Managing to subsequently convince yourself you hold the moral high ground is just...twisted.
I'd like to apologize on behalf of the heterosexual population to our homosexual friends that may have had the misfortune of reading the last few pages of this thread. We're sorry. Please understand that we do not all think we're doing you a favor by grudgingly accepting your existence. :(
I'm going to go take a shower now...carry on.
Wow...
Funny, I never said any of that. In fact, I haven't asserted anything in this thread for quite awhile. And I don't consider voicing my observation, so that other people who might have made the same mistake I did realize it, to be unreasonable.
Maybe I owe you an apology. I took that comment as antagonism.
The point I've been trying to emphasize is that not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way Ancient Sensei does. Many Christians have fought for gay rights as human rights. I'm not a Christian, though I was raised in a very Religious Reich environment. Learning that homosexuality -is- compatible with God and living a Christian life made self acceptance a lot easier for me.
Umm...so your different opinion makes Christianity compatible with acts prohibited by the Bible, though you are not a Christian. And mine are just wrong.
Wish it worked that way sometimes. But it does not.
|
|
Obviously, anyone can call himself a Christian, including an atheist who subscribes to the philosophy of Christ sans all things supernatural.
It's when you want to describe yourself as any specific denomination that the trouble ensues. You simply cannot call yourself Roman Catholic if you disagree with anything patently Roman Catholic. The same goes for Southern Baptist or Church of England, and all the rest.
When you disagree with some but not all of a denominational doctrine, that's when you splinter off and create a new sect or denomination.
So, I'm willing to call myself an atheist Christian.
It goes without saying that the bible prohibits/requires a LOT of things, and that very few people (if any) actually follow all of these rules to a "T". Wars have been fought for centuries over how to interpret this book. Maybe we need to stop reading so closely into it and just focus on the larger messages. I think it's perfectly valid to be a christian who supports homosexual lifestyles in the same way I think it's perfectly valid to be a christian who eats shellfish, is uncircumcized, or works on the Sabbath.
It's when you want to describe yourself as any specific denomination that the trouble ensues. You simply cannot call yourself Roman Catholic if you disagree with anything patently Roman Catholic.
A large number of American roman Catholics would seem to disagree with that statement. (depending on what you mean by can't)
|
|
It's when you want to describe yourself as any specific denomination that the trouble ensues. You simply cannot call yourself Roman Catholic if you disagree with anything patently Roman Catholic.
A large number of American roman Catholics would seem to disagree with that statement. (depending on what you mean by can't)
Strictly speaking, they're heretics.
When I say 'cannot' I mean legitimately.
Unofficially, people can say whatever they want, but the truth is, it's hard to defend saying you love chocolate bars, but not sugar, or coco, or cacao, or butter, or oil, or, really, the flavor of chocolate.
Identifying oneself as a certain something but then decrying the very most definitive aspects of that certain something is irrational.
This is strange to say with regard to the supernatural, which is patently designed out of-- and with the deepest reverence for-- things irrational!
I patently disagree here with Andrew. Who gets to decide what defines a Roman Catholic? Similarly with Christianity in general? Is it the majority? I hope not. Is it the first group to call themselves something? Maybe.
The label of "Christian" or any other, is a very very broad statement. Each person individually has their own interpretation of religious teachings, dogma, and practices. It is a sinful amount of pride to claim that you get to say who the "real" Christians are and who are the "heretics."
|
|
I patently disagree here with Andrew. Who gets to decide what defines a Roman Catholic? Similarly with Christianity in general? Is it the majority? I hope not. Is it the first group to call themselves something? Maybe.
The label of "Christian" or any other, is a very very broad statement. Each person individually has their own interpretation of religious teachings, dogma, and practices. It is a sinful amount of pride to claim that you get to say who the "real" Christians are and who are the "heretics."
I'm not saying it one way or the other, rather are the religious leaders of these highly-organized Christian denominations (though the Curia would never refer to the Catholic Church as a denomination; it's contrary to the very meaning of Catholic).
In the case of defining a Roman Catholic (and that of a heretic), I'd point interested parties to the official doctrines of the Roman Curia.
But the Bible says that I should, at this point, knock the dust from my shoes. So, c'est le ve.
As I understand it (and I may be wrong here, I'm studying to be a rabbi and we may interpret this differently based on countless edits made to our shared source matter) kicking the dust from one's shoes is actually quite a serious invocation of God's wrath upon an individual or group. At the very least, it merits a very serious scriptural insult.
I patently disagree here with Andrew. Who gets to decide what defines a Roman Catholic?
-The guy with the biggest hat.
I patently disagree here with Andrew. Who gets to decide what defines a Roman Catholic?-The guy with the biggest hat.
|
|
When someone spreads hate, are we doing the same thing when we tell them that they are wrong for doing it?
It's not the same thing! You're telling him, "No, you're wrong and I'm right!"
Instead of; "You're spreading nothing but hate, and you are wrong for doing it!" (I'm not saying that he is, I'm just using this as an example)...
Big difference...
|
|
Please quote the post I made that you take issue with and tell me why you take issue with it.
Okay...
To Ancient Sensei you said:
Your arrogance and ignorance is in the fact that you think that the way you interpret the Bible is the only right way to interpret The Bible
You further said:
which twisted the Bible into a thing of hate (just as Ancient Sensei does) because they did not understand that the Bible is to be interpreted through the lens of the fruits of the spirit.
So while on one hand you call him "arrogant and ignorant" for assuming that his way is THE correct way, you then turn around and say that your way is THE correct way...
Didn't take issue really, just wanted to point this discrepancy out to you...
I said that it's necessary to interpret the Bible through the lens of the fruits, but, there are many ways to interpret the Bible through that lens. I never asserted that my way was better than any other way that uses that lens.
You're using your interpretation of the lens to effectively overwrite whats there. Sensai is saying you need to rely on the book, you're saying you need to rely on your own judgement.
Now if you want to use that lens to toss out Paul you'd have more than ample grounds. The bible was compiled entirely by men, Jesus never met Paul, so if his words fail the test given by Jesus for later prophets you have the grounds to drop him like a bad habit.
No, I'm not. Scroll back and you'll see a post where I called out (by italicizing) the parts of the script that would have to be ignored to get an interpretation which conflicts with mine.
Well let me ask you, is it possible for the bible to speak ill of anyone? People who hurt children for example? Its possible that the bible thinks that that act is morally wrong and that the person who does it is bad?
the parts of the script that would have to be ignored
And thats the crux of the issue. You think he's ignoring one part, he thinks you're ignoring (by virtue of rewriting) another.
|
|
Ususally, this thread is more devoted to the philosophy of religion rather than explanations and defenses of personal beliefs (now's a chance for someone to jump in with a hundred counterexamples to confound me), and that's likely what has kept it going and unlocked for so many years-- that's right, this thread is over four and a half years old, with more than 12,000 mostly-cogent posts!
Every now and again we cycle through to a topic that brings out the ultra-sensitive in about a half-dozen folks, and the banter goes back and forth like a robotic tennis match. When this happens, I always worry we come periously close to thread closure as the verbal vitriol gets spicier and spicier. As it happens, things usually cool down at the cusp of the breaking point and the thread goes dark for, sometimes, weeks at a time.
The people who read and respond in this thread are probably some of the brightest Paizonians (thank you, thank you very much!) on the Boards. This means we're unlikely, very highly unlikely, to change anyone's mind about anything.
Socratic debate, traditional argument, civil discussion on the topic of the phenomenon of religion--that's what this thread's about.
I patently disagree here with Andrew. Who gets to decide what defines a Roman Catholic? Similarly with Christianity in general? Is it the majority? I hope not. Is it the first group to call themselves something? Maybe.
The label of "Christian" or any other, is a very very broad statement. Each person individually has their own interpretation of religious teachings, dogma, and practices. It is a sinful amount of pride to claim that you get to say who the "real" Christians are and who are the "heretics."
Well there's no denying that's a tough call. here are beliefs, if you mentioned them to me and asked if that believer was a Christian, I'd have to say no. I don't have any authority on the matter, other than knwoing the scriptures and being a student of both academics and essentials.
If you're a Catholic and you believe Mary was born of a virgin and she never sinned or had kids, you can still preach Jesus and live a life of service telling others about the gospel. You can still beleive, be baptized and just be wrong about that issue (as you would then assume I am wrong about it).
If you say you are a Christian, but you believe there are multiple ways to heaven, which is really just a state of mind, and that God forgives everyone regardless of faith or background, you can't call yourself a Christian, but then no one can stop you. John Kerry could call himself a Republican, and no one can say he doesn't think of himself that way. But it's clear his words and actios are contadictory to the claims of the GOP platform.
It;s why I use Phelps as an example so often. God hates my sin and everyoen else's equally. He doesn't hate anyone, regardless of reference group. He judges sin, which he has to by definition, but he has no interest in a "church" raking in money from lawsuits and using his name to offend people, without ever bothering to offer anyone the actual good news. So it is with Rober Tilton and other charlatans. I can't stop them from calling themselves Christians, but I can evidence clearly and quickly that their behavior is not Christlike.
Going from
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
To
A man who is born gay (as we now understand gays to be) isn't abandoning natural relations with women when having sex with one another.
Is a rewrite. Its not an interpretation, its a torturous twisting and shoehorning so that it fits with your idea that homosexuality isn't bad according to the bible.
Its also not particularly hatefull, because right after the diatribe against homosexuality he adds
Romans 2*
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?
So he is indeed preaching love for someone that is sinning without denying that homosexuality is a sin.
*i never really did understand this split, its like they cut him off mid sentence.
I grew up in a Religious Reich, holy roller church which twisted the Bible into a thing of hate (just as Ancient Sensei does)...
Holy crap, LT. I am not sure how disagreement with you turned into twisting the Bible into a thing of hate, but you have got to check yourself. This here ought to be a friendly conversation, and them's serious words. Also, completely without evidence. I dare say your approach to me is noticably more vitriolic than my approach to anyone. The last few days, anyway.
I don't hate nor have I hated on anyone. A hallmark of me talking religion with folks here is trying to remain on specifics and trying to communicate beliefs honestly without offending folk I know don't share them. And I see a ton of misconception, a fair amount of pretension, and a lot of hate towards Christians here. But it's not honest to shrug and walk away, so I keep on.
Now, I have a job to do and a book to write. But I'll try to go back and catch up this conversation so I can understand how you and I got where we are. But I am not and have never hated on anyone. I appreciate not having words put into my mouth.
because they did not understand that the Bible is to be interpreted through the lens of the fruits of the spirit. The Bible says that when someone insists on doing so (or does other related things) that we should just walk away and carry nothing away with us.
What does "the bible is to be interpreted through the lens of the fruit of the spirit" mean, LT? Fruits of the spirit I am familiar with. But the Bible doesn't say it's to be interpreted by this or that measure. It does say all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing people what's wrong with their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right." Now of course, we have to do this in the same spirit you speak of. We have to love people and oppose sin. I have gay friends I cherish. I'm not bashful about my beliefs and they woudl be disappointed if I were anyone but me. Please stop painting a picture as if I'm standing in line for movie tickets and suddenly saying "Have I told you lately God hates that you're gay". Placing words in my mouth, and making assumptions about my attitudes is offensive and presumptuous. I prefer we stick to the scripture and not make things up about one another.
And I see a ton of misconception, a fair amount of pretension, and a lot of hate towards Christians here.
Hates kind of a strong word, I don't know if I've seen that. Going after someone's religion might seem like it needs to take outright hate because its something that you hold sacred, but to someone that doesn't hold it sacred biting comments can be no big deal.
As to misconceptions there's a lot of reason for that. Basically what you outlined about people you wouldn't consider christian. I'm sure that they probably wouldn't consider you a real christian(tm) either because you play a game of the devil! (not to mention you didn't send them money)
With the lack of any standard to judge "real Christianity" by, you're all going to be lumped in together by the common label.
which indicates that these men were naturally heterosexual.
I'm pretty sure he thought they were all naturally heterosexual. Even if he (by virtue of his contact with Jesus/God) his audience at the time certainly wasn't. That would have been a good distinction to get into then.
Also, what you're saying is that being born gay isn't a sin, but choosing to be gay if you're born strait is?
That help?No. You'd have to go through every (or at least many) examples and EXPLAIN why your understanding of the message there is the right one and mine isn't. That usually requires a supernatural source who's legitimacy is rather circular.
I missed this post in my hiatus. I am trying to catch up.
I am not committing that we'll go through every story in the Bible to convince you it's all true. But if there are some questions I can answer, I love the specific stuff. Specific passages are where we get principle, and the whole Bible is where we get context.
One thing I'd like to address that I've sene you mention, the Bible is not simply an inconsistent book written over centuries by "too many authors". It's design was to be written by different authors in different time periods. There is fantastic evidence that tells us how amazingly consistent the Bible is through the ages. We have catalogued everything you could consider a difference or an error. We can say with confidence not one such mistake changes anything in our doctrinal understanding of the scripture. We see places where newer writers quote older passages, then we go back and those passages are the same. We have specific incidence of prophecy in older texts, fulfilled by Jesus, or outside of Messiah, fulfilled in history. ince the dates of the older books are verifiable, that the crucifixion was describes in great detail in Psalms, or that the night Jesus was tried and then crucified was described so well in Isaiah - a passage that predicts a Messiah who will take sin on himself to redeem us - that we can say with certainty, this is what Isaiah meant, and this is what Christ did.
The book is consistent in character. A fantastic part of the textual criticism of the Bible is centered on whether you view the Bible as authored totally by dudes, or authored totally by God, or some of both. I tink it's clear that the Bible is authored fully by both. It does have the character and personality of its component authors. But it does convey authority and counsel to those who study it that people couldn't write into it. Much less bronze age nomads living next door to cannibals.
I recognize there';s no invitation to teach what Steve thinks of the Bible into perpetuity, but passages or phrases that are troubling, or seem to contradict Christian claims about the bible, I am all game. I just prefer the conversation remain friendly and edifying, rather than become a reason to judge Christians as hatemongers. Spend a day with me and you'll see there's nothing further from the truth.
You ignore
the men also abandoned natural relations with womenwhich indicates that these men were naturally heterosexual.
Yeah, Paul assumes that everyone naturally was created as a heterosexual. You'll not be able to produce even a little bit of evidence that he does not, but I am willing to check it out of you can.
There isn't any support for the idea that homosexuality is okay with God. You can't find that in the Bible. BNW is right about the core principles here: hate sin, love sinners. God hates my sin and loves me, and thus to all.
Trying to say that Paul distinguishes between people born straight and sleeping with the same gender, and people being born gay (which doesn't happen) and sleepingwith the same gender is precisely twisting the man's words as you have accused others of doing. Unless you are about to teach some fantastic (and new to the entire theological world) Greek, you are placing your desired meaning into the words of Paul.
And this is why context matters.
Also, BNW, Paul did meet Jesus in Acts. It was why he converted.
Hates kind of a strong word, I don't know if I've seen that. Going after someone's religion might seem like it needs to take outright hate because its something that you hold sacred, but to someone that doesn't hold it sacred biting comments can be no big deal.
Hate would be too strong a word to describe your bahvior or general disagreement, But that isn't true for everyone. Although, I'll admit that hate more frequently describes what folk on FB might say.
There is fantastic evidence that tells us how amazingly consistent the Bible is through the ages.
I'm Going to assume you're a trinitarian. If not oh well.
Would Jesus, the same man who stopped a crowd from stoning a adulteress to death, stand over a 2 year old Amelekite male child and say "There is no other option, dash his head against the stones.. but save his sister for yourself"