Freedom of Religion also = Freedom from Religion?

[BwareDWare94 723]

At least the church has dropped the whole 6000 years thing.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't really think it matters what the message of the books left out were, the Church leaders still left them out. By that definition it makes the Bible no more than propaganda (that's not to be taken offensively... most documents throughout history have been some form of propaganda).

 

Anything crafted by man cannot be perfect. Before you say that because it came from God it is perfect, I should also point out that man came from God and he is not perfect. Also, for a person like me, I have to factor in that there might not be a God out there. With the possibility that there isn't, it isn't safe nor fair to declare a document put together by religious leaders to be perfect when no such treatment is given to other documents.

 

What I am saying is that if there is a God out there and the Bible is his word to us, it is completely feasible that he would have "protected" it in a sense. It would be entirely unfair for him to hold us to its standard if he didn't keep it from becoming corrupted. It all depends on your starting point.

 

I think it completely matters as to which books were left out. The Council of Nicea didn't just choose willy-nilly, there were reasons, and very good ones, as to which books were left out.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

This doesn't have much to do with what we are talking about. Obviously, there are sins. They include homosexuality, non-belief, and everything else we have talked about. The discussion has been, though, whether or not God loves sinners and shows mercy to them. It is clear he does, as I have already pointed out.

 

I REFUSE to accept that the God that I have been worshiping all of my life will damn people to hell because they were born gay or born into a non-Christian family. God is merciful, and he loves all of His children, regardless of how far they stray.

 

Because they were born gay? So you are assuming now that God naturally makes people gay? intentionally? Wow. I want nothing to do with that God then. Naturally, and purposefully makes people against everything his own word says.

 

For all the verses you pulled out showing God's mercy and how he wants us all to be saved, did you bother to look at the other end of the spectrum? Sorry broham, as far as I'm concerned, this is pretty cut and dry- straightforward. You don't believe, you don't go to heaven. With the exception of newborns, babies/kids who aren't capable of fully grasping spiritual conditions, etc.

 

The trouble is not with the Bible. I agree, it is perfect, it is inerrant. The trouble is with fallen man trying to interpret the Bible- and people in power using certain verses out of context for their own ends.

 

If we could actually do precisely what the Bible says, and have confidence that the man we put in power won't misuse his power for his own ends, then I'd say Amen, let's use the Bible to form all of our laws.

 

To want the government to do that in this fallen world, with sinful men in power, is not only naive, but it is also dangerous.

 

As to your other point. Catholicism is not Christianity. That is not to say that a catholic cannot be a Christian, but Catholics are fundamentally in error on a key doctrinal point- that is, the only thing required to be saved is belief in Christ. They believe you need other things as well. There are other errors, but that one is against a key doctrine of Christianity. The Catholic belief in limbo and purgatory are another couple of extra Biblical beliefs. They put far too much weight on the shoulders of their religious leaders, who are flawed, fallen men just like everyone else.

 

This may be where your entire worldview is coming from- if you have been heavily influenced by Catholic beliefs, I can entirely see why you might want men in power to use the Bible. The Pope is a fallen, flawed, human being like anyone else. He makes mistakes. So does any other person who is in power, and to give them the ability to say, "This statute is now law, not because I am telling you, but because God is," is extremely dangerous. It allows them to control the masses of a country and always- without a single exception in the entirety of the existence of the human race- leads to disaster.

 

Accepting a leader's word on something just because of who they are is clearly anti-Christian. The apostle Paul comes to a group of people and preaches a sermon to them and they double check him against Scripture. Paul says this is a great thing. If they were commended for double-checking the apostle Paul, then we should also double-check things that are said by our religious leaders.

 

In a perfect, sinless world using the Bible solely would be an awesome way to run a government. The fact is, we are in a fallen world, and you absolutely CANNOT do this. Madison sums this up perfectly:

 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” -James Madison

 

I'm not Catholic, nor do I consider Catholic Christians.

 

What I was saying about Catholics was in response to me defending Catholic teachers teaching their students what Vikingsfan said they were teaching them. It wasn't my belief, but rather just a response to why I feel the teachers "are in the right" to say what they say. My opinion was one I tried to keep out of this topic. lol.

 

But like I said, naive or not, this is one of those things that I'm pretty much set in. Call it stubbornness or plain stupidity... But my religion, my moral views, and my political views are pretty much one, this again is why I stay away from the politics in general. And this is with knowledge already of the history of how religion has been used in the past.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I don't really think it matters what the message of the books left out were, the Church leaders still left them out. By that definition it makes the Bible no more than propaganda (that's not to be taken offensively... most documents throughout history have been some form of propaganda).

 

Why does it not matter? If anything, that's the biggest reason along with being God inspired that it is perfect.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Because they were born gay? So you are assuming now that God naturally makes people gay? intentionally? Wow. I want nothing to do with that God then. Naturally, and purposefully makes people against everything his own word says.

 

For all the verses you pulled out showing God's mercy and how he wants us all to be saved, did you bother to look at the other end of the spectrum? Sorry broham, as far as I'm concerned, this is pretty cut and dry- straightforward. You don't believe, you don't go to heaven. With the exception of newborns, babies/kids who aren't capable of fully grasping spiritual conditions, etc.

People do not choose to be gay. That is a fact. Also, the "other end of the spectrum" is called the Old Testament, which you yourself said was overridden by many things in the New Testament. God is Merciful, he is Love. If He hated us, He would not have created us.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You don't want anything to do with a God who creates people who like the same sex?

 

Ohhhh. I would go on a rampage, but it's Super Sunday, so I should not be working so hard. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

[BwareDWare94 723]

You don't want anything to do with a God who creates people who like the same sex?

 

Ohhhh. I would go on a rampage, but it's Super Sunday, so I should not be working so hard. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

 

Let's be fair about what DMac said. He's saying he wouldn't want anything to do with a God who contradicts what his supposed "own word" says. He didn't necessarily mean just homosexuality.

 

At the same time, God is not going to condemn people for being gay, and I will stand by that or go to Hell. I will not spend my life opposing something that clearly isn't a choice. Nobody would choose to go through what homosexuals go through just to be treated equally.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

It's more how shocked and seemingly disturbed Dmac is that God makes gay people.

 

I find it quite disgusting. But not everyone is tolerant, although I think is is also beyond "agreeing to disagree".

 

How can you claim to follow His word when your heart is filled with so much hatred.

[Maverick 791]

The trouble is not with the Bible. I agree, it is perfect, it is inerrant. The trouble is with fallen man trying to interpret the Bible- and people in power using certain verses out of context for their own ends.

 

If we could actually do precisely what the Bible says, and have confidence that the man we put in power won't misuse his power for his own ends, then I'd say Amen, let's use the Bible to form all of our laws.

 

To want the government to do that in this fallen world, with sinful men in power, is not only naive, but it is also dangerous.

 

As to your other point. Catholicism is not Christianity. That is not to say that a catholic cannot be a Christian, but Catholics are fundamentally in error on a key doctrinal point- that is, the only thing required to be saved is belief in Christ. They believe you need other things as well. There are other errors, but that one is against a key doctrine of Christianity. The Catholic belief in limbo and purgatory are another couple of extra Biblical beliefs. They put far too much weight on the shoulders of their religious leaders, who are flawed, fallen men just like everyone else.

 

This may be where your entire worldview is coming from- if you have been heavily influenced by Catholic beliefs, I can entirely see why you might want men in power to use the Bible. The Pope is a fallen, flawed, human being like anyone else. He makes mistakes. So does any other person who is in power, and to give them the ability to say, "This statute is now law, not because I am telling you, but because God is," is extremely dangerous. It allows them to control the masses of a country and always- without a single exception in the entirety of the existence of the human race- leads to disaster.

 

Accepting a leader's word on something just because of who they are is clearly anti-Christian. The apostle Paul comes to a group of people and preaches a sermon to them and they double check him against Scripture. Paul says this is a great thing. If they were commended for double-checking the apostle Paul, then we should also double-check things that are said by our religious leaders.

 

In a perfect, sinless world using the Bible solely would be an awesome way to run a government. The fact is, we are in a fallen world, and you absolutely CANNOT do this. Madison sums this up perfectly:

 

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -James Madison

Amen to every point, brother.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I've had this conversation with DMac in threads before, when he's been open about having gay friends. What I've gathered is that he's opposed to the practice, just like you might be opposed to a friend who suffers from alcoholism. Now, are alcoholism and homosexuality even remotely comparable? Not in the real, legitimate sense but when you factor in the teachings of a religion and being devoted to that religion, something being real and legitimate has an added spiritual sector. It is what he believes. As long as he doesn't practice hatred, I'm fine with it. I know why you're reacting like you are, but I don't think what you're inferring is what he's intending. Does that sound fair?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That might be accurate? What is it I am inferring? lol

 

I, too, realize Dmac has claimed to have gay friends. It's just the stuff he says sometimes makes me wonder which God it is he puts his faith into. I certainly don't think it is the same one I grew up loving (difference in religion is certainly fine, of course).

 

I don't enjoy gay sex, but it isn't my place to judge them or their morale character (in a spiritual sense). That is for God and God alone.

 

I just really can't wrap my head around these Bible thumpers who try to play the role of God and judge people. Tell people how to live, why to live, and when to live... As if the Bible is infallible and reading it makes you better.

 

Religious types need to realize that they aren't better than anybody else.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

People do not choose to be gay. That is a fact.

 

A fact? A fact based on what? For a second, without giving me this "fact" stuff, tell me how much sense this makes:

 

A God you believe gives the world a book to follow, in which both sections of the book are vehemently against people of one sex orienting itself with the same sex. But yet that same God does not allow some individuals to chose which sex they are orient with and get the most pleasure. Effectively making it impossible for those individuals to follow his law.

 

How much sense does that make to you? How is that not hypocrisy by that God? You believe in a God that would not give people the right to chose to follow his word?

 

I mean, faith is faith, and I'm in no position to talk on your faith. But just explain that to me. I am always intrigued by this stuff and while it won't change my mind on this subject at least helps me understand how you can feel this way. Because to me this just makes no sense. At all.

 

Also, the "other end of the spectrum" is called the Old Testament, which you yourself said was overridden by many things in the New Testament. God is Merciful, he is Love. If He hated us, He would not have created us.

 

fglsjngjfbhbfdbjfnvjasdogiiubghbsidfu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

 

John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

 

Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

 

John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

Acts 26:18, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

 

These are all NT verses, I could go on for years and years and years. Literally read the entire book of Revelations and you'll see "the other spectrum".

 

You point to God's love. Which is all true. That's one side of the coin.

 

But you don't point out the fact that plain and simple, when it's all said and done, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are going to hell.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

That might be accurate? What is it I am inferring? lol

 

I, too, realize Dmac has claimed to have gay friends. It's just the stuff he says sometimes makes me wonder which God it is he puts his faith into. I certainly don't think it is the same one I grew up loving (difference in religion is certainly fine, of course).

 

I don't enjoy gay sex, but it isn't my place to judge them or their morale character (in a spiritual sense). That is for God and God alone.

 

I just really can't wrap my head around these Bible thumpers who try to play the role of God and judge people. Tell people how to live, why to live, and when to live... As if the Bible is infallible and reading it makes you better.

 

Religious types need to realize that they aren't better than anybody else.

 

How exactly am I "passing judgment"? This is one of those things that gets thrown around so often.

 

I'm not telling anyone how to live. I'm telling others how the Bible, God's supposed law for anyone who believes in him wants you to live. That's it.

 

For the uptrillionth time, how stupid would I look, a guy who gets drunk on occasions, who looks at women with lust, who curses, etc, to tell people that they are condemned to hell for the way they live?

 

Me saying, "The Bible says this" is not me passing judgement. Me saying "You are going to hell for this" is passing judgement. At least according to that same book.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Who is the authority to say that your interpretation (or mine) of His word is His word as intended it to be interpreted?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

That's where having a different denomination of Christianity, or a different religious philosophy comes into play.

 

My view of how the Bible is to be interpreted is based on what makes the most sense to me, as well as what I've been taught. If your belief, or interpretation of the Bible is different, then so be it. Let it be known and I'll never question it (unless of course, if you want me to). Windy hasn't made that known, he hasn't told me he believes XYZ to be this and XYZ to be that based on how he personally interprets the Bible, if he did, I'd say "I see where you are coming from, and I respect it", hence the reason why on my response to him I'm asking him to tell me how he has come to the conclusion he has.

 

How often have I disputed Catholics for their beliefs on here? I was even on this thread slightly defending Catholics (at least their intentions) and I'm far from one.

Edited February 4, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Who gives your particular branch of religion the authority to deem how the Bible is to be interpreted?

 

I can tell you one thing, taking the Bible in its fullest, literal sense, which you or your branch of religion seems to do things (correct me if I am wrong, please) is not a great start.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

If you are asking with the intention of getting some kinda in depth history, you'll have to excuse (or not, lol) my ignorance on this part of the subject. History is not my strong point, especially when it comes to Baptists and Evangelicals.

 

But I will say this. It makes perfect sense to me. Instead of trying to pull out meanings where there could or couldn't be something, take the word for what it is. The former leads to various interpretations which could much more dangerous (IMO), the latter leads to much less interpretations, better understanding.

[BwareDWare94 723]

As a Catholic who is slowly growing to the exact same "age of reason" that George Carlin talked about, I've come to realize that it has more to do with the way the Catholic religion has handled itself than with whether or not I believe in God.

 

Do I believe in God? Yes, but not necessarily the definitive version of God portrayed by general Christianity. I think there's a greater deity, but I'm not at all positive what that deity is like (we need to drop gender terms altogether when referring to God, by the way).

 

Catholicism, on the grand scale, is judgmental in the way that JD has seen in some of DMac's posts. We judge and condemn homosexuals and women who take part in abortion (and yes, I say women because I rarely hear about missing fathers, or fathers who went along with said abortion, when the Catholic church speaks out against it). We tell our parishioners how to vote in elections, though we are clearly aware of the fact that the majority of pro-life and anti-gay propaganda coming out of certain parties is mere lip service to gain Catholic/Christian votes.

 

The Catholic church is a machine that feeds itself based on social control, and I can only handle it when I find a priest who doesn't partake in those things, but actually believes that there are things worth preaching about other than abortion and homosexuality. Are they obligated to now and then? Yes, but it's not a common thing. I know of one that preaches at three small parishes around where I grew up, one in my hometown (unfortunately, his sermons are boring and often themed around "love" ), and one in my college town. I am fortunate, because I go to church in many places due to the way my life and work requires me to travel. I'm lucky to have found 3 (if only 2 are tolerable every week) in such a large number of parishes.

 

Quick Note on Homosexuality and Abortion: I do personally believe that there are cases of "choosing" to be gay. Not that I'm against it, but I firmly believe that social anxiety is as diagnosable as depression, and unfortunately as ignored as depression as well. The majority of people are more comfortable around their own gender, and I believe that that combination does sometimes result in choosing to be intimate with the same sex. I do believe, however, that this a very small minority of homosexuals. On abortion: it should not be so easily rendered. Pregnancy is entirely preventable. Women are not here to simply birth children, however, and with the tendency for fathers to scat, I can see why abortion is often considered and eventually chosen. We do not take sex seriously enough as a society. Many people become comfortable with a partner and stop using condoms altogether and simply rely on birth control. Many of us (including myself) have fallen into this category and truth be told, I could never go along with an abortion, knowing that.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very aware of the way that I do not follow the Bible word for word, but I honestly can't because I believe that God cares more about how we treat one another than how well we follow a rule book that I believe is flawed (human hand wrote it. I'm aware of the belief that God inspired/made it happen, but I think that the medium with which it was written was incapable of writing it perfectly). If there is a Heaven, and a judgment day for each of us, God will at least understand that I felt it most important (and most likely to bring others to faith) that I treat people as best as I possibly could, though my flawed nature resulted in bouts of meanness, spite, etc. It happens, but I will always make a conscious effort to keep those things out of my general character.

 

That about sums up my views on God/religion/younameit.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't want nor need history. It's just a question I like to ask. Get a large array of answers, which just goes to show you that I am not so sure ANYBODY truly knows the right way to interpret His word.

 

However, it was done that way on purpose. Loose correlation to our nations Constitution. You have to ask yourself... If we were meant to take the Bible word for word, as is... Why does Jesus descend from the heavens and spread the word of God not in a literal sense but through stories and real-life applications... Why leave that room for interpretation in spreading his own word if we were supposed to take it so literally?

 

Paul, in Corinthians, writes that the wisdom of God is spoken in mystery, and they are to be stewards of that mystery of God.

 

Jesus goes on to explain in Matthew that such mysteries can be easily misinterpreted...

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

 

Peter writes about Pauls scriptures as "obscure" which "ignorant" and "unstable" people will "misinterpret to their own ruin"

 

The Bible is ALL about interpretation. Yet, there is no real authority on the matter. Not on this world, anyway.

 

I am not so sure He even loves the idea of sex for pleasure regardless of the genders involved. Eunuchs who are eunuchs by choice were praised by Christ. Why would the Kingdom of Heaven praise those who willingly choose to not engage in sex at all?

 

Just maybe.. sex is seen as a necessary evil (bad wording on my part) to have children and other than for that purpose, it isn't exactly welcome. Jesus himself wasn't conceived through sex. Jesus died, as far as I know, a celibate man who, probably kissed more men than women (not a fact, just off what I recall reading different scriptures).

 

What if it isn't gay sex that is so revolting as much as it is sex for pleasure in general? And being that homosexual relationships can't bare a child (naturally), it wasn't exactly welcome in that time.

 

Maybe you can correct me on this... But does the NT ever discuss those who are born gay or even those who have feelings for people of the same gender? Or is the scripture limited to Paul who is known to hate men and women equally? lol

Edited February 4, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

As a Catholic who is slowly growing to the exact same "age of reason" that George Carlin talked about, I've come to realize that it has more to do with the way the Catholic religion has handled itself than with whether or not I believe in God.

 

Do I believe in God? Yes, but not necessarily the definitive version of God portrayed by general Christianity. I think there's a greater deity, but I'm not at all positive what that deity is like (we need to drop gender terms altogether when referring to God, by the way).

 

Catholicism, on the grand scale, is judgmental in the way that JD has seen in some of DMac's posts. We judge and condemn homosexuals and women who take part in abortion (and yes, I say women because I rarely hear about missing fathers, or fathers who went along with said abortion, when the Catholic church speaks out against it). We tell our parishioners how to vote in elections, though we are clearly aware of the fact that the majority of pro-life and anti-gay propaganda coming out of certain parties is mere lip service to gain Catholic/Christian votes.

 

The Catholic church is a machine that feeds itself based on social control, and I can only handle it when I find a priest who doesn't partake in those things, but actually believes that there are things worth preaching about other than abortion and homosexuality. Are they obligated to now and then? Yes, but it's not a common thing. I know of one that preaches at three small parishes around where I grew up, one in my hometown (unfortunately, his sermons are boring and often themed around "love" ), and one in my college town. I am fortunate, because I go to church in many places due to the way my life and work requires me to travel. I'm lucky to have found 3 (if only 2 are tolerable every week) in such a large number of parishes.

 

Quick Note on Homosexuality and Abortion: I do personally believe that there are cases of "choosing" to be gay. Not that I'm against it, but I firmly believe that social anxiety is as diagnosable as depression, and unfortunately as ignored as depression as well. The majority of people are more comfortable around their own gender, and I believe that that combination does sometimes result in choosing to be intimate with the same sex. I do believe, however, that this a very small minority of homosexuals. On abortion: it should not be so easily rendered. Pregnancy is entirely preventable. Women are not here to simply birth children, however, and with the tendency for fathers to scat, I can see why abortion is often considered and eventually chosen. We do not take sex seriously enough as a society. Many people become comfortable with a partner and stop using condoms altogether and simply rely on birth control. Many of us (including myself) have fallen into this category and truth be told, I could never go along with an abortion, knowing that.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very aware of the way that I do not follow the Bible word for word, but I honestly can't because I believe that God cares more about how we treat one another than how well we follow a rule book that I believe is flawed (human hand wrote it. I'm aware of the belief that God inspired/made it happen, but I think that the medium with which it was written was incapable of writing it perfectly). If there is a Heaven, and a judgment day for each of us, God will at least understand that I felt it most important (and most likely to bring others to faith) that I treat people as best as I possibly could, though my flawed nature resulted in bouts of meanness, spite, etc. It happens, but I will always make a conscious effort to keep those things out of my general character.

 

That about sums up my views on God/religion/younameit.

 

My mom left Catholicism for that very same reason. She was at a weak point in her life, uber sick, and her dad started calling her a work of the devil among other things, and this was all backed by "The Church". Granted, this was in Africa, and they consider everyone to be a witch out there, but this Priest was a white Catholic from France, so it's not like he was from around the area.

 

She knows a lot of people who have those doubts, but fights through them and it generally worked out better for them in the long run.

 

It isn't the same reason I don't buy the Catholic belief, but I'll stay away from that. lol. Just thought I'd throw it out there that you aren't the only one in that boat.

 

I don't want nor need history. It's just a question I like to ask. Get a large array of answers, which just goes to show you that I am not so sure ANYBODY truly knows the right way to interpret His word.

 

However, it was done that way on purpose. Loose correlation to our nations Constitution. You have to ask yourself... If we were meant to take the Bible word for word, as is... Why does Jesus descend from the heavens and spread the word of God not in a literal sense but through stories and real-life applications... Why leave that room for interpretation in spreading his own word if we were supposed to take it so literally?

 

Paul, in Corinthians, writes that the wisdom of God is spoken in mystery, and they are to be stewards of that mystery of God.

 

Jesus goes on to explain in Matthew that such mysteries can be easily misinterpreted...

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

 

Peter writes about Pauls scriptures as "obscure" which "ignorant" and "unstable" people will "misinterpret to their own ruin"

 

The Bible is ALL about interpretation. Yet, there is no real authority on the matter. Not on this world, anyway.

 

I am not so sure He even loves the idea of sex for pleasure regardless of the genders involved. Eunuchs who are eunuchs by choice were praised by Christ. Why would the Kingdom of Heaven praise those who willingly choose to not engage in sex at all?

 

Just maybe.. sex is seen as a necessary evil (bad wording on my part) to have children and other than for that purpose, it isn't exactly welcome. Jesus himself wasn't conceived through sex. Jesus died, as far as I know, a celibate man who, probably kissed more men than women (not a fact, just off what I recall reading different scriptures).

 

What if it isn't gay sex that is so revolting as much as it is sex for pleasure in general? And being that homosexual relationships can't bare a child (naturally), it wasn't exactly welcome in that time.

 

Maybe you can correct me on this... But does the NT ever discuss those who are born gay or even those who have feelings for people of the same gender? Or is the scripture limited to Paul who is known to hate men and women equally? lol

 

The Bible makes no reference to being born gay, or not being born gay at least none that I know of. But homosexuality goes completely against everything that has to do with God because it conflicts with God's intentions on making man, and woman.

 

Its kinda the same thing with sex... God did make man and women to "multiply and subdue" the earth.

 

I mean, to me, I've already said that homosexuality is just "another sin". No better, no worse then any other sin mentioned in the Bible. Living in homosexuality to me is no different then being an addict (I think BWare referenced this).

 

Even in the case of parables and such, while there's a meaning behind the parable, I disagree with having multiple interpretations which again is why I agree with the route of being direct, Jesus in all his parables usually ends up explaining them himself later. And if he doesn't, someone else does in a later book.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yes, God wanted us to multiply, but does He ever condone sex for pleasure (straight sex)? And does He ever talk about one man (or woman) actually loving another man (or woman)? And when I say love, I mean feelings and emotions attached to love, no intercourse.

 

Yes, Paul has a few questionable scriptures that are seemingly against gay sex, but I don't really recall anything as far as what I am asking.

 

I am not saying there should be multiple interpretations of His parables or His mysteries. But there isn't anyone left on this Earth who can tell you the way He wanted you to interpret them

 

The Book wasn't meant to be taken literally, and interpreting it as such is insulting to His works here on Earth as Christ and through His prophets.

 

If it was all going to be literal, he could have Jesus spend his 30 years in flesh writing a Book of nothing but laws and commandments.

 

Instead, we have a Book full of stories that no one knows how to properly interpret -- whether they claim to or not.

[WindyCitySports 407]

A fact? A fact based on what? For a second, without giving me this "fact" stuff, tell me how much sense this makes:

 

A God you believe gives the world a book to follow, in which both sections of the book are vehemently against people of one sex orienting itself with the same sex. But yet that same God does not allow some individuals to chose which sex they are orient with and get the most pleasure. Effectively making it impossible for those individuals to follow his law.

 

How much sense does that make to you? How is that not hypocrisy by that God? You believe in a God that would not give people the right to chose to follow his word?

 

I mean, faith is faith, and I'm in no position to talk on your faith. But just explain that to me. I am always intrigued by this stuff and while it won't change my mind on this subject at least helps me understand how you can feel this way. Because to me this just makes no sense. At all.

 

 

 

fglsjngjfbhbfdbjfnvjasdogiiubghbsidfu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

 

John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

 

Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

 

John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

Acts 26:18, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

 

These are all NT verses, I could go on for years and years and years. Literally read the entire book of Revelations and you'll see "the other spectrum".

 

You point to God's love. Which is all true. That's one side of the coin.

 

But you don't point out the fact that plain and simple, when it's all said and done, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are going to hell.

I already said that it is quite clear that there are sins, and that they result in consequences. What I am saying is that God is merciful. He hates those sins, but He repeats over and over again that you should demonstrate absolute forgiveness. Although He says that non-believers will go to hell, I believe that His statements that you should forgive people absolutely would allow non-believers into Heaven if they asked for forgiveness at the final moment. I know that I sound like a crazy progressive Catholic (even though the Catholic Church has been very anti-homosexuality), but God's words of love, mercy, and forgiveness ring clear in the Bible, and I try to do as much self-interpretation as I can.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Yes, God wanted us to multiply, but does He ever condone sex for pleasure (straight sex)? And does He ever talk about one man (or woman) actually loving another man (or woman)? And when I say love, I mean feelings and emotions attached to love, no intercourse.

 

It only talks about love (b/w two "lovers"), regardless of sex or without sex in terms of marriage. And yea, every time it means being emotionally attached, it's brutally specific in that it's to man to woman, or vise versa. It talks about the actual emotion of love in Proverbs and in Psalms, but since people on here seem to want to ignore the OT, it also brings it up in Eph. 5:33.

 

Yes, Paul has a few questionable scriptures that are seemingly against gay sex, but I don't really recall anything as far as what I am asking.

 

I am not saying there should be multiple interpretations of His parables or His mysteries. But there isn't anyone left on this Earth who can tell you the way He wanted you to interpret them

 

The Book wasn't meant to be taken literally, and interpreting it as such is insulting to His works here on Earth as Christ and through His prophets.

 

If it was all going to be literal, he could have Jesus spend his 30 years in flesh writing a Book of nothing but laws and commandments.

 

Instead, we have a Book full of stories that no one knows how to properly interpret -- whether they claim to or not.

 

This is one of those things that are conflicting with verses in the Bible, for me it's almost as much as common sense. God is referred to as not being the God of confusion in Corinthians. When we get to the point where everyone starts interpreting something their own way, it's essentially giving human factors-human errors, to what the Bible might be possibly saying, and in Revelations the Bible warns of deadly outcomes to trying to add things to what the Bible may or may not be saying.

 

Everything in the Bible only has one interpretation, and as I see it, when you interpret it literally, you are letting it interpret itself. Only time to not to is when there's strong evidence from somewhere in the book not to.

 

In comparison to beliefs of the Bible having multiple meanings, etc, this one is far less dangerous. And its the best way to avoid excessive confusion.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I already said that it is quite clear that there are sins, and that they result in consequences. What I am saying is that God is merciful. He hates those sins, but He repeats over and over again that you should demonstrate absolute forgiveness. Although He says that non-believers will go to hell, I believe that His statements that you should forgive people absolutely would allow non-believers into Heaven if they asked for forgiveness at the final moment. I know that I sound like a crazy progressive Catholic (even though the Catholic Church has been very anti-homosexuality), but God's words of love, mercy, and forgiveness ring clear in the Bible, and I try to do as much self-interpretation as I can.

 

Im sorry, then this is where we just can't agree.

 

IDK how different the Catholic book of Revelations is from the Protestant (if different at all), but that book is extremely straightforward, and paints an ugly picture (for lack of a better term). Same thing with Luke 13.

 

It's one of those things that for me, it's pretty cut and dry on.

[CARDINAL 205]

The First Amendment says that Government can't establish any religion, but also rejects government action in this sphere! If your given positive freedom (freedom to do something), then you are given negative freedom (freedom from something) as well. In regards to being gay and stuff like that discussed in previous posts, I personally have marginal respect for most academic people because they have a liberal bias to start with, so any academic research will sprinkle that liberal bias in that research in an implicit way for sure. The media is that same way, which I have zero respect for, so if a media asshole is reporting on something like this, I take that report with a very skeptical view. I question why there have only been reports of gay people after WWII, really starting in the 1960's. I think that they should do an open study by doing brain scans and other medical testing of people who say that their gay, and then other people!

 

Everybody being disrespectful to Joel's (DMAC) opinion and posts needs to stop. Political Correctness is a form of censorship by the media to silence people who have different views than the political elite or the inherent liberal bias in the media. Honestly, if a reporter with a track record of this liberal bias is killed in the field reporting, I would obviously feel sad for their family but I wouldn't necessarily sentence the "murderer" to prison for first degree murder. Probably manslaughter at the most, if that!