Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I'm so happy! ^^
terrible excuse, because God created snake, garden, tree, fruit, Adam
and Eve, and did all this in full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat
the fruit. It was still ultimately God's decision."
Must I discuss this anyways? Oh well.
This sort of comes down to the question "If God knows everything, and is all powerful, can free will exist?".
I'll leave that up to you, personally I believe that God simply has a way.
-indifferent shrug-
"I really wish God would give better reasons than "I don't like it" and
"it's not the natural order of things". Those are both considered poor
arguments."
Hehe, if God explained everything, the Bible would be a pretty thick book...
This once again goes back to the incredibly ambiguous words "Holy" and "Unholy". What these words imply is a supernatural and invisible reason, that if we could discern, would be plenty logical. I'm going to actually speak with my pastor later, and see if he can elaborate on what "Holy" means. The dictionary can only get you so far.
As for what you mentioned about things being harmful or not, that has nothing to do with the concept of sin. Looking at Ecclesiastes, you see it even stated that an unbeliever could have a way better life and outlive the believer. The point is that we are not supposed to be citizens of earth, but rather, immigrants. Living a "happy" life on earth is nigh unto pointless, as opposed to the eternity after. Thus, doing what you want and living a normal healthy life take a backseat, and are even tossed out the window entirely.
"Yeah...every law I bring up is culturally dependent for the time period
in your opinion with the clear exception of condemnation of gay people. I
fail to understand your logic behind this."
I'll try to rephrase it. The reason homosexuality is considered something negative, while other stuff slides by, is due to the fact that God is stated as being personally against acting upon it, while other things are included in the law simply to keep people safe or as guidelines. Homosexuality is part of multiple lists stating stuff that you shouldn't do ever.
"No thank you. I'm not going to be miserable for the rest of my life in
isolation and without love. That sounds terrible. I have no idea why you
think God supports this."
Why would this mean "in isolation and without love"? Well, again, such is rather bleak, compared to eternity. In fact, looking back I recall that romance itself is something that is likely not in heaven. I'd have to look again, but the concept is there, I'm pretty sure. One of my pastors drew a hilarious image of why it could be a problem, where he gets up to heaven and sees his wife floating by on a cloud with another man. In any case, it won't be the same; though since your mind will likely work differently, this shouldn't be a problem.
"Except being alcoholic is a self-destructive behavior that harms
yourself and people around you. Being gay is perfectly harmless as long
as you're safe. Not to mention that alcoholism is often considered a
disease of the brain, while homosexuality is not a mental disorder of
any kind."
It's mental and genetic, just not considered a disorder, as that would be politically incorrect. I only brought up the thing about alcoholism to draw an image within Christianity of how homosexuality is not the only thing that a person can have an inherent leaning towards. I did this as it keeps getting brought up how homosexuality is not a chioce, with the implied idea being that this means it is completely OK. However, an alcoholic, once addicted, does not have the choice to stop being an alcoholic. All they can do is avoid it for the rest of their lives. And this applies to everyone. Everyone has an inherent weakness for something, and sometimes it is more or less destructive, or even perhaps harmless in appearance. The fact that they can't help being attracted to it is not a sin, it's acting upon it that is.
Jesus himself was tempted; in fact, homosexuality could have even been one of those temptations. And yet, he is perfect. Why? Because he focused on the job he was here to do, and understood that his work was more important than pursuing his desire. In other words, he completely cast it all aside.
considered something negative, while other stuff slides by, is due to
the fact that God is stated as being personally against acting
upon it, while other things are included in the law simply to keep
people safe or as guidelines. Homosexuality is part of multiple lists
stating stuff that you shouldn't do ever.
...So do you
think that killing gay people is relevant in the modern era? That's
what the passage says to do since it is apparently so abhorrent to him.
Also, let's examine another quote using a similar logic pattern to
yours: "Wives submit to your husbands, as it is fitting to the Lord."
(Colossians 3:18) You see, the Lord has stated that he personally
believes that wives should be submissive. Therefore, we shouldn't
overlook that passage because it is one of multiple lists stating stuff
that wives and women must do. Is this starting to sound familiar? As I have stated, passages like these were used against women's rights. Also, did you read the previous source I linked? Slavery was justified in the Bible according to people in those days. And the Bible does not always discuss "willing slaves". No, certain passages say you must get your slaves from neighboring countries. The Bible even states how you may make a woman your bride against her will in an area you conquer in the name of God. Sounds like misogyny and slavery to me.
So I'm supposed to never date or find love? Just be single, celibate,
and lonely for the rest of my life while I watch straight couples get
marred and be happy? Since being gay is not a choice, how is this fair
at all? God does not sound very benevolent.
It's mental and genetic, just not considered a disorder, as that would be politically incorrect.
Are you talking about homosexuality? If you are, being gay is not
considered a mental disease because of scientific research. Nearly every
worldwide psychiatric organization agrees unanimously, including the
APA. It is not an attempt to be "politically correct" as you say. Also,
your implications I have a mental disorder is not a nice thing to say to me.
considered a mental disease because of scientific research. Nearly every
worldwide psychiatric organization agrees unanimously, including the
APA. It is not an attempt to be "politically correct" as you say. Also,
your implications I have a mental disorder is not a nice thing to say to me."
-sighs-
All I stated was that it is a genetic tendency. I never referred to it as a mental disorder, and only reiterated such as not being the case. Again, I apologize that I failed to handle unfoutunate implications properly, I didn't mean them.
"think that killing gay people is relevant in the modern era? That's
what the passage says to do since it is apparently so abhorrent to him.
Also, let's examine another quote using a similar logic pattern to
yours: "Wives submit to your husbands, as it is fitting to the Lord."
(Colossians 3:18) You see, the Lord has stated that he personally
believes that wives should be submissive."
Like I said before, it's still abhorrent, but the punishment and way it is handled is different. God didn't change his mind, it's just time for things to happen differently, as the era of Christ came. Why do you think he's called "Savior"? Because we don't have to die anymore, that's why.
As for the "submissiveness" thing, submissiveness applies to more than just women, and doesn't mean "don't work ever" or "let your bastard husband abuse you". At this point though, the term submissive has gained a slew of unfortunate implications which do not apply to its usage here.
I'll have to look up the things with slaves though, and the more specific rules a second time around. I'll add that to my list of stuff to talk to my pastor about later, though I promise I'll have response soon.
-tips hat-
Again, I apologize for any offense.
I would say yes, but I don't see how the free will debate is relevant here, unless it's simply a necessary component of any thread involving religion in any way.
You have no evidence to support this other than your own personal interpretation. The quote says "submit to your husband". It doesn't clarify whether or not she should submit to him in all cases. Here's a definition of "to submit": "To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another". This means that the wife must do everything the husband says, even if it means "don't get a job". Here's some other passage I'd like explaining:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (Corinthians 11:7) Here, God says he glorifies men, but precedes to tell us in this verse and following verses that women were created for men. This is incredibly sexist and yet God has sanctioned it. If you'd like proof of this, here it is: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (Corinthians 11:8-9)
How does this contribute to my argument, you ask? Because you stated that the only discriminatory law we still follow in Leviticus is the one against gay people because God feels personally against it. Everything else was dependent on that time, as you say. However, looking at all these strange rules in the Bible, you will find that God sanctions a lot of discriminatory things that we no longer follow as a secular society. Your argument holds very little weight.
^ Doesn't it still filter to laconic version, though?
Any man, who uses scripture to justify obvious wrongdoing, and the horrible abuse of their wife and any other women, does not have the love and mercy of Christ in their heart. They are merely a dirty and manipulative bastard, who knows nothing of what it means to be servants themselves.
Men are also supposed to submit, and Christ himself submitted himself to humanity, even though he was God. Being a servant of others in and of itself is a virtue, but serving God takes precedence. Women have spiritual gifts, just as men do, and Christ tells us that if we have gifts, we must use them. However, if a man says to a woman, "do not use your gift", then he is not aligned with the will of God.
The point of my post was that God says that women must submit to their husband. Do you agree with this? God is not saying "listen and obey each other equally". Do you also agree that that women were created for the existence of men?
Also, here's a lovely excerpt stating how you must kill non-believers of neighboring areas: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13:13-19&version=NLT Apparently, God personally likes it when you do this and will build you a great nation, so to speak. God will show compassion to you if you carry out these horrific actions according to the Bible. The argument "because God thinks it is so" is starting not to sound convincing. This is because if you believe this, then you must also believe women are inferior to men (men were created for God, and women were created for men) and that he is indifferent to slavery (there are even verses telling people how to sell their daughter into slavery against her will, in addition to the ones saying how you should obtain your slaves in neighboring countries). Cherry picking Bible verses to believe in isn't going to cut it anymore.
Anyway, I might reply a few times after this, but for the most part I'm done arguing...I'm sure most people here find me annoying anyway. I'll probably come back to this thread just to check up on it when I decide to stop.
I've already stated that I don't discriminate, so why do you restate such?
"The point of my post was that God says that women must submit to their
husband. Do you agree with this? God is not saying "listen and obey each
other equally". Do you also agree that that women were created for the
existence of men?"
Everyone was created with purpose in mind. We weren't all just thrown to the wind. As it is, if women for created solely for men, then we wouldn't exactly have single Christian women, such as nuns. And he does, indeed, tell us all to be servants of one another. Or perhaps you are upset because they weren't placed directly next to each-other? Context is more than just the surrounding paragraphs, context is the *entire* Bible.
More specifically, though, the first woman was created because the first man needed someone. She wasn't enslaved to him, however.
---
Now then. moving on to your reiteration of OT stuff, I would like to confirm for you that I cherrypick nothing. I believe the OT, and God gave his orders then for a reason. "There is a time for everything". That time is over now, so while the nature of sinful actions themselves has remained the same, their handling has not. With Christ in the picture, a different course of action is now necessary. I trust how God handles the commands he has given.
There is also reason to trust this, as well. Take a look at the natural repercussions whenever people disobeyed God. While God certainly delivers punishment personally at times, many other times bad stuff just happens, as a natural course of time.
---
I must ask though, why are you upset? You don't believe in my God, so unless you believe what happened in the OT is real, the only concern of yours would be my behavior towards you and those like you. I like you, and trust that you are virtuous and competent, and I would have no reason to discriminate against you. I'm fine.
The only thing that I can possibly say to you is that I don't recommend your decision to marry, because my God (who you do not believe in) has said you shouldn't. After that, it has no effect on how I interact with you, though I may still mention you in my prayers.
That's it. I'm sorry if this troubles you, but I can't really do anything about it. I'm not going to chuck my Bible out the window, but you need not worry because I'm not chucking you out of a window either. You have my vote and my respect, isn't that enough?
Jesus overturned the dietary bans in the Gospels. That's the passage we use to justify it anyway. It's not cherrypicking.
Anonym: To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of someone genuinely disliking homosexuals for squicking them out or being "different". Or even this "homophobic" nonsense.
I've seen more of this than religious shunning, at least outside the extreme jackholes like WBC and hateful campus preachers. It's usually from junior high / high school dudebros who are afraid they'll get made fun of for catching teh ghey.
My own thoughts, it kinda squicks me out personally, but I see nothing wrong with it so long as it follows other values of fidelity etc.
The Leviticus reference was in a time where people basically had no medical knowledge of how to avoid or treat consequences of anal intercourse (or any sort of non-procreative sex), and spread of disease was something that could wipe out the tribe or leave it debilitated enough to get it offed by another tribe. Current understanding of homosexuality from a psychological perspective was nonexistent; most of what the Israelites saw of practicing homosexuality was either extreme excess or pagan ritual.
Factor in translation issues and possible fallibility of whoever compiled it, no mention of lesbianism, etc., the fact that most of the only other mentions of the subject were by a guy who had no problem with inducing human extinction through chastity because he thought the world was going to end in his lifetime and grudgingly allowed procreative sex within marriage, and the fact that homo/bisexual behavior is not only existent but rather abundant throughout the entire animal kingdom, and yeah. While the Leviticus ban did have clear practical purpose in context, I honestly think it was overstated as an "abomination" by the writer and cannot on good conscience condemn it.
The Bible is a compilation of numerous works written decades - and often centuries - apart, so this claim would only make sense if the Church Fathers were divinely inspired and the actual authors of the books that make up the Bible were not.
>Jesus overturned the dietary bans in the Gospels.
Couldn't one also interpret that passage as greenlighting the consumption of alcohol and other drugs, as well as food? Or even as authorising any form of penetrative sex?
It should be noted, however, that Jesus was also big on personal responsibility and social conduct. Anything to excess or risk would still be bad.
@Anonym: I never stated you were discriminating, you just often times drop Unfortunate Implication.
I must ask though, why are you upset? You don't believe in my God, so
unless you believe what happened in the OT is real, the only concern of
yours would be my behavior towards you and those like you. I like you,
and trust that you are virtuous and competent, and I would have no
reason to discriminate against you. I'm fine.
I'm not upset, just annoyed. It affects me because people use the Bible to discriminate against gay people. I'm not asking anyone to chuck their Bibles out the window, I'm asking them to reconsider how they interpret the Bible (which has been reinterpreted many times in the past due to ending discrimination against groups of people and scientific understanding of the world). And many have.
The only thing that I can possibly say to you is that I don't recommend
your decision to marry, because my God (who you do not believe in) has
said you shouldn't.
That's your God, yes. Many people I know have a different God. The God my family sees hates me for being gay. My mom thinks I'm a sinner and a disgusting human being. The God my friends see, however, is one that is loving and accepting of everyone. Hopefully you will see that gay people just want to love and to be loved, which is a preposterous thing to believe is a sin.
Since places with gay marriage such as Canada and Argentina haven't been wiped off the map yet I'm sure we'll all be okay when it arrives in the States. It's going to come one day and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Many years from now it will most likely be a non-issue.
If you pray for me, please don't ask God to help me see how much of a sinner I am. I don't think you will anyway, but I just don't want to be treated like that.
At any rate, I don't think you're a bad person Anonym. I just believe you're incorrect. History repeats itself when it comes to discrimination and gay rights is no exception. The Bible was used each time to justify discrimination and that is a fact. However, I know the Bible wasn't the only justification. And maybe one day you'll reconsider your position in all of this, who knows.
The one thing I do know is that (to everyone's relief) I am done arguing.
Christians. To use a passage from a book (Leviticus in this case) that
is no longer payed attention to is a weak argument. However, I know you
don't do this and I appreciate your support in this debate.
I believe most of them are irrelevant now -- not only for the reasons you linked, but because their purpose seems to have largely been in the realm of minimizing relatively unknown health risks at a time when you had to be ready to throw down against invading armies at any moment. Like that article says, they're something to analyze and weigh sometimes, but ultimately not the final word.
The only other mentions of homosexuality are from Paul, who gets way too much weight attached to his letters IMO given his known issues and how often his views conflict with those of Jesus -- again, I consider it something to be weighed, but not a final word.
I'm going to post this essay here:
http://inspiredcreativity.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24#/d2kb2pn
If more people paid attention to it, this kind of discussion would be extinct.
This thread kind of was extinct. You're the first person to post to it in almost two years.
Two years really? Wow.
Huh? Why?
Dear Dude or Dudette:
stop reviving threads that no one but you has read in years.
Thanks
-SL
Btw if anyone does care,
There was a massive protest in France against SSM after it got legalised.
Yeah I mean do you recognize anyone in the last like two pages who posts here today?
seriously who is this pykrete i haven't seen that guy ever
On the first two pages? Lazuli.
On this new page? Saigyouji, too.
Other'n that? I don't think anyone before this necro just now has posted in at least six months.