NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church

Oh, g** people are evil though. [/sarcasm]

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church

what, exactly are you asking? Is being gay a sin? Some think so, others don't, there's no way any of us can answer that with any absolute certainty one way or the other.

You don't necessarily need to adhere to every single tenant of your faith, very few people do. Frankly theres nothing that christ said that was against homosexuality, I doubt he actually supported it, but he never said gays go to hell or that it is a satanic practise. Most of the anti-gay laws are from the OT in leviticus and Deuteronomy, but since most christians don't follow Jewish laws, it isn't too important they follow the ones about homosexuality. God is all forgiving, he loves all men regardless of their petty earthly differences, Jesus died purposefully to save man from just this sort of thing ,don't worry about it.

what, exactly are you asking? Is being gay a sin? Some think so, others don't, there's no way any of us can answer that with any absolute certainty one way or the other.

Well I dont want to go to hell...and dont want to be in a religion where g**'s are frowned upon in an right-winged manor!

Does your church say that gay people go to hell simply because they are gay, or only when they commit homosexual acts? Both are equally stupid beliefs, one is just less stupid than the other...

Also, what's their position on the whole "ex-gay" thing? Do they think that people can "choose" to be either gay or straight?

I'd suggest you ask around and do some research to find your church's stance on these issues. Then compare these stances with your own beliefs on how you think Jesus would treat homosexuals. If the two don't jibe, then perhaps Pentecostalism (or your church's brand of it) ain't for you...

Well I dont want to go to hell...and dont want to be in a religion where g**'s are frowned upon in an right-winged manor!

may i ask why you keeping going "g**"? gay is not a swear word, it's not something inappropriate, it's not something impolite. It's a term, a discriptor, just like "woman" or "christian" or "chinese", simply a discriptor, nothing more.

You don't necessarily need to adhere to every single tenant of your faith, very few people do. Frankly theres nothing that christ said that was against homosexuality, I doubt he actually supported it, but he never said gays go to hell or that it is a satanic practise. Most of the anti-gay laws are from the OT in leviticus and Deuteronomy, but since most christians don't follow Jewish laws, it isn't too important they follow the ones about homosexuality. Personally, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I believe homosexuals can still go to heaven, god is infinetely forgiving, he sacrificed his own son to save all of mankind from sin, he certainly can save these people from sin.

Well gay people have the same chance of sinning as everyone else and they have the same chance of going to heaven so i dont know why people try to hurt others or force their ideas onto others..Not blaming you everyone has a right to their own way of thought!

Well gay people have the same chance of sinning as everyone else and they have the same chance of going to heaven so i dont know why people try to hurt others or force their ideas onto others..Not blaming you everyone has a right to their own way of thought!

I agree, there are no christians who aren't constantly commiting some sort of sin, but hey, isn't that why jesus died? To save us from that sort of thing?

I think you misunderstand where they're coming from. They believe that homosexuality is a choice (I disagree with them, but it's not unChristian to think so). They see from Scripture that homosexual action is a sin (which I also think is quite clear). So, according to their thinking, if you are choosing to actively engage in this sin of homosexual activity, then you must not be truly trying to follow Jesus, and therefore cannot be a Christian. And if you are not a Christian, you aren't going to heaven (another teaching Scripture is quite clear on).

I must say that if I believed that homosexuality were a choice, I would have to agree with them. And not all Pentacostals agree that homosexuality is a choice and so therefore disagree with this official stance. This really isn't a defining characteristic of Pentacostalism.

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church


What does God tell you? Bibles are suspect. Clergy are suspect. Religions are suspect. The best person to determine what God wants from you is you. Listen with an open mind, think about what those who share a similar faith have told you, then find God in your heart and let Him tell you what to believe.

This thread is so g**.

I agree, there are no christians who aren't constantly commiting some sort of sin, but hey, isn't that why jesus died? To save us from that sort of thing?

Amen,Jesus died for all are sins...so as long as you remember what he did for us then you are saved and are doing well so hey what do i have to worry about!! But im very paranoied about somethings!

I think you misunderstand where they're coming from. They believe that homosexuality is a choice (I disagree with them, but it's not unChristian to think so). They see from Scripture that homosexual action is a sin (which I also think is quite clear). So, according to their thinking, if you are choosing to actively engage in this sin of homosexual activity, then you must not be truly trying to follow Jesus, and therefore cannot be a Christian. And if you are not a Christian, you aren't going to heaven (another teaching Scripture is quite clear on).

I must say that if I believed that homosexuality were a choice, I would have to agree with them. And not all Pentacostals agree that homosexuality is a choice and so therefore disagree with this official stance. This really isn't a defining characteristic of Pentacostalism.

Thats what I belive that homsexuality isnt an choice god made you that way for a reason..what is the reason no one will ever know.

Thats what I belive that homsexuality isnt an choice god made you that way for a reason..what is the reason no one will ever know.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't say that. I said that homosexuality is not a choice. I did not say that God made homosexuals (or any other sexual orientation) to be that way. I do not believe that. In fact I believe the oppostie: that God heals people of homosexuality as He wills.

I was a heterosexual before I experimented with another guy. Then, I slipped slowly into homosexuality. My actions caused me to develop that attraction. So, I did not choose to be a homosexual: it was a natural result of my actions. Praise and thank God, He healed me of that.

So, I have a just as unpopular (if not more) view. I just disagree with the Pentacostals (on this issue). I never said I thought homosexuality is good/natural/acceptable/etc. I believe the opposite.

For the sake of removing doubt and misunderstanding about who believes what, and for those that care, or are interested in what the Assembly of God churches actually teach about homosexuality, I will post some of it here.

The Assembly of God churches are the largest denomination of Pentecostal churches that I'm aware of...

Additionally, it should be pointed out, that the Assembly of God church preaches against drinking and gambling and divorce and all non-marriage sexual relations or extra-marriage sexual relations as well. As seen through this list of AoG positions:
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm

Anyway, as to their position on Homosexuality and Christianity…
The Assemblies of God believes strongly that God has declared great displeasure and opposition toward homosexual conduct. However, He yearns to restore and forgive all who come to Him, including homosexuals. Unfortunately, many today mislabel those who speak out against the sin of homosexuality as hate-mongers and prejudiced people seeking to oppress and take away the rights of homosexuals. But these persons view homosexuality from a skewed social perspective devoid of true biblical morality. The Church, however, is called to be faithful to God's Word in all things. For this reason the Assemblies of God opposes homosexuality and the gay lifestyle recognizing such as sin. But we encourage all members to reach out in love to homosexuals extending to them the grace that leads us all to Christ's forgiveness.

Homosexuality is both a sin against God and mankind. It runs contrary to the divine plan, purpose, and will of God who created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and redeemed us so that this image, marred because of sin, might be renewed (Colossians 3:10). Most fundamentally, homosexuality is sin because it perverts the created order of human sexuality, the heterosexual fulfillment of both man and woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-5). In creating the first man and woman, God ultimately established the family consisting of a father, a mother, and eventually children. Society is founded on this social unit which propagates the human race. In total contrast, the lifestyle and practice of homosexual couples establish a social unit that thwarts that process and the creative purposes of God for humanity.

Clearly the Bible states homosexual practice is sin. Scriptures which denounce homosexuality are found in both the Old and New Testaments. Advocates of homosexuality often attempt to rationalize, reinterpret, and explain away key biblical truths to justify their acts. Such abuse of inspired Scripture is wrong. Along with the passages that clearly describe homosexual conduct as sin (see below), the Bible speaks repeatedly about God's divinely ordained plan of heterosexual relationships and marriage.

Genesis 19. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the "men" of Sodom demand to "know" the angelic visitors of Lot (v.5, KJV). Attempts to describe the request as merely a desire to get acquainted with the strangers does not fit the context. Other biblical passages link Sodom with sexual immorality and perversion (2 Peter 2:6-7; Jude 7).

Leviticus 18:22. The specific command that a man is not to "lie with a man as one lies with a woman; [for] that is detestable" is sometimes attacked by pro-homosexual scholars who argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. But there is a sharp distinction between the dietary or ceremonial laws abolished in the New Testament (Mark 7:19; Hebrews 10:8-10) and the moral laws reinforced in the New Testament. They are still applicable today. Breaking the ceremonial laws resulted in temporary uncleanness; breaking the moral laws meant severe punishment or even death (Leviticus 11 and 24).

Romans 1:26, 27. This New Testament passage is the most pointed and clear condemnation of homosexuality (among men or women) in the Bible. "Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. . . . 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." Some pro-homosexual scholars claim that Paul's statements were addressed to first-century believers and thus are not applicable today. But God's moral laws do not change.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. God's inclusion of homosexual conduct with other specific sexual and social sins is clear from Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church: "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Some defenders of the homosexual lifestyle have tried to explain away the terms "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" by claiming that they refer to general immoral behavior rather than homosexual practice. But such a meaning of the Greek cannot be found in first-century literature and the translation would result in needless redundancy, for Paul began his list with "the sexually immoral." The two words refer to the sins of passive and active homosexual behavior.

Some pro-homosexual advocates try to refute the biblical injunctions against homosexuality by saying the Bible speaks against promiscuity and prostitution, not against loving, committed gay relationships. Some unfaithful spouses of heterosexual marriages have tried to justify adultery on the same grounds, but nowhere does Scripture suggest that loving, committed relationships of any kind can turn sin into righteousness. God does not permit mankind to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture to justify personal sinful desires.

As Christians we must ask what Paul meant in Romans by calling homosexual acts unnatural (Romans 1:26, 27). Human logic tells us they are unnatural because if practiced universally, the human race would soon die out. From a social perspective they are unnatural because they are degrading to the sensitivities of the large majority of the population. (Some homosexuals claim wrongly that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. This exaggerated percentage, based on Alfred Kinsey's faulty sexual-practices survey in 1948 and 1970, has been accurately set at between 1 and 3 percent in several recent and better documented studies).

One of the myths propounded by pro-homosexual advocates is that homosexual orientation is genetically determined and that people have no choice in the matter. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Linking a particular behavior with a specific gene is considered highly unlikely by geneticists. Some would like to believe this myth, for it could be used to excuse all sin and evil behavior. In contrast, ministers and psychologists are treating homosexuality with success, which further discredits the genetic theory. The fact that God's transforming power has changed the lifestyle of many homosexuals is well documented.

Finally, homosexual acts are unnatural because of their high correlation with major illnesses and terminal disease. In viewing Romans 1:27 we must ask what is the "due penalty" mentioned "for their perversion." Though AIDS is not necessarily a direct judgment from God, as innocents are sometimes the victims of the sin of others, it remains a disastrous overarching consequence of sin through the fall of man (see Genesis 3). Contrary to the claims by homosexual public relations campaigns that gays and lesbians are normal, healthy, average people, the opposite is true. Former homosexuals describe a disgusting lifestyle of perversion and sexual obsession. In a study of the median age of death for heterosexuals and homosexuals, less than 2 per cent of homosexuals survived to age 65 while married and single heterosexual men and women living past 65 ranged from 57 to 80 percent.

Clearly on every front whether it be moral, spiritual, physical, or psychological, the practice of homosexuality has proven itself devoid of any individual good or social benefit. Furthermore, the historical record shows homosexuality as detrimental to the well-being of the individual participant, the extended family, and society at large.

At every turn the Assemblies of God refutes the practice, the acceptance, and the promotion of homosexuality, yet admonishes all Christians to reach out in love to all homosexuals so they too may repent and know the forgiveness and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

CONCERNS:

Some people ask, "Why can't Christians live and let live, leaving homosexuals alone?" At one time Christians were silent concerning the evil practice of homosexuals. History shows homosexuality has been around since early times, and as long as it was not openly flaunted, homosexuals were seldom challenged. But today, homosexuals have become aggressive in pushing their agenda. The church has been forced to answer.

Today, families with members who choose a homosexual lifestyle sometimes call for social acceptance of the deviant lifestyle. Some churches hearing this cry or impacted by revelations of homosexual clergy within their ranks have responded by advocating a gay-friendly theology of compassion. But lowering God's holy standards to mankind's sinful preferences is an abomination in God's sight. As members of the body of Christ, we must not ignore God's clear admonitions.

The homosexual agenda has already impacted public education, public policy, the military, government, politics, business, entertainment, media, and religion. As inroads have been made into these areas, both the arts and the media have openly promoted acceptance of its sinful behavior. Major companies are now appealing to the homosexual market through sponsorship of homosexual events that influence general public opinion about homosexuality. Such aggressiveness demands that Christians not sit idly by as this morally deficient agenda is pushed.

In the face of a militant homosexual movement that is pressing for legal and social acceptance of homosexuality, the church must keep its focus. First, homosexuals are sinners like everyone and need God's grace, love, and forgiveness. Second, homosexuals can through the miracle of the new birth be set free from the power of sin and live changed moral lives. The church must reach out to all sinners with the love of Christ, no matter what the sin. And we must never let the declining moral climate of our nation pressure us into condoning what God condemns.

Further reading about the AoG’s position on homosexuality (.PDF file):
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf

Follow your heart.

Follow your heart.

Scripturally speaking, you shouldn't follow your heart until you've first ensured that God is first and foremost in your heart...

Otherwise you may simply be following lusts and worldly desires by doing whatever you think your heart wants...

Scripturally speaking, you shouldn't follow your heart until you've first ensured that God is first and foremost in your heart...

Otherwise you may simply be following lusts and worldly desires by doing whatever you think your heart wants...

Which Scripture teaches is totally averse to God naturally.

Scripturally speaking, you shouldn't follow your heart until you've first ensured that God is first and foremost in your heart...

Otherwise you may simply be following lusts and worldly desires by doing whatever you think your heart wants...

Follow your heart.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't say that. I said that homosexuality is not a choice. I did not say that God made homosexuals (or any other sexual orientation) to be that way. I do not believe that. In fact I believe the oppostie: that God heals people of homosexuality as He wills.

I was a heterosexual before I experimented with another guy. Then, I slipped slowly into homosexuality. My actions caused me to develop that attraction. So, I did not choose to be a homosexual: it was a natural result of my actions. Praise and thank God, He healed me of that.

So, I have a just as unpopular (if not more) view. I just disagree with the Pentacostals (on this issue). I never said I thought homosexuality is good/natural/acceptable/etc. I believe the opposite.
Dude, you're gay. Deal with it.

Dude, you're gay. Deal with it.I figured he was bi. That's the only way he could be satisfied with just hetero sex.

I figured he was bi. That's the only way he could be satisfied with just hetero sex.

I doubt he's really satisfied with it.

Dude, you're gay. Deal with it.

First, no, I'm not. Not anymore, thank God.

Second, you don't know me, and so you only have my word to go on. But I had lustful thoughts after other men and did some very sinful things with other guys. Now, I have no desire to do those things or have those thoughts. In fact, they repulse me. And in their place, I now face the sins of lustful thoughts about women, though I haven't had relations with any, thankfully. Thankfully, because I am not married to a woman.

First, no, I'm not. Not anymore, thank God.

Second, you don't know me, and so you only have my word to go on. But I had lustful thoughts after other men and did some very sinful things with other guys. Now, I have no desire to do those things or have those thoughts. In fact, they repulse me. And in their place, I now face the sins of lustful thoughts about women, though I haven't had relations with any, thankfully. Thankfully, because I am not married to a woman.

Listen to yourself. You've had some sort of sexual activity with men, and none with women. Obviously the temptation toward women isn't as great as it was toward men. And teh gay isn't a disease that you can be cured of--it's a part of who you are just as your gender and your personality and your taste in music are. You'll be a lot happier with yourself if you just admit it.

The people who tell you homosexuality is a sin are lying to you. Jesus didn't give a shit who you loved--his greatest commandments were to love God and love each other, and he didn't put any restrictions on who you loved or how you did it. I guarantee you that if Jesus were around to day, he'd have gay friends all over the damn place--they throw the best parties, and Jesus did like to get down. Why do you think he hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes?

Dude, you're gay. Deal with it.

I figured he was bi. That's the only way he could be satisfied with just hetero sex.

I doubt he's really satisfied with it.

Pigeonhole argument, Riiiight... :rolleyes:

Maybe we should all be allowed such luxuries as you two have shown here. Perhaps we should all dismiss any and all personal testimonies that don't agree with us and reassign their testimony to mean whatever our preconceived prejudices would have us believe, we will simply call them liars if they disagree with our preconceived assumptions.

Such as, the standard typecast that Gays hate ex-gays and will say anything to pretend that they don’t really exist.

First, no, I'm not. Not anymore, thank God.

Second, you don't know me, and so you only have my word to go on. But I had lustful thoughts after other men and did some very sinful things with other guys. Now, I have no desire to do those things or have those thoughts. In fact, they repulse me. And in their place, I now face the sins of lustful thoughts about women, though I haven't had relations with any, thankfully. Thankfully, because I am not married to a woman.Of all the activities Jesus condemned, homosexuality is rather minor. He condemned hypocrasy numerous times. He obviously was more concerned with your integrity than your sleeping companions.

Pigeonhole argument, Riiiight... :rolleyes:

Maybe we should all be allowed such luxuries as you two have shown here. Perhaps we should all dismiss any and all personal testimonies that don't agree with us and reassign their testimony to mean whatever our preconceived prejudices would have us believe, we will simply call them liars if they disagree with our preconceived assumptions.

Such as, the standard typecast that Gays hate ex-gays and will say anything to pretend that they don’t really exist.
I wasn't trying to be mean. Of course my opinion here is based mostly on anecdotal evidence. But studies on "ex-gays" back me up. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay."

Pigeonhole argument, Riiiight... :rolleyes:

Maybe we should all be allowed such luxuries as you two have shown here. Perhaps we should all dismiss any and all personal testimonies that don't agree with us and reassign their testimony to mean whatever our preconceived prejudices would have us believe, we will simply call them liars if they disagree with our preconceived assumptions.

Such as, the standard typecast that Gays hate ex-gays and will say anything to pretend that they don’t really exist.
He said he'd had gay experiences. What part of that didn't you understand?

Listen to yourself. You've had some sort of sexual activity with men, and none with women. Obviously the temptation toward women isn't as great as it was toward men. And teh gay isn't a disease that you can be cured of--it's a part of who you are just as your gender and your personality and your taste in music are. You'll be a lot happier with yourself if you just admit it.

The people who tell you homosexuality is a sin are lying to you. Jesus didn't give a shit who you loved--his greatest commandments were to love God and love each other, and he didn't put any restrictions on who you loved or how you did it. I guarantee you that if Jesus were around to day, he'd have gay friends all over the damn place--they throw the best parties, and Jesus did like to get down. Why do you think he hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes?

First, you'll note that I said my belief is an unpopular one. And you assume that activity = attraction which is simply not true. Again, you don't know me, so you have only my word to go on, but I'm happier now that I am heterosexual and not active, than when I was an active homosexual. Also, I never said I was cured, I said I was healed. Slight, but important difference.

Scripture lies? Well, that's how you know what Jesus says, so you really don't know what Jesus said or did do you. Unless Scripture does not lie. In which case, homosexual activity would be a sin, because Scripture says that many times.

And Jesus did hang out with the tax collectors and prostitutes. But you assume "hang out" means "do everything with them" which is not true. Jesus was sinless, yes? So He could not have done some of the things any human does.

Of all the activities Jesus condemned, homosexuality is rather minor. He condemned hypocrasy numerous times. He obviously was more concerned with your integrity than your sleeping companions.

The same argument could be used to justify bestiality or pedophilia... The argument fails though, by trying to prove a negative.

Of all the activities Jesus condemned, homosexuality is rather minor. He condemned hypocrasy numerous times. He obviously was more concerned with your integrity than your sleeping companions.

Well, since He was speaking to Jews, and they hated homosexuality, it would be low on the list of things to talk about. That doesn't mean it was low on His list of abominations. Jesus is God remember. God says a man lying with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination to Him. And Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it.

I wasn't trying to be mean. Of course my opinion here is based mostly on anecdotal evidence. But studies on "ex-gays" back me up. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay."

Only in the same way that there is no such thing as an ex-alcoholic, or an ex-gambler or an ex-addict. In the same way that I cannot be an ex-smoker, I'm still addicted, many years later. But I don't currently smoke anymore and I am disgusted by the habit I do recall...

He said he'd had gay experiences. What part of that didn't you understand?

He said he had gay experiences, what part of that predetermined the rest of his existence as a human being? Change is natural, with or without the belief in God we can all plainly see that.

First, you'll note that I said my belief is an unpopular one. And you assume that activity = attraction which is simply not true. Again, you don't know me, so you have only my word to go on, but I'm happier now that I am heterosexual and not active, than when I was an active homosexual. Also, I never said I was cured, I said I was healed. Slight, but important difference.

Scripture lies? Well, that's how you know what Jesus says, so you really don't know what Jesus said or did do you. Unless Scripture does not lie. In which case, homosexual activity would be a sin, because Scripture says that many times.

And Jesus did hang out with the tax collectors and prostitutes. But you assume "hang out" means "do everything with them" which is not true. Jesus was sinless, yes? So He could not have done some of the things any human does.
Scripture is incomplete and often inaccurately translated, but that's another argument for another time. I also have real issues with the belief that Jesus was divine.

But even if you're going to believe that scripture is inerrant and that Jesus was divine, you're still a long way from proving that he hated homosexuality, considering that he personally never addressed the issue. I mean, unless you can pull a "Jesus hates fags" quote out of the gospels, you've got a problem with your theology on this issue.

Only in the same way that there is no such thing as an ex-alcoholic, or an ex-gambler or an ex-addict. In the same way that I cannot be an ex-smoker, I'm still addicted, many years later. But I don't currently smoke anymore and I am disgusted by the habit I do recall...

It's very telling that you equate homosexuality with a bad addiction. One would think a more proper analogy would be there's no such thing as an ex black person, or an ex woman (genetically speaking). Rather than consider it just a type of person, you consider it more appropriate to equate it with a bad habit.

Very telling indeed.

Well, since He was speaking to Jews, and they hated homosexuality, it would be low on the list of things to talk about. That doesn't mean it was low on His list of abominations. Jesus is God remember. God says a man lying with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination to Him. And Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it.

If true he came to fulfill not abolish the old law why are Christians not worried about other levidical laws? should they be?

He said he had gay experiences, what part of that predetermined the rest of his existence as a human being? Change is natural, with or without the belief in God we can all plainly see that.

He can push down his desires, sublimate them, but they're not going to change. Sexual preference is not very pliable.

Scripture is incomplete and often inaccurately translated, but that's another argument for another time. I also have real issues with the belief that Jesus was divine.

But even if you're going to believe that scripture is inerrant and that Jesus was divine, you're still a long way from proving that he hated homosexuality, considering that he personally never addressed the issue. I mean, unless you can pull a "Jesus hates fags" quote out of the gospels, you've got a problem with your theology on this issue.

If God is immutable, which Scripture teaches, and if Jesus is God, as Scripture teaches, and if homosexual activity is a sin, as Scripture teaches, and if God hates sin, as Scripture teaches, then Jesus hates homosexual activity.

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!


In the end, it's not for us to judge. If you believe, it's up to God to judge all men* at the end. We can't judge, because in his eyes we are all sinners.



*That's Men = Humanity, for those wanting to be pedantic.

He said he had gay experiences, what part of that predetermined the rest of his existence as a human being? Change is natural, with or without the belief in God we can all plainly see that.

exactly. After all just because I'm white today and was white yesterday, doesn't mean I'm going to be white tomorrow!

If true he came to fulfill not abolish the old law why are Christians not worried about other levidical laws? should they be?

Apparently, god says eating seafood is a sin.

It's very telling that you equate homosexuality with a bad addiction. One would think a more proper analogy would be there's no such thing as an ex black person, or an ex woman (genetically speaking). Rather than consider it just a type of person, you consider it more appropriate to equate it with a bad habit.

Very telling indeed.

Very telling that you aren't referencing the original quotes either, which also equated it with being a thing considered bad from their personal past...

If God is immutable, which Scripture teaches, and if Jesus is God, as Scripture teaches, and if homosexual activity is a sin, as Scripture teaches, and if God hates sin, as Scripture teaches, then Jesus hates homosexual activity.

then why don't you keep kosher?

Very telling that you aren't referencing the original quotes either, which also equated it with being a thing considered bad from their personal past...

so? you're the one who continued to keep the analogy rather than substitute a more appropriate one.

Apparently, god says eating seafood is a sin.

damn it you beat me to it.

exactly. After all just because I'm white today and was white yesterday, doesn't mean I'm going to be white tomorrow!

Genetically you will be, outside influences can affect a change for awhile but in the end you will be “White” and you will never be able to change that baseline. Just potentially deviate it for awhile.

Personally I don’t think that forcing yourself from your baseline is attractive or necessary as long as harm is not being caused to others.

If true he came to fulfill not abolish the old law why are Christians not worried about other levidical laws? should they be?

The ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians. They pointed to Jesus coming and He came, so they no longer apply, but they are not abolished. Knowledge and wisdom can still be gained from their study. However, the moral laws (those that are reaffirmed in the New Testament and others) still apply. Homosexual activity is spoken against several times in the New Testament and it is given the penalty of death in the Old Testament, so it is not a ceremonial law and still applies.

If God is immutable, which Scripture teaches, and if Jesus is God, as Scripture teaches, and if homosexual activity is a sin, as Scripture teaches, and if God hates sin, as Scripture teaches, then Jesus hates homosexual activity.
That's an awful lot of ifs to base a life on. And it's also contradictory, as others have pointed out--if the Levitical prohibition stands, then why don't the others? If Jesus is immutable, then pork and shrimp are as much an abomination as homosexuality is.

Oh, and I don't ever remember Jesus curing anyone of teh gay in the Bible. Leprosy, sure. But why not gayness?

then why don't you keep kosher?

Do you know that I don't? Read my post before this.

Genetically you will be, outside influences can affect a change for awhile but in the end you will be “White” and you will never be able to change that baseline. Just potentially deviate it for awhile.

Personally I don’t think that forcing yourself from your baseline is attractive or necessary as long as harm is not being caused to others.

I think you missed my sarcasm....

The ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians.

God is immutable

Pick.

The ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians. They pointed to Jesus coming and He came, so they no longer apply, but they are not abolished. Knowledge and wisdom can still be gained from their study. However, the moral laws (those that are reaffirmed in the New Testament and others) still apply. Homosexual activity is spoken against several times in the New Testament and it is given the penalty of death in the Old Testament, so it is not a ceremonial law and still applies.

Not by Jesus … it is spoken of in the NT yes but not by the man that was supposed to remake or reaffirm the laws that should be followed.

So the mere fact that they appear in the same section as Jesus is enough to reaffirm their standing as law?

He can push down his desires, sublimate them, but they're not going to change. Sexual preference is not very pliable.

Then an adulterer and the polyandrous person cannot change either? That’s too bad for them then, they have no hope…

Additionally, according to your logic, the monogamous relationship is impossible as we age? Because the physical attributes of our spouse we once knew when they were young will NOT be the same person we are sleeping with twenty years later... According to your analyses our desire isn't likely to allow them to be different than what we first fell in love with... But your analogy fails because we know that it isn't true.

My spouse can change. My spouse can be bigger or smaller, appearances change so much they don't even look like the same person, but I can still be attracted to them. I CAN determine that I want to be attracted to something different than I was attracted to yesterday.

That's an awful lot of ifs to base a life on. And it's also contradictory, as others have pointed out--if the Levitical prohibition stands, then why don't the others? If Jesus is immutable, then pork and shrimp are as much an abomination as homosexuality is.

Oh, and I don't ever remember Jesus curing anyone of teh gay in the Bible. Leprosy, sure. But why not gayness?

God never changes, and neither do His edicts (laws), but their application can change as His plan is carried out. Because the purpose of the ceremonial laws was to point to Jesus' coming, death, sacrifice, atonement, etc. and all that happened, they no longer apply. If Jesus had not come, we would still be accountable for them. The moral laws however are confirmed in the New Testament and don't point to anything except our sin and how we are to live.

If Jesus never came across a gay man, how was He to heal him?

I think you missed my sarcasm....

Sorry I misread who I was quoting ... and there for did not catch the cognitive dissonance with previous stances I apologize

Pick.

The laws are not changing, their application is. Read my post before this one.

Then an adulterer and the polyandrous person cannot change either?

Adultry is an act, it can either be committed, or not. Once committed it can either be repeated, or not.

Desire is not an act, it is a state. One who desires other men will likely continue to desire other men, whether he acts on it or not.

Not by Jesus … it is spoken of in the NT yes but not by the man that was supposed to remake or reaffirm the laws that should be followed.

So the mere fact that they appear in the same section as Jesus is enough to reaffirm their standing as law?

The fact that the Apostles and those others specifically called by Jesus (not generally as to the crowd) were given knowledge and were protected from error by the Holy Spirit by Jesus own words.

The ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians. They pointed to Jesus coming and He came, so they no longer apply, but they are not abolished. Knowledge and wisdom can still be gained from their study. However, the moral laws (those that are reaffirmed in the New Testament and others) still apply. Homosexual activity is spoken against several times in the New Testament and it is given the penalty of death in the Old Testament, so it is not a ceremonial law and still applies.
You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is immutable or he isn't. Notice--I laid the injunction of quoting Jesus's words on this and you refused because you can't do it. Instead you have to try to reason around it, claiming the authority of other Bible writers--writers who were human and had their own agendas. But you can't point to Jesus's teachings in the Gospels, the words which are supposed to be the crux of christian thought, and come up with an homophobic word, and there's a reason for that.

In christian teaching, Jesus personifies love. Period. Without restriction. He condemns no one, not even the adultress, and that was supposedly before his sacrifice made the Law irrelevant. You cannot get past these contradictions.

I'm going to backtrack on something I wrote earlier, though. I think, based on your posts, that you're gay and in denial. But if it's important to you that you consider yourself hetero for the moment, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when those attractions for guys pop up again, because they will.

If Jesus never came across a gay man, how was He to heal him?Oh come on. Gay people are 10% of the population. How could he have missed one, especially given the company he was keeping, hanging out with the sinners and all?

The fact that the Apostles and those others specifically called by Jesus (not generally as to the crowd) were given knowledge and were protected from error by the Holy Spirit by Jesus own words.
Then why are there massive disagreements between the oldest texts? There are more disagreements between the ancient texts than there are words in the New Testament.

Oh come on. Gay people are 10% of the population. How could he have missed one, especially given the company he was keeping, hanging out with the sinners and all?

not only that...but all those romans lying around?

Oh come on. Gay people are 10% of the population. How could he have missed one, especially given the company he was keeping, hanging out with the sinners and all?
Yeah, I'm real suspicious about Paul.:eek:

The fact that the Apostles and those others specifically called by Jesus (not generally as to the crowd) were given knowledge and were protected from error by the Holy Spirit by Jesus own words.

Is their biblical support for believing the apostles were immune to error? I honestly have never actually seen any evidence of this… special in light of their abilities to error and betray at times in other aspects of their life

The fact that the Apostles and those others specifically called by Jesus (not generally as to the crowd) were given knowledge and were protected from error by the Holy Spirit by Jesus own words.

Just like Judas.

You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus is immutable or he isn't. Notice--I laid the injunction of quoting Jesus's words on this and you refused because you can't do it. Instead you have to try to reason around it, claiming the authority of other Bible writers--writers who were human and had their own agendas. But you can't point to Jesus's teachings in the Gospels, the words which are supposed to be the crux of christian thought, and come up with an homophobic word, and there's a reason for that.

In christian teaching, Jesus personifies love. Period. Without restriction. He condemns no one, not even the adultress, and that was supposedly before his sacrifice made the Law irrelevant. You cannot get past these contradictions.

I'm going to backtrack on something I wrote earlier, though. I think, based on your posts, that you're gay and in denial. But if it's important to you that you consider yourself hetero for the moment, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when those attractions for guys pop up again, because they will.

So now you are the prophet speaking truths that shall be seen without doubt?

You misunderstand love. It is not this idea that I must be nice. It is anything but. Love sometimes requires that I spank my child (assuming I have a child) or pointing out that someone is heading down a path to self-destruction.

And also, Jesus did condemn many people. "It would better that he had been thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck." The Sermon on the Mount is full of condemnation. And Scripture says Jesus will condemn many at the End.

No matter what word I give you, it will not matter to you. As you pointed out, the Bible was written by men. So you have already made up your mind that you need not believe anything in it. I have shown how, assuming infalliblity of Scripture, Jesus was against homosexuality. You have an end in mind and you refuse to attempt to understand anything which may prevent that end. I have shown how Jesus is immutable as is His Law, though it's application may change. But you ignore that.

Do what you want: God allows you. But I know what I have and am experiencing and what God has revealed through Scripture and it contradicts you.

I must say that if I believed that homosexuality were a choice, I would have to agree with them. And not all Pentacostals agree that homosexuality is a choice and so therefore disagree with this official stance.

Yeah, sure, it is not a choice; it's not like if you chose yourself whether to have sex or not, and with whom, it's your body, and, hey, you have nothing to do with it. There is no way you can control it, and no one may enforce you, and, what the heck, if you WANT something, it is not a choice and can not be a sin.


I'm no way in favor of anything anti-gay, but you need to make choices in life, including choices between following a religion and enjoying civil freedoms.

Oh come on. Gay people are 10% of the population. How could he have missed one, especially given the company he was keeping, hanging out with the sinners and all?

They are 10% now. Perhaps not then.

Yeah, sure, it is not a choice; it's not like if you chose yourself whether to have sex or not, and with whom, it's your body, and, hey, you have nothing to do with it. There is no way you can control it, and no one may enforce you, and, what the heck, if you WANT something, it is not a choice and can not be a sin.


I'm no way in favor of anything anti-gay, but you need to make choices in life, including choices between following a religion and enjoying civil freedoms.

Perhaps you should read the rest of thread to understand my stance better. :)

Mr. Ed's Jesus seems like a dickhead...

Then why are there massive disagreements between the oldest texts? There are more disagreements between the ancient texts than there are words in the New Testament.

Really? Can you give me examples, or else prove how there must be?

Adultry is an act, it can either be committed, or not. Once committed it can either be repeated, or not.

Desire is not an act, it is a state. One who desires other men will likely continue to desire other men, whether he acts on it or not.

One whom desires adultery is the same then... Of course it's still wrong though.

exactly. After all just because I'm white today and was white yesterday, doesn't mean I'm going to be white tomorrow!

Then the pedophile has no hope then, according to you. Of course you are wrong again though. Desires of the flesh are not the flesh itself. Desires can change, regardless that you don't want to believe it.

so? you're the one who continued to keep the analogy rather than substitute a more appropriate one.


Substitute a more appropriate one? Like what? Like feeling the need to light up a cigarette several years after having quit the urge still returns again and again? Shouldn’t the person have the right and the ability to deny that urge and rule over their own future? Of course they should, and more than should, they do.

Or, like wanting to feel the freedom of youth again a person forty years after birth and twenty years after marriage feels the desire to be free and promiscuous again, a mid-life crises if you will, to be care-free and irresponsible. But according to your logic, they are denying themselves if they overcome that urge and control themselves, I argue simply that they make the right and proper choice to choose their future behavior regardless of their past behaviors, as logic dictates …

They are 10% now. Perhaps not then.

considering the infamous roman orgies...at that time and place...perhaps a lot more.

Is their biblical support for believing the apostles were immune to error? I honestly have never actually seen any evidence of this… special in light of their abilities to error and betray at times in other aspects of their life

Jesus says that He gave the disciples knowledge and wisdom that He gave no one else. I cannot think of where that is. I have to find that.

Mr. Ed's Jesus seems like a dickhead...

I would agree ... in the end if the scripture is an accurate reflection (even though I argue it) it leads me to one conclusion

That I can not be honest to myself and honestly worship such an asshat

Simple as that

I'm tired and I have class in the morning (it's 12:30 here) so I'll be back tomorrow. Feel free to TG me if you have any questions.

One whom desires adultery is the same then... Of course it's still wrong though.

Yes, adultry, which is a violation of the trust you have with your spouse, is morally wrong.

Then the pedophile has no hope then, according to you. Of course you are wrong again though. Desires of the flesh are not the flesh itself. Desires can change, regardless that you don't want to believe it.

The paedophile will always BE the paedophile, he may, at best, work to not act on his desires. Those desires can be combated, however they will still be there.

However the difference is the paedophile seeks sexual relations with children, a gay person does not


Substitute a more appropriate one? Like what? Like feeling the need to light up a cigarette several years after having quit the urge still returns again and again? Shouldn’t the person have the right and the ability to deny that urge and rule over their own future? Of course they should, and more than should, they do.

I don't see quite why a desire to have consensual sex with an adult of your own gender should be any more vigorously denied than the desire to have consensual sex with an adult of the opposite gender.

I argue simply that they make the right and proper choice to choose their future behavior regardless of their past behaviors, as logic dictates …

You argue that denying homosexuality, is the "right and proper choice". Since that is your standpoint we shall find no common ground.

Jesus says that He gave the disciples knowledge and wisdom that He gave no one else. I cannot think of where that is. I have to find that.

which obviously makes them infallable and incapble of error. Just look at Judas.

No matter what word I give you, it will not matter to you. As you pointed out, the Bible was written by men. So you have already made up your mind that you need not believe anything in it. I have shown how, assuming infalliblity of Scripture, Jesus was against homosexuality. You have an end in mind and you refuse to attempt to understand anything which may prevent that end. I have shown how Jesus is immutable as is His Law, though it's application may change. But you ignore that.
That's where you're wrong. I love the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels, and I strive to live my life by them, even though I don't believe in Jesus's divinity.

As to what you believe you've shown, you're wrong. Sorry. You haven't addressed the inherent contradiction of your own words and assumptions--and they're your assumptions. I'm not bound by them because I don't accept the idea that God is immutable, but you do, and thus you are bound by those contradictions, and no matter how you wriggle, you'll never make them fit. You can try to paper them over with faith, and you may well succeed--you've shown remarkable resilience thus far, after all. But I know the struggle because I was there myself--not with homosexuality for me, but with trying to reconcile the idea of infallible scripture with the empirical world.

Believe me when I write these words: I wish you well and I wish you peace on your journey, and I hope you find satisfaction along the way. You may notice I don't include anything about the conclusion of your journey--that's because I don't think the conclusion is important. It's the journey that matters. It is the search for our own truths that drives us.

Jesus says that He gave the disciples knowledge and wisdom that He gave no one else. I cannot think of where that is. I have to find that.

Please do ... but even if that is what it says does not mean that they are error free

I am given more knowledge of our internal network then anyone else at my job and I still made the mistake of misattributing a problem with a games authentication

Having insider knowledge does not mean that whatever I say is right … just that I MAY have some more information behind my statements … I could STILL be talking out my ass either way

I have shown how, assuming infalliblity of Scripture, Jesus was against homosexuality.

Therein lies the problem. Even if EVERY SINGLE THING you have said is true (which is questionable) it still lies upon a very fundamental premise, the infallibility of scripture.

Until you are able to prove such infallibility the rest of your argument is pure speculation.

Really? Can you give me examples, or else prove how there must be?

Take a course in Textual Exegesis, or read some Bart Ehrmann or other noted Biblical textual scholar. Hell, the story I mentioned above about Jesus and the adulteress didn't even appear in the earliest gospel texts--it was added later and continues to this day in practically every Bible out there.

Perhaps you should read the rest of thread to understand my stance better. :)
Checked it.

In general, I agree that homosexual desires are not a choice. Fulfilling them or not is a choice. Religions are in large part about controlling yourself and, except for satanism, not following every desire; so from religious stance it is no less a choice than everything else.

Checked it.

In general, I agree that homosexual desires are not a choice. Fulfilling them or not is a choice. Religions are in large part about controlling yourself and, except for satanism, not following every desire; so from religious stance it is no less a choice than everything else.

you'd be surprised how many argue that homosexual DESIRE is a choice, and one that can be removed.

I would agree ... in the end if the scripture is an accurate reflection (even though I argue it) it leads me to one conclusion

That I can not be honest to myself and honestly worship such an asshat

Simple as that

Two things. First of all, I think worshiping anyone is a bad idea all the way around, no matter how wonderful he or she may appear at first glance.

Secondly, I think the picture most christian groups paint of Jesus is a particularly unflattering one. But read the gospels themselves and you get a better sense of the man the legends are based on. And he was a pretty righteous dude.

What does God tell you? Bibles are suspect. Clergy are suspect. Religions are suspect. The best person to determine what God wants from you is you. Listen with an open mind, think about what those who share a similar faith have told you, then find God in your heart and let Him tell you what to believe.

Exactly what I would have said & I am a Pentacostal Christian. Sadly, the Christian church as a whole has a lot of people who claim to know the exact truth about Scripture and the mind of God. Whatever the issue is, it should be tested and challenged....remember it's info coming through a faulty channel [humans!] - check out 1 John 4:1, James 1:5, 1 Thess 5:21.

And re. gay/lesbian/transgender - the same God loves them as loves me [as a heterosexual], and offers the same opportunity to all to know Him [I choose to use the masculine pronoun but believe that God is beyond gender].

If Jesus were here in the flesh today, I don't think we'd find him in our churches. I think He'd be with those who are discriminated against, abandoned and rejected by the rest of society, caring for them, helping them to find freedom and acceptance.

And I think that's what Christians should be doing [I acknowledge that a lot are] instead of sitting around talking about who's going to hell. To me, that's the difference between a personal relationship with God and mindless religion.

And thus endeth the sermon ;)

Two things. First of all, I think worshiping anyone is a bad idea all the way around, no matter how wonderful he or she may appear at first glance.

Secondly, I think the picture most christian groups paint of Jesus is a particularly unflattering one. But read the gospels themselves and you get a better sense of the man the legends are based on. And he was a pretty righteous dude.

I have entirely don’t get me wrong … the Jesus dude … he was pretty awesome

But the dude CALLED god I have had some issues with the consistency of character

I have entirely don’t get me wrong … the Jesus dude … he was pretty awesome

But the dude CALLED god I have had some issues with the consistency of character

The God of the Old Testament was one evil dude.

The God of the Old Testament was one evil dude.

Agreed ... I am glad they re-cast that charicter

Agreed ... I am glad they re-cast that charicter

I heard they considered Matt Damon for the role, but eventually settled on Alanis Morrisette.

I heard they considered Matt Damon for the role, but eventually settled on Alanis Morrisette.

Props on the dogma refferance :)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't say that. I said that homosexuality is not a choice. I did not say that God made homosexuals (or any other sexual orientation) to be that way. I do not believe that. In fact I believe the oppostie: that God heals people of homosexuality as He wills.

I was a heterosexual before I experimented with another guy. Then, I slipped slowly into homosexuality. My actions caused me to develop that attraction. So, I did not choose to be a homosexual: it was a natural result of my actions. Praise and thank God, He healed me of that.

So, I have a just as unpopular (if not more) view. I just disagree with the Pentacostals (on this issue). I never said I thought homosexuality is good/natural/acceptable/etc. I believe the opposite.

I think you mean you decided (or were 'helped') not to live a homosexual lifestyle...maybe. Because you never actually said whether or not you felt a desire to be with those men, or whether it was something you just wanted to try. Your actions can't make you attracted to a certain sex...If so why havent you slept with women? Wouldn't THAT cause you to be attracted to them/that lifestyle? But when you suggest that you were "healed" by God that makes me think it was something you needed to suppress or "give up". So in effect you are suppressing your desires toward men, not "healed".



Then the pedophile has no hope then, according to you. Of course you are wrong again though. Desires of the flesh are not the flesh itself. Desires can change, regardless that you don't want to believe it.



I don't believe pedophiles can be cured. They can learn not to put themselves in the position (the same as gay people can) of acting on their desires. Suppression, I tell you. Suppression. It takes a lot of willpower for this to be achieved and religion is an effective way of setting people down that path (in the area of sexual desires) by giving them rigid rules as a reason to abstain. Like someone here said - religion is largely about controlling yourself.

Jesus says that He gave the disciples knowledge and wisdom that He gave no one else. I cannot think of where that is. I have to find that.

According to who? The disciples, of course. ;)

According to who? The disciples, of course. ;)
It's awful convenient the way that worked out isn't it? ;)

The God of the Old Testament was one evil dude.Since the god of the New Testament is the selfsame you could also just say "The god of the Bible was one evil dude." No need to distinguish there.
.

Since the god of the New Testament is the selfsame you could also just say "The god of the Bible was one evil dude." No need to distinguish there.
.
Now you're getting into matters of interpretation, and there's substantive disagreement on that front. Did Old Testament Jehovah equal New Testament Jesus? Sure, if you're a trinitarian. Not so much if you're not. It's a matter of dogmatic belief, not scripture.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't say that. I said that homosexuality is not a choice. I did not say that God made homosexuals (or any other sexual orientation) to be that way. I do not believe that. In fact I believe the oppostie: that God heals people of homosexuality as He wills.

I was a heterosexual before I experimented with another guy. Then, I slipped slowly into homosexuality. My actions caused me to develop that attraction. So, I did not choose to be a homosexual: it was a natural result of my actions. Praise and thank God, He healed me of that.

So, I have a just as unpopular (if not more) view. I just disagree with the Pentacostals (on this issue). I never said I thought homosexuality is good/natural/acceptable/etc. I believe the opposite.
how can you believe that God uses all things for His glory, creater of all the Earth, that being homosexual isn't a choice, and then that God didn't create homosexual people?

aren't you the one that told me my daughter nearly died because God was punishing her (or me) for something?



Amen,Jesus died for all are sins...so as long as you remember what he did for us then you are saved and are doing well so hey what do i have to worry about!! But im very paranoied about somethings!
God is not a God of worry. If you must obsess about something worry about your own walk....



Thats what I belive that homsexuality isnt an choice god made you that way for a reason..what is the reason no one will ever know.
there are many things we will never know or understand about God.

Now you're getting into matters of interpretation, and there's substantive disagreement on that front. Did Old Testament Jehovah equal New Testament Jesus? Sure, if you're a trinitarian. Not so much if you're not. It's a matter of dogmatic belief, not scripture.According to Christianity Yeshua is the incarnation of Yahweh. Even if one does not see Yeshua as this incarnation, Yeshua is a follower of Yahweh. The ideological connexion of Yeshua to Yahweh and thus of the New Testament to the Old Testament is there either way.
.

According to Christianity Yeshua is the incarnation of Yahweh. Even if one does not see Yeshua as this incarnation, Yeshua is a follower of Yahweh. The ideological connexion of Yeshua to Yahweh and thus of the New Testament to the Old Testament is there either way.
.According to much of christianity, perhaps, but there are significant sects who believe in a separation of the two. The ideological connection is a bit dicier, however, because of the contradictions in scripture. I mean, it's clear that the Father of the Old Testament was far more concerned with law than the Son of the New Testament, who was all about forgiveness and loving one another. Like it or not, there's a significant difference in tone between the two Gods from Old to New Testament.

God creates everyone. If they have a bodily defect, it's because god created them that way. If they were born with a penis and a vagina, it's because god created them that way, and meant for them to live a life that way, having sex with either or both sexes as they choose.

Do you disagree? And if so, how would these people be born if not for the will of god? Satan? How could satan trump the will of god? He can't, he can only work within it, and thereby, work for it.

Everything that happens is by the will of god. Everyone that has ever existed has lived the way they've lived because the will of god has told them to do so. Everything.

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church
In my opinion, proclaiming that certain people will go to hell is hypocritical, judgemental, and one of the most arrogant things a human can do. Who decides who will go to hell? Your religious leader? Oh no wait, that's for God and GOD ONLY.

how can you believe that God uses all things for His glory, creater of all the Earth, that being homosexual isn't a choice, and then that God didn't create homosexual people?

I believe that homosexuality is developed. I don't think it is born into a person. So God allows (does not make) a person to choose to do things which will pervert his/her sexual nature into various unorthodox lifestyles: homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, necrophelia, etc. God doesn't create them that way: He allows them to develop that way for His own purpose.

aren't you the one that told me my daughter nearly died because God was punishing her (or me) for something?

You misunderstand what I meant. I said that God allows all bad things to happen to us and He uses all those bad things as justice. He does not say "And no I'm going to infect him with HIV!" He says "I will remove my protection from him so that he will follow his desire to engage in risky sexual behavior with this HIV-positive person. This will be for his punishment and My plan which is ...." That is my personal opinion from what I see in Scripture. You can be a catholic, orthodox Christian and disagree.

I believe that homosexuality is developed. I don't think it is born into a person. So God allows (does not make) a person to choose to do things which will pervert his/her sexual nature into various unorthodox lifestyles: homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, necrophelia, etc. God doesn't create them that way: He allows them to develop that way for His own purpose.

I didn't choose to be bisexual. I simply am. Saying that I chose to be is like saying I chose to be left-handed. I didn't, but I enjoy it.


You misunderstand what I meant. I said that God allows all bad things to happen to us and He uses all those bad things as justice. He does not say "And no I'm going to infect him with HIV!" He says "I will remove my protection from him so that he will follow his desire to engage in risky sexual behavior with this HIV-positive person. This will be for his punishment and My plan which is ...." That is my personal opinion from what I see in Scripture. You can be a catholic, orthodox Christian and disagree.

Yep. So Smunkee's 3-year-old has a gluten intolerance because god decided to remove his protection so she could go and.... er, do what, exactly? And why would that then be his punishment? For what? For removing his protection?

I believe that homosexuality is developed. I don't think it is born into a person. So God allows (does not make) a person to choose to do things which will pervert his/her sexual nature into various unorthodox lifestyles: homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, necrophelia, etc. God doesn't create them that way: He allows them to develop that way for His own purpose.



You misunderstand what I meant. I said that God allows all bad things to happen to us and He uses all those bad things as justice. He does not say "And no I'm going to infect him with HIV!" He says "I will remove my protection from him so that he will follow his desire to engage in risky sexual behavior with this HIV-positive person. This will be for his punishment and My plan which is ...." That is my personal opinion from what I see in Scripture. You can be a catholic, orthodox Christian and disagree.

Homosexuality is developed, even when people are born with both sexual organs?

I'd really like someone to finally answer that question for me. The last fundamentalist I threw that on ran off without saying another word.

I'd really like someone to finally answer that question for me. The last fundamentalist I threw that on ran off without saying another word.

It's an unfair question. How can you suggest that god create imperfection? :D

Although something tells me we'll shortly be hearing something about the parents being punished.

It's an unfair question. How can you suggest that god create imperfection? :D

Although something tells me we'll shortly be hearing something about the parents being punished.

Okay, let's assume it was a punishment of the parents by god: How? And why? God doesn't judge you until you reach the gates of heaven, therefore, he won't punish you until you die, by giving you a dual-gender baby or otherwise. Secondly, what loving god would scar a child in any way just because of the parent's punishment? The type of god that would kill every first-born child of every household in Egypt? That's not loving, no matter how you look at it. That's not justice. That's not worth being worshipped for.

So I ask again: Is god an imperfect, vengeful bastard who takes his frustration out on unborn children and children unlucky enough to be born first, or is Edwardis wrong?

So I ask again: Is god an imperfect, vengeful bastard who takes his frustration out on unborn children and children unlucky enough to be born first, or is Edwardis wrong?

Both. ;)

I'm really going to be disappointed if no fundies even LOOK at this question... I don't mean "I'm going to say I'm disappointed" kind of disappointed, I mean, I'm really going to feel sad inside and my respect for fundies as a whole will sink to new lows because of it.

God creates everyone. If they have a bodily defect, it's because god created them that way. If they were born with a penis and a vagina, it's because god created them that way, and meant for them to live a life that way, having sex with either or both sexes as they choose.

Umm, no. Why would God say that a man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman because that is an abomination to Him if what you say is true? Answer, He wouldn't.

Do you disagree? And if so, how would these people be born if not for the will of god? Satan? How could satan trump the will of god? He can't, he can only work within it, and thereby, work for it.

God creates perfection. But we (the human race) are infected by sin and if God wants to allow things to happen to us, He can, whether that be homosexuality, depression, a cold, or a flood, He can allow whatever He wants to happen to us, because we deserve far worse. The wages of sin is death, and we are by nature sinners. So God is merciful in these things, and they follow His will for His glory.

Everything that happens is by the will of god.

Yes.

Everyone that has ever existed has lived the way they've lived because the will of god has told them to do so. Everything.

No it is God's will that He should allow them to disobey and they do. God did not tell them to sin. He told them not to sin, but allowed them to do as they wished. And they did as they wished and deserve death for it.

Homosexuality is developed, even when people are born with both sexual organs?

Homosexuality is a mental/emotional aspect which can change naturally. Just as you go from liking to disliking someone, so can you go from being attracted to someone to not.

Sex organs are physical. They cannot be changed naturally.

I'm really going to be disappointed if no fundies even LOOK at this question... I don't mean "I'm going to say I'm disappointed" kind of disappointed, I mean, I'm really going to feel sad inside and my respect for fundies as a whole will sink to new lows because of it.


I think you just asked the "gay debate" equivalent of asking for proof of Intelligent Design.

Homosexuality is a mental/emotional aspect which can change naturally. Just as you go from liking to disliking someone, so can you go from being attracted to someone to not.

Sex organs are physical. They cannot be changed naturally.

Well, what sexuality would you suggest for hermaphrodites, then?

Oh, and while it is true that attraction can appear and disappear rather randomly, are you actually going to tell me that it can be influenced in any way?

Homosexuality is a mental/emotional aspect which can change naturally. Just as you go from liking to disliking someone, so can you go from being attracted to someone to not.

Sex organs are physical. They cannot be changed naturally.

True. So what is it when a dual-gender person has sex with someone? No matter what gender they sleep with, it's sleeping with someone who has the same sexual organs that they do.

I think you just asked the "gay debate" equivalent of asking for proof of Intelligent Design.

It would nice to have at least some evidence :D

Homosexuality is a mental/emotional aspect which can change naturally. Just as you go from liking to disliking someone, so can you go from being attracted to someone to not.

Sex organs are physical. They cannot be changed naturally.

False analogy, we're talking gender not people. I can't stand my ex girlfriend, that has yet to translate into me being unattracted to females in general.

Homosexuality can no more be changed than skin color or gender (at least at a genetic level).

Umm, no. Why would God say that a man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman because that is an abomination to Him if what you say is true? Answer, He wouldn't.



You have two problems:

1) you presume to speak on behalf of a being you admit to being all powerful and all knowing. Isn't that the height of arrogance?

2) you presume that what is written is indeed by god's hands.

Here's a thought, a wild one. God supposedly considers intollerance a sin, right? Now here's a god who preaches tolerance creating a rule that is on its face intolerant, and the cognitive dissonance of this doesn't strike you?

Maybe god threw that passage in there to see how many people would so easily abandon the fundamental tenants of what god was trying to teach us based on a single line. Maybe it's all to see how many would blindly be intollerant and avoid the true lesson.

Maybe it's a test.

A test you're failing.

Homosexuality is a mental/emotional aspect which can change naturally. Just as you go from liking to disliking someone, so can you go from being attracted to someone to not.

Sex organs are physical. They cannot be changed naturally.

Even though it's been shown that homosexuals have a different chemical composition in their brains than heterosexuals?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod2.htm

Umm, no. Why would God say that a man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman because that is an abomination to Him if what you say is true? Answer, He wouldn't.

Unless scripture is wrong.


God creates perfection. But we (the human race) are infected by sin and if God wants to allow things to happen to us, He can, whether that be homosexuality, depression, a cold, or a flood, He can allow whatever He wants to happen to us, because we deserve far worse. The wages of sin is death, and we are by nature sinners. So God is merciful in these things, and they follow His will for His glory.

We are infected by sin because god allowed us to be infected by sin by what he has created. He then allows us to suffer the pains of life because of the sin he has allowed us to be infected with by what he has created. He then judges us by the sin he has allowed us to be infected with by what he has created.

It is -all- his doing. He allowed it all to happen, it is all his fault. He set up the dominos, and created the ball that would roll into the first one, and time and time again he declined to stop the chain reaction as it went. As each domino falls he throws it into a pit of fire to be burned for all eternity.

Again, that's not loving. That's not logical. That's not responsible. That's definitely not worth worshipping. You might as well be a follower of satan. Satan is but a pawn in god's domino game, but at least he takes credit for what he has done, as opposed to blaming it on god - which wouldn't be entirely incorrect, in his case.



Yes.

Then it is his fault.



No it is God's will that He should allow them to disobey and they do. God did not tell them to sin. He told them not to sin, but allowed them to do as they wished. And they did as they wished and deserve death for it.

He allows it to happen. He told them not to sin, but didn't give them the intelligence or wisdom enough to follow his command. He gave them just enough intelligence to hear the command, but enough ignorance so that they would question it, thereby nullifying any sort of command he gave them. He knew how much intelligence would allow them to be smart enough to understand, and he didn't give them enough. It -is- god's fault, to every detail, to every event, to every sin, to every miracle, god is behind it all, watching the dominos fall, apathy ruling the universe.

Your god is a fink. He doesn't care, he doesn't act, he doesn't do. He doesn't serve, he doesn't represent, he doesn't make his presence known. He doesn't speak, he doesn't listen, and he doesn't help. He is not worth our attention, and not worthy of the ability to judge the innocent lives he has damned.

Even though it's been shown that homosexuals have a different chemical composition in their brains than heterosexuals?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod2.htm

You should be careful advocating positions like that, it makes it look like homosexuality could be something that can be treated with medications then to rebalance the chemical composition of the homosexual's brain...

That's probably not an argument you want to promote. It would be like saying that homosexual are simply victims of a chemical induced mental instability, like ADHD, and we simply need to find the right chemical medications to treat the behavior…

You should be careful advocating positions like that, it makes it look like homosexuality could be something that can be treated with medications then to rebalance the chemical composition of the homosexual's brain...

That's probably not an argument you want to promote. It would be like saying that homosexual are simply victims of a chemical induced mental instability, like ADHD, and we simply need to find the right chemical medications to treat the behavior…

Why would you WANT to treat it, though?
People tried for the longest time to correct and cure lefthanded people... it was a completely pointless effort that made the children suffer needlessly, just to conform to social norms. We should be above that today.

You should be careful advocating positions like that, it makes it look like homosexuality could be something that can be treated with medications then to rebalance the chemical composition of the homosexual's brain...

That's probably not an argument you want to promote. It would be like saying that homosexual are simply victims of a chemical induced mental instability, like ADHD, and we simply need to find the right chemical medications to treat the behavior…

In the end what’s the difference on one hand it is at least part chemical and some asswhipe is going to recommend medication to fix the “problem” and on the other side they will try to make it sound like a mental disorder and recommend therapy to fix the “problem”

Yet so far they have failed to actually prove it is a “problem” with any sort of actual real world data anyways. But they don’t seem to stop that from being ignorant or intolerant

You should be careful advocating positions like that, it makes it look like homosexuality could be something that can be treated with medications then to rebalance the chemical composition of the homosexual's brain...

That's probably not an argument you want to promote. It would be like saying that homosexual are simply victims of a chemical induced mental instability, like ADHD, and we simply need to find the right chemical medications to treat the behavior…

I'm sure it's been presented before. It still follows the arguement of god created "imperfections", including ADHD.

You should be careful advocating positions like that, it makes it look like homosexuality could be something that can be treated with medications then to rebalance the chemical composition of the homosexual's brain...

That's probably not an argument you want to promote. It would be like saying that homosexual are simply victims of a chemical induced mental instability, like ADHD, and we simply need to find the right chemical medications to treat the behavior…

Theoretically speaking, you can 'cure' homosexuality. Reagan himself said we should try to find one. But the discussion is SHOULD we try to cure it - ever seen X-Men 3? It'd be kind of like that, I suppose. It's a suggestion that something that defines a person can be a terrible thing at the basest of levels and should be removed from that person as soon as possible. Just the idea that people would be looking for a cure is immensely offensive and horrible to me, and I'm not even gay.

True. So what is it when a dual-gender person has sex with someone? No matter what gender they sleep with, it's sleeping with someone who has the same sexual organs that they do.

Both to you and Cabra West, I would say the person should remain celibate. Or have one or the other removed.

Both to you and Cabra West, I would say the person should remain celibate. Or have one or the other removed.

So the sex organs define who the person should sleep with? So sex changes are just hunkydory (at least with that rule)?

False analogy, we're talking gender not people. I can't stand my ex girlfriend, that has yet to translate into me being unattracted to females in general.

Homosexuality can no more be changed than skin color or gender (at least at a genetic level).

Considering that the UN (one of the most liberal bodies in the world) rejected that study, it might just be that the study was in some way flawed. Also, I never hear scientists saying this, only people who want to assume science supports their thoughts. I'm not saying no scientist has said sexuality is genetic, I'm just saying I've never heard it.

Both to you and Cabra West, I would say the person should remain celibate. Or have one or the other removed.

So humans should interfere in God's handiwork? Are you saying we can do a better job? Or did God make a mistake?

Both to you and Cabra West, I would say the person should remain celibate. Or have one or the other removed.

But why change what god has given? If anything, it is a sign from god that this person has been chosen to have sex with both genders.

Considering that the UN (one of the most liberal bodies in the world) rejected that study, it might just be that the study was in some way flawed. Also, I never hear scientists saying this, only people who want to assume science supports their thoughts. I'm not saying no scientist has said sexuality is genetic, I'm just saying I've never heard it.

Show some evidence please. The entire US science community rejected the notion that homosexuality can be "changed".

Here's a thought, a wild one. God supposedly considers intollerance a sin, right? Now here's a god who preaches tolerance creating a rule that is on its face intolerant, and the cognitive dissonance of this doesn't strike you?

Well, where'd you get that? Christianity is in no way tolerant. It is very intolerant. We are told what sin is and we are to be intolerant of it. We are not to be bigots, though. The difference is summed up in that cliche: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Maybe god threw that passage in there to see how many people would so easily abandon the fundamental tenants of what god was trying to teach us based on a single line. Maybe it's all to see how many would blindly be intollerant and avoid the true lesson.

That's working on the idea that God is capable of lying, which He is not.

Maybe it's a test.

There is only one time when you might say that God tested a man by the means you suggest: Abraham with Isaac. But I reject that interpretation of the Scripture.

A test you're failing.

Well, I can't fail a test not given to me, can I?

Considering that the UN (one of the most liberal bodies in the world) rejected that study, it might just be that the study was in some way flawed. Also, I never hear scientists saying this, only people who want to assume science supports their thoughts. I'm not saying no scientist has said sexuality is genetic, I'm just saying I've never heard it.

First off, there's more to a person's makeup than just genetics, brain chemistry would seem to be the strongest indicator at this time.

Secondly, if homosexuality can be "unlearned" then by that same bases so can heterosexuality, can't it?

You're grasping at straws here, the only way for your whole theory of god's relationship with humanity to work is that it remain a choice one can enter into. So you'll look for any way to do that.

Umm, no. Why would God say that a man is not to lie with a man as he would with a woman because that is an abomination to Him if what you say is true? Answer, He wouldn't.

He didn't. God said no such thing.

Considering that the UN (one of the most liberal bodies in the world) rejected that study, it might just be that the study was in some way flawed. Also, I never hear scientists saying this, only people who want to assume science supports their thoughts. I'm not saying no scientist has said sexuality is genetic, I'm just saying I've never heard it.

Then go talk to a scientist. Please.

Both to you and Cabra West, I would say the person should remain celibate. Or have one or the other removed.

And who the fuck are you to make that kind of determination?

snip

There is only one time when you might say that God tested a man by the means you suggest: Abraham with Isaac. But I reject that interpretation of the Scripture.

snip

On what basis? Some sort of divine inspiration?

Seems kind of arbitrary to me …

Unless scripture is wrong.

Well, that's the key isn't it?


We are infected by sin because god allowed us to be infected by sin by what he has created. He then allows us to suffer the pains of life because of the sin he has allowed us to be infected with by what he has created. He then judges us by the sin he has allowed us to be infected with by what he has created.

It is -all- his doing. He allowed it all to happen, it is all his fault. He set up the dominos, and created the ball that would roll into the first one, and time and time again he declined to stop the chain reaction as it went. As each domino falls he throws it into a pit of fire to be burned for all eternity.

Again, that's not loving. That's not logical. That's not responsible. That's definitely not worth worshipping. You might as well be a follower of satan. Satan is but a pawn in god's domino game, but at least he takes credit for what he has done, as opposed to blaming it on god - which wouldn't be entirely incorrect, in his case.





Then it is his fault.





He allows it to happen. He told them not to sin, but didn't give them the intelligence or wisdom enough to follow his command. He gave them just enough intelligence to hear the command, but enough ignorance so that they would question it, thereby nullifying any sort of command he gave them. He knew how much intelligence would allow them to be smart enough to understand, and he didn't give them enough. It -is- god's fault, to every detail, to every event, to every sin, to every miracle, god is behind it all, watching the dominos fall, apathy ruling the universe.

Your god is a fink. He doesn't care, he doesn't act, he doesn't do. He doesn't serve, he doesn't represent, he doesn't make his presence known. He doesn't speak, he doesn't listen, and he doesn't help. He is not worth our attention, and not worthy of the ability to judge the innocent lives he has damned.

You have a very skewed idea of God which perfectly sums up Man's sinful nature: "God is not worthy of my worship. I will do what I want." I pray that you'll repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Then go talk to a scientist. Please.

Shush to you. Don't you know that education is anethema?

He didn't. God said no such thing.

Correct some person, with so far no biblical backing of infallibility that I have ever seen, claimed so

Actually more correct would some guy 2000 years ago in a completely different language was recorded to have claimed to have said such a thing.

That's working on the idea that God is capable of lying, which He is not.



There is only one time when you might say that God tested a man by the means you suggest: Abraham with Isaac. But I reject that interpretation of the Scripture.





So you admit there are many interpretations of the bible? Then how can you say you are correct when you know you might be misinterpreting it? Maybe "man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman" is against a man cheating on his wife with another man? You don't know. God didn't make it clear enough. It's his fault if you get it wrong.

So the sex organs define who the person should sleep with? So sex changes are just hunkydory (at least with that rule)?

No. Sex changes are making you the opposite. Making a hermaphrodite a particular sex is correcting a problem, not merely changing to meet a preference.

So humans should interfere in God's handiwork? Are you saying we can do a better job? Or did God make a mistake?

What?

Well, that's the key isn't it?




You have a very skewed idea of God which perfectly sums up Man's sinful nature: "God is not worthy of my worship. I will do what I want." I pray that you'll repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Sorry when god conflicts with my morals, my morals win. I at least know they exist (at least for me)

Well, that's the key isn't it?




You have a very skewed idea of God which perfectly sums up Man's sinful nature: "God is not worthy of my worship. I will do what I want." I pray that you'll repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

And yet you're the one saying we should modify god's work for your own personal beliefs and biases.

Well, that's the key isn't it?




You have a very skewed idea of God which perfectly sums up Man's sinful nature: "God is not worthy of my worship. I will do what I want." I pray that you'll repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

I have a very logical idea of god. He gave me my brain, and my brain tells me what you consider to be god is wrong.

My idea of god makes perfect sense. Keep in mind, though, I don't agree with you, and therefore don't believe god to be the mindless dick that you draw him out to be.

No. Sex changes are making you the opposite. Making a hermaphrodite a particular sex is correcting a problem, not merely changing to meet a preference.

So you admit god made a mistake? You consider a natural occurence to be a "problem".

No. Sex changes are making you the opposite. Making a hermaphrodite a particular sex is correcting a problem, not merely changing to meet a preference.

What - correcting god's work?? Wouldn't that be blasphemous in your book? And what if it turns out that you removed the wrong part?

What?

... God's handiwork. Our bodies. It would be to say that god made a mistake if you had an operation and got one taken off or put on.

Sorry when god conflicts with my morals, my morals win. I at least know they exist (at least for me)

QFT

But why change what god has given? If anything, it is a sign from god that this person has been chosen to have sex with both genders.

Under your logic, we can't treat diabetes, cystic fibrosis, or any other disease children are born with. They were born with it, so it must be how God wanted (in the sense that He wants perfection) to be.

Whereas, I see from Scripture that God allows (does not make) people to be certain ways and have certain problems as judgement for their sinful nature and He commands us to be merciful (as vessels of His mercy) and correct those problems as best we can.

What - correcting god's work?? Wouldn't that be blasphemous in your book? And what if it turns out that you removed the wrong part?

I'm noticing a pattern here. Edwardis isn't following the train of logic through the statements he's making. I think he's giving us just enough of a response for each post so that he doesn't have to come to terms with what he's saying doesn't actually make any sense.

What?


Are you incapable of understanding simple questions? Perhaps another mistake by god?

Everything is created by god. You are advocating modifying gods' work due to your own belief that these creations are a "problem". Which is it? Is god infallible? Or is he not responsible for creation?

[QUOTE]First off, there's more to a person's makeup than just genetics, brain chemistry would seem to be the strongest indicator at this time.

As is clinical depression based on brain chemistry. Hmmm, maybe the brain is messed up?

Secondly, if homosexuality can be "unlearned" then by that same bases so can heterosexuality, can't it?

That's my whole argument. That the reason homosexuality exists is because people "unlearned" heterosexuality.

You're grasping at straws here, the only way for your whole theory of god's relationship with humanity to work is that it remain a choice one can enter into. So you'll look for any way to do that.

Are you talking about entering into homosexuality or into a relationship with God?

He didn't. God said no such thing.

Well, the God of the Bible did.

Under your logic, we can't treat diabetes, cystic fibrosis, or any other disease children are born with. They were born with it, so it must be how God wanted (in the sense that He wants perfection) to be.

Whereas, I see from Scripture that God allows (does not make) people to be certain ways and have certain problems as judgement for their sinful nature and He commands us to be merciful (as vessels of His mercy) and correct those problems as best we can.


So infants are born w/ crippling diseases and other "problems" due to sins they committed in the womb? Or is it the parents fault? Preemptive punishment for sins they haven't committed yet?

I'm noticing a pattern here. Edwardis isn't following the train of logic through the statements he's making. I think he's giving us just enough of a response for each post so that he doesn't have to come to terms with what he's saying doesn't actually make any sense.

Are you surprised by this? It's practically required to be a biblical literalist.

Correct some person, with so far no biblical backing of infallibility that I have ever seen, claimed so

Actually more correct would some guy 2000 years ago in a completely different language was recorded to have claimed to have said such a thing.

Leviticus was a text created by clergy as a guidebook to other clergy on how to answe questions among the followers.

As such, the vilification of homosexuality by the clergy served a similar role as the vilification of eating pork: To protect the health of the community. Pork was potentially dangerous unless properly prepared, refrigerated and/or cooked. So the folowers were told it was sinful. Similarly, among competing tribes and foreign powers, there was strength through numbers. it was through the rapid growth in population that communities grew in power and could protect themselves from invaders. In such a community, it would be prudent to endorse child-bearing relationships as holy and anything else as sinful.

It's all pretty straightforward that much of those early works were designed to govern and control the people by playing on their beliefs that the clergy's authority to dictate the day to day lives of the followers derived from God.

So you admit there are many interpretations of the bible? Then how can you say you are correct when you know you might be misinterpreting it? Maybe "man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman" is against a man cheating on his wife with another man? You don't know. God didn't make it clear enough. It's his fault if you get it wrong.

There are many interpretations of Scripture, but only one can be correct. I reject the interpretation of Abraham and Issac because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. God mad it perfectly clear, which is why I believe that I am not misinterpreting it.

Well, the God of the Bible did.

No He didn't. The clergy did.

Under your logic, we can't treat diabetes, cystic fibrosis, or any other disease children are born with. They were born with it, so it must be how God wanted (in the sense that He wants perfection) to be.

Whereas, I see from Scripture that God allows (does not make) people to be certain ways and have certain problems as judgement for their sinful nature and He commands us to be merciful (as vessels of His mercy) and correct those problems as best we can.

You're making false distinctions between "allowing" something to happen, and "wanting" something to happen. True, they are different, but the result is the same. God knows what will happen if he does or does not do something. If he has a plan, he's not laid back about anything, because he's got shit to put into motion so that his plan comes to fruition.

You simply don't want to think about what you're saying. If god allows these things to happen, then maybe he allowed people to be gay. Maybe he allowed his scripture to be incorrect. Maybe he allowed good people to die for no reason.

You have no glass into the mind of god, therefore you cannot say what he does and does not allow for, especially when you assert that some things are wrong because god MIGHT have felt a specific way about it - you simply don't know, and are basing your entire belief system around such things. To do so is not only to miss the entire point of the death of Christ, but is also blasphemy to say that you would know something about god's mind and intent for certain.

I'm noticing a pattern here. Edwardis isn't following the train of logic through the statements he's making. I think he's giving us just enough of a response for each post so that he doesn't have to come to terms with what he's saying doesn't actually make any sense.

Oh, I've noticed that ages ago. I just enjoy pointing out the errors of his ways. :D

There are many interpretations of Scripture, but only one can be correct. I reject the interpretation of Abraham and Issac because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. God mad it perfectly clear, which is why I believe that I am not misinterpreting it.
In other words, you believe what you believe, and there's no other backing for it. Just come to grips with that. There's no logical argument that makes your position any stronger than any other.

I have to go to class. When I return, I'll post a "manifesto" of sorts, so that I'll explain everything and won't be putting paradoxes (not contradictions) up all the time.

That's my whole argument. That the reason homosexuality exists is because people "unlearned" heterosexuality.

Nope. Most people are born bisexual. Some are born absolutely heterosexual, some absolutely homosexual, but most people will actually find themselves somewhere between the two extremes.


Are you talking about entering into homosexuality or into a relationship with God?

Listening to the way you describe god, I think I'd rather enter homosexuality. :fluffle:

I have to go to class. When I return, I'll post a "manifesto" of sorts, so that I'll explain everything and won't be putting paradoxes (not contradictions) up all the time.

Communist. ^^

Why would you WANT to treat it, though?
People tried for the longest time to correct and cure lefthanded people... it was a completely pointless effort that made the children suffer needlessly, just to conform to social norms. We should be above that today.

First, If it is true that homosexual orientation can be detected in some people as young as pre-school age, then I doubt very much that the medication (if there was such a thing) would be a choice of the youth but of the parents.
Second, we should be above what today? If a chemical imbalance causes the organs to not develop (like shortsightedness or left-handedness) and this one affects the brain itself, how would it immoral to treat it if you can?

In the end what’s the difference on one hand it is at least part chemical and some asswhipe is going to recommend medication to fix the “problem” and on the other side they will try to make it sound like a mental disorder and recommend therapy to fix the “problem”

Yet so far they have failed to actually prove it is a “problem” with any sort of actual real world data anyways. But they don’t seem to stop that from being ignorant or intolerant

They have also failed to prove that it is caused by a physical condition at all, and that was my primary point. No reason to pretend that the homosexual brain is somehow 'broken' by having a different chemical balance than the heterosexual brain...

I'm sure it's been presented before. It still follows the arguement of god created "imperfections", including ADHD.

For example; God did not create the cleft lip a child might be born with, it is our job to fix it for the child if it is within our ability to do so.

Our bodies are broken and weak and impermanent. We age, we are easy to injure, we grow old, we get sick, we die. Our perfect bodies come after this life, not in this life. The scripture does not say that we should not treat our ailments because God gave our illnesses to us on purpose.

Theoretically speaking, you can 'cure' homosexuality. Reagan himself said we should try to find one. But the discussion is SHOULD we try to cure it - ever seen X-Men 3? It'd be kind of like that, I suppose. It's a suggestion that something that defines a person can be a terrible thing at the basest of levels and should be removed from that person as soon as possible. Just the idea that people would be looking for a cure is immensely offensive and horrible to me, and I'm not even gay.

It is said (by that website already linked to by someone else) that 50% of homosexual men grew up being teased and/or were thought of as 'sissies' in their culture during their youth. If true, than it can be assumed that a boy of ten (before sexual maturity) already knows he isn't as strong as the other boys etc., and likely wonders 'why' he is different etc., what would be wrong with treating the condition at that stage? (if the link posted above can be trusted on this, I have a hard time believing it myself).

Ok I just converted to a Pentecost and I love it. But here is the problem!! Ok a belive in everything my religion says to belive and i really do agree but their is one thing im not for sure on.... The topic had to do with the g** people go to hell! My other friends who are like me belive it is a devil act trying to oust you from the teachings of Jesus and God. I dont belive that though..Paul wasnt hating it he was hating "types" and immoral practices from it. But im sooooo confused and i need some help from Pentecostlas and everyone abroad... I dont belive it and know for a fact that god made all people the same!!!!! When it comes to that topic I leen more to the MCC idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church

God's standard is perfect. Sin is displeasing to God, whether it be homesexualtiy, adultery, fornication, lieing, stealing, or anything that is contrary to the law of God. Man has fallen from the presfect standard of God since Adam. But Jesus came to save us and restore us to God. Listen, God didnot come for perfect people.... He came for the sinners like you and me... God loves the sinners but He hates the sin. and inorder for us to understand HIs love and mercy toward us we must understand His standards and how far we've fallen from it ! He came for the sinners to save and restore them. Sinners are the very reason for whom He died. One can justify anything in this world if he wants to. so lets not justify sin but lets accpet God's standard and make the Bible the only thing we belive in, not the teachings of any church. (srry no offense intended)

and by the way the i dont belive in a "religion" called pentecostalism. God did not ask us to convert to any religion. He asked us to have a"relationship" with Him. and He is not coming back for pentecostals, baptisits or any such denominations but for those who have a personal relationship with Him and have made Him the Lord and King of their lives. This is not by any means to put anyone down. PLease dont get me wrong

Leviticus was a text created by clergy as a guidebook to other clergy on how to answe questions among the followers.

As such, the vilification of homosexuality by the clergy served a similar role as the vilification of eating pork: To protect the health of the community. Pork was potentially dangerous unless properly prepared, refrigerated and/or cooked. So the folowers were told it was sinful. Similarly, among competing tribes and foreign powers, there was strength through numbers. it was through the rapid growth in population that communities grew in power and could protect themselves from invaders. In such a community, it would be prudent to endorse child-bearing relationships as holy and anything else as sinful.

It's all pretty straightforward that much of those early works were designed to govern and control the people by playing on their beliefs that the clergy's authority to dictate the day to day lives of the followers derived from God.

Very well put I was reffering to NT refference such as romans but I agree with your view on lev

That's working on the idea that God is capable of lying, which He is not.

You would presume to speak for god? You would take an all knowing, all powerful entity and put limitations on it? Not only just limitations, but you'd claim that you, YOU, a mere mortal, could know what god was thinking?

There is only one time when you might say that God tested a man by the means you suggest: Abraham with Isaac.

You just screwed yourself. YOu say god can't lie. Didn't god lie to Abraham, when he said he wanted Abraham to kill Isaac?

Either god lied, or he changed his mind.

Either he is capable of lying, or incapable of being infallable. Take your pick.

You would presume to speak for god? You would take an all knowing, all powerful entity and put limitations on it? Not only just limitations, but you'd claim that you, YOU, a mere mortal, could know what god was thinking?



You just screwed yourself. YOu say god can't lie. Didn't god lie to Abraham, when he said he wanted Abraham to kill Isaac?

Either god lied, or he changed his mind.

Either he is capable of lying, or incapable of being infallable. Take your pick.

Quite so. If the bible is infallable, you must take it all. Once you realize you can't possibly take every interpretation as truth, you must concede that the bible has been written in such a way that it cannot be taken as infallable.

Very well put I was reffering to NT refference such as romans but I agree with your view on lev

Well, the power of the clergy and the importance of safeguarding their authority never really changed. The early catholic church's selection of canon in the 3rd century is a perfect example of their desire to maintain their own power. They were very careful about their selections of what texts would one day become known as the New Testament and which ones wouldn't. These early interpretations and selections of canon became the groundwork for the religious authority the modern Cathoic Church and it's branchings and tributary christian religions were based on. While the truth was protected as much as could be(the greatest lies are firmly grounded in truth), the solidarity and unity of the church and the defining of the source of their authority( Christ as the Son in the Trinity) were their top priorities.

Well, the power of the clergy and the importance of safeguarding their authority never really changed. The early catholic church's selection of canon in the 3rd century is aperfect example of their desire to maintain their own power. They were very careful about their selections of what texts would one day become known as the New Testament and which ones wouldn't. These early interpretations and selections of canon became the groundwork for the religious authority the modern Cathoic Church and it's branchings and tributary christian religions were based on. The truth, while protected as much as could be(the greatest lies are firmly grounded in truth), the solidarity and unity of the church and the deining of the source of their authority( Christ as the Son in the Trinity) was their top priorities.

Yup. They actually debated on which Revelations chapter to put in the bible - which ones you say? Well, the one we have in the bible now, and then another one written by a completely different person, which, if I remember correctly, included Jesus going to hell and saving many people and bringing them up to heaven with him.

Holy shit how can there be two?

Because god divined neither of them. They're two interpretations of the same idea, one of which happen to develop the story more clearly, and would require more explanation on the part of the church to get people to follow, so they ditched it and went with the one we have now.

Well, the power of the clergy and the importance of safeguarding their authority never really changed. The early catholic church's selection of canon in the 3rd century is a perfect example of their desire to maintain their own power. They were very careful about their selections of what texts would one day become known as the New Testament and which ones wouldn't. These early interpretations and selections of canon became the groundwork for the religious authority the modern Cathoic Church and it's branchings and tributary christian religions were based on. The truth, while protected as much as could be(the greatest lies are firmly grounded in truth), the solidarity and unity of the church and the defining of the source of their authority( Christ as the Son in the Trinity) were their top priorities.
which is why I find the stress of the word of paul rather then that of christ a bit wierd in this case specialy in concideration of jesuses position as re-afferming or modifying law

Their "Athority" is derived from this idea yet in the case of homosexuality they are "showing their hand" in the fact that it does not matter what JESUS said about the affermation of the law but the simple fact that it is in the text is enough specially when they picked and chose the text

which is why I find the stress of the word of paul rather then that of christ a bit wierd in this case specialy in concideration of jesuses position as re-afferming or modifying law

Their "Athority" is derived from this idea yet in the case of homosexuality they are "showing their hand" in the fact that it does not matter what JESUS said about the affermation of the law but the simple fact that it is in the text is enough specially when they picked and chose the text

Exactly. when the 'infallibilty' of a document is confirmed only by the document itself, how can anybody take for granted it's infallibilty? Especially when that document has been edited from time to time.

Exactly. when the 'infallibilty' of a document is confirmed only by the document itself, how can anybody take for granted it's infallibilty? Especially when that document has been edited from time to time.

Lol you know it is nice to see someone around here that allows reality to cover the parts of their religion that exist in this world and faith rule what is beyond that
Rather then allowing the faith part to flow over and block the reality of humans and our acts

You and Depub and a few others I have enjoyed talking with

Exactly. when the 'infallibilty' of a document is confirmed only by the document itself, how can anybody take for granted it's infallibilty? Especially when that document has been edited from time to time.

Yeah it just blows my mind how people can sit there with a straight face and say to me that everything in the bible is straight from god and is entirely correct.

Well I dont want to go to hell...and dont want to be in a religion where g**'s are frowned upon in an right-winged manor!

Yet you frown on them by using asterisks instead of letters. The word is "gay". If you can't stand to use the word or spell it on a keyboard, you probably don't need to be engaged in a discussion centered around the topic. Just a thought.

Lol you know it is nice to see someone around here that allows reality to cover the parts of their religion that exist in this world and faith rule what is beyond that
Rather then allowing the faith part to flow over and block the reality of humans and our acts

You and Depub and a few others I have enjoyed talking with

The strange part is that it's made my faith stronger rather than weaker. :)

The strange part is that it's made my faith stronger rather than weaker. :)

That's exactly how it should be. Too many, though, are simply afraid to question that which they think to be the final and everpresent answer to all life's questions. It means uncertainty, it means being wrong, it means having to continue searching. Some people just aren't strong enough to do that.

You would presume to speak for god? You would take an all knowing, all powerful entity and put limitations on it? Not only just limitations, but you'd claim that you, YOU, a mere mortal, could know what god was thinking?

If God revealed himself to us through the Bible, then yes, we can know what God was thinking.



You just screwed yourself. YOu say god can't lie. Didn't god lie to Abraham, when he said he wanted Abraham to kill Isaac?

The only way you can make out that God was lying is to change the content or context of what the Scriptures say. My reading of them tells me that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

“''Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”'' Genesis 22:2

Where is the lie? All I can see is a commandment.


Either god lied, or he changed his mind.

Neither. He simply didn't tell Abraham everything at the time. It was supposed to be a test, after all. A rather tough one, at that. But it is unnecessary to label God as lying or changing his mind.

Incidentally, there are other references in the Bible to God changing his mind, particularly where God and Abraham were negotiating the future of Sodom, or Moses pleading with God to not destroy the people. A changed mind, however, does not imply that God is fickle or evil or that he doesn't know the future, but may be an indication of how close he allows us to be to himself, how important our decisions are to him. Alternatively, it could be an indication of our limitations (being stuck within time, limited perspective, ignorance, etc.) rather than God actually changing his mind as we would understand a human changing their mind.


Either he is capable of lying, or incapable of being infallable. Take your pick.

There are several more reasonable alternatives, Mr. Black and White.

The strange part is that it's made my faith stronger rather than weaker. :)

That it can ... because that is the area where faith is key.

When you extend that faith beyond that area then you have visible contradictions at times it will not always match up with changing reality

If God revealed himself to us through the Bible, then yes, we can know what God was thinking.







So what was god thinking by knowingly making us fallible then punishing us for it?

snip





Neither. He simply didn't tell Abraham everything at the time. It was supposed to be a test, after all. A rather tough one, at that. But it is unnecessary to label God as lying or changing his mind.

Incidentally, there are other references in the Bible to God changing his mind, particularly where God and Abraham were negotiating the future of Sodom, or Moses pleading with God to not destroy the people. A changed mind, however, does not imply that God is fickle or evil or that he doesn't know the future, but may be an indication of how close he allows us to be to himself, how important our decisions are to him. Alternatively, it could be an indication of our limitations (being stuck within time, limited perspective, ignorance, etc.) rather than God actually changing his mind as we would understand a human changing their mind.



There are several more reasonable alternatives, Mr. Black and White.
But if god allows his perfect actions to be swayed by our imperfect perceptions can one say his ultimate actions are still perfect? And sense it is god actualy following through with thoes actions is he capable of doing incorrect actions?

If God revealed himself to us through the Bible, then yes, we can know what God was thinking.

Not if there's more than one interpretation.

The only way you can make out that God was lying is to change the content or context of what the Scriptures say. My reading of them tells me that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

“''Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”'' Genesis 22:2

Where is the lie? All I can see is a commandment.

The lie is in the misunderstanding and the allowance of said misunderstanding. The lie is in allowing him to think he's killing his son, when it's just a sheep. You can't ever trust the word of a god who "tests" you in such a way to make you believe one thing and have something completely different happen.

Neither. He simply didn't tell Abraham everything at the time. It was supposed to be a test, after all. A rather tough one, at that. But it is unnecessary to label God as lying or changing his mind.

It's very necessary when dealing with a religion that demands your blind faith.

Incidentally, there are other references in the Bible to God changing his mind, particularly where God and Abraham were negotiating the future of Sodom, or Moses pleading with God to not destroy the people. A changed mind, however, does not imply that God is fickle or evil or that he doesn't know the future, but may be an indication of how close he allows us to be to himself, how important our decisions are to him. Alternatively, it could be an indication of our limitations (being stuck within time, limited perspective, ignorance, etc.) rather than God actually changing his mind as we would understand a human changing their mind.

Cite them, please, by verse. God can, by definition, never change his mind like a human. He can know ahead of time that something will happen, and can thereby act like he wants something to happen up to a certain point, and then act differently and make it SEEM like he changed his mind, but he cannot suddenly realize something he did not previously take into account and change his decision like a human can. It's an illusion, a play put on so that we can feel that we have some type of influence over a god who already has everything planned out. It's a form of control, nothing more.



There are several more reasonable alternatives, Mr. Black and White.

Simply put: No, there aren't. God is absolute, because he is everything. EVERYTHING. He is every concept, every action, every reason, every detail, every sun, every star, every person, every cell - EVERYTHING. That's pretty absolute, and the only way to deal with absolutes is with absolutes.

As an outsider, the USA seems to be obsessed with religions that are very homophobic in their opinions. As a gay man, I really wouldn't like to live near to these people. In my opinion, god doesn't exist. I don't believe in any religion. As for these people that say that it is all about choice, there is no way homosexuality is a choice. Believe me, when I was about 16 or 17 I tried to choose to be attracted to women but it wasn't happening.

I have to go to class. When I return, I'll post a "manifesto" of sorts, so that I'll explain everything and won't be putting paradoxes (not contradictions) up all the time.

Yay! Something else we can shred and use against you when you post other statements CONTRADICTING what you've stated previously.

Yay! Something else we can shred and use against you when you post other statements CONTRADICTING what you've stated previously.

Essentially. I think he's really just trying to wear us out with illogical and short statements.

Essentially. I think he's really just trying to wear us out with illogical and short statements.

But that would be unprecedented in the history of NSG.

So what was god thinking by knowingly making us fallible then punishing us for it?

Not his original intentions since hell was not made for man but it was made for the fallen angels

Not his original intentions since hell was not made for man but it was made for the fallen angels

And yet he knew we would end up going there (omniscience) hence he knowingly made it for us and for us to be fallible. Therefore he is punishing us for him making us fallible.

And yet he knew we would end up going there (omniscience) hence he knowingly made it for us and for us to be fallible. Therefore he is punishing us for him making us fallible.

Yeah I got your point now. Though he is giving us the choice to choose him or not. If you do or not then the answer is simple. :fluffle:
So its not that he made us just to punish us. He made us and gave us a choice and if we dont choose the "right" one then option 2 comes into play.

Not his original intentions since hell was not made for man but it was made for the fallen angels

You believe god didn't think a plan through? He knew the future - he knew what hell was going to be used for.

You believe god didn't think a plan through? He knew the future - he knew what hell was going to be used for.

I am not a pentacostal person just making it clear to everyone

I dont believe he is limited to that whatsoever(sorry if i made it seem that way). Though knowing the future and being in the present as well as being in the future and even in the past are all concepts that are hard for my brain to comprehend. Though it sure would be cool to be like Hiro Nakamura(some of you will know who that is). Eternity is hard for me to grasp just like infinity. This probably goes for everyone else. As the bible answers many things I feel it leaves so many questions to be answered still. Though from your question its based on God having the sort of conventional thinking that we humans have though that of course not being true. Since God is limitless... his "thinking" would probably be limitless too and ect... i can go on but its causing my brain to hurt thinking of endless possibilities and other eccentricities.

Yeah I got your point now. Though he is giving us the choice to choose him or not. If you do or not then the answer is simple. :fluffle:
So its not that he made us just to punish us. He made us and gave us a choice and if we dont choose the "right" one then option 2 comes into play.

But he already knows which option we're going to choose. So, in effect, some people are made to be punished.

Yeah I got your point now. Though he is giving us the choice to choose him or not. If you do or not then the answer is simple. :fluffle:
So its not that he made us just to punish us. He made us and gave us a choice and if we dont choose the "right" one then option 2 comes into play.

You clearly haven't read the thread.

He's giving us the choice by way of writing a vague book which can, for good reason, be very highly doubted due to the fact that it was written by humans and translated so many times, not mentioning the fact that the church had such to gain by controlling the creation of such a book. He's not telling us in person, he's not even giving us a clear "yes or no" sign, he's just letting us choose to walk through the invisible wall which may or may not exist and may or may not lead to the edge of a cliff or to choose jumping off the cliff in the beginning and hope the lake of fire down there is just a test of your faith.

You can't say the bible is the direct word of god without at least a small turd coming from your mouth, because it's simply bullshit. God didn't give us much of a choice.

But he already knows which option we're going to choose. So, in effect, some people are made to be punished.
Yes--the ideas of free will and predestination are incompatible.

I am not a pentacostal person just making it clear to everyone

I dont believe he is limited to that whatsoever(sorry if i made it seem that way). Though knowing the future and being in the present as well as being in the future and even in the past are all concepts that are hard for my brain to comprehend. Though it sure would be cool to be like Hiro Nakamura(some of you will know who that is). Eternity is hard for me to grasp just like infinity. This probably goes for everyone else. As the bible answers many things I feel it leaves so many questions to be answered still. Though from your question its based on God having the sort of conventional thinking that we humans have though that of course not being true. Since God is limitless... his "thinking" would probably be limitless too and ect... i can go on but its causing my brain to hurt thinking of endless possibilities and other eccentricities.

Exactly. His thinking and existence and everything about him would be stretched to infinite, but within that infinite amount of wisdom and perception, he has the ability to speak in human terms, from a human mind, in a way that humans could clearly understand his meaning and make an educated choice from. He didn't do that. He chose not to do that.

I disagree. Since that is the purpose of the bible. Gods word as it is described. It is how a Christian gets their relationship with God and gets their understanding of him. Though it does not tell EVERYTHING it does fill us in quite alot on necessary things. Though concepts of things such as eternity and infinity will endlessly have us guessing since we cannot grasp it in anyway shape or form. The only way we try to grasp it is by limiting it and that of course is wrong to the bone. Since there is no limit to infinity..... must get advil... brain about... to... explode!

I disagree. Since that is the purpose of the bible. Gods word as it is described. It is how a Christian gets their relationship with God and gets their understanding of him. Though it does not tell EVERYTHING it does fill us in quite alot on necessary things. Though concepts of things such as eternity and infinity will endlessly have us guessing since we cannot grasp it in anyway shape or form. The only way we try to grasp it is by limiting it and that of course is wrong to the bone. Since there is no limit to infinity..... must get advil... brain about... to... explode!

So you're saying the bible is absolutely clear in all its aspects and has no contradictions?

I disagree. Since that is the purpose of the bible. Gods word as it is described. It is how a Christian gets their relationship with God and gets their understanding of him. Though it does not tell EVERYTHING it does fill us in quite alot on necessary things. Though concepts of things such as eternity and infinity will endlessly have us guessing since we cannot grasp it in anyway shape or form. The only way we try to grasp it is by limiting it and that of course is wrong to the bone. Since there is no limit to infinity..... must get advil... brain about... to... explode!

You're going about it the wrong way. The bible itself is not infinite. God is, but he's created a Cusomer Service department that we can talk to in reference to their product, The Bible(tm). We call the hotline, sometimes someone picks up, mostly not. When they do pick up, it's usually some bitchy 17 year old who's worrying more about the color of her nails than the situation you're in.

The bible is not clear. The bible is not certain. The bible is not the thing that we can connect to god through - the only thing we can find god through is your own heart and your own mind. If you're true to what you believe god wants, given all the facts and feelings you have, then you can never go wrong. Any just god can never fault you for not being sure.

I disagree. Since that is the purpose of the bible. Gods word as it is described. It is how a Christian gets their relationship with God and gets their understanding of him. Though it does not tell EVERYTHING it does fill us in quite alot on necessary things. Though concepts of things such as eternity and infinity will endlessly have us guessing since we cannot grasp it in anyway shape or form. The only way we try to grasp it is by limiting it and that of course is wrong to the bone. Since there is no limit to infinity..... must get advil... brain about... to... explode!

And yet god could not be arsed to make sure that the book… A) from the get go was a clear concise non contradictory text. B) Was clearly translated into all necessary languages rather then allowing human intervention C) Not allowed to be changed by clergy throughout history

When his children are dependant on one book to outline their relationship with god (when the stakes are eternal punishment) I think an all loving being would take the time to make it as clear as possible to everybody involved.

And yet god could not be arsed to make sure that the book… A) from the get go was a clear concise non contradictory text. B) Was clearly translated into all necessary languages rather then allowing human intervention C) Not allowed to be changed by clergy throughout history

When his children are dependant on one book to outline their relationship with god (when the stakes are eternal punishment) I think an all loving being would take the time to make it as clear as possible to everybody involved.

Sadly, that was not the case. Either he didn't care enough, or it's not his word. That's really the only situation I can come up with based on my beliefs.

I disagree. Since that is the purpose of the bible. Gods word as it is described. It is how a Christian gets their relationship with God and gets their understanding of him. Though it does not tell EVERYTHING it does fill us in quite alot on necessary things. Though concepts of things such as eternity and infinity will endlessly have us guessing since we cannot grasp it in anyway shape or form. The only way we try to grasp it is by limiting it and that of course is wrong to the bone. Since there is no limit to infinity..... must get advil... brain about... to... explode!

Here's a question. Which version of the bible is definitive?

Here's a question. Which version of the bible is definitive?

His version, of course. *ba dum pum, psh*

Here's a question. Which version of the bible is definitive?

So much more succinct then my point lol

So much more succinct then my point lol

I'm just here to help. :)

I grace this thread with my 2000th post.

Amen.

Well simply you guys blind yourself to the fact that every Christian is to have a fear of God. Though the fear is to be reverence to him. God simply showed he can do whatever he wants in the old testament where he had one man kill 400 people after them witnessing Gods actions. God is loving but he is no push over which is what im getting from you guys. You think he is some pansy in a pink dress who hugs people and says its okay. If God wanted to he could destroy everything around you for a mile but leave you perfectly fine with no marks or anything. How you take it depends on you... whether you want to believe he did that to show you he is real and that he protects you or he did that to strike fear in your heart(which would most likely be the opressing words of Satan if not then your own mindset).

The bible is also very clear and easy to understand and if anything its being dumbed down for those who are pretty much illiterate so they can get the bible themselves. Yes the text may be changed in the process but the meaning and power never changes regardless of the changed text. Though if you want straight up real bible with no change in the text then head over to Israel and pick up one of those which is in hebrew, greek, and aramaic(i believe not sure). The bible can be just as complex as it can be simple. It has an incredible amount of depth that studying it pretty much can go on for your entire life and not know everything about it. Yet you can read it and have understanding without having to dig up bones.

*snip the dodging of the question*

Which version of the bible is definitive and why?

My reading of them tells me that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

“''Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”'' Genesis 22:2

Where is the lie? All I can see is a commandment.



Neither. He simply didn't tell Abraham everything at the time. It was supposed to be a test, after all. A rather tough one, at that. But it is unnecessary to label God as lying or changing his mind.

Congratulations, you just proved my point.

God said to Abraham "I want you to sacrifice your son for me." Now, did god actually truly want Abraham to kill Isaac?

If you say "no, it was just a test" then god lied to Abraham. God said "I want you to kill Isaac" but did not want him to kill Isaac. That, therefore, is a lie.

If you say "yes, god did want him to kill Isaac, but changed his mind and allowed him to sacrafice a sheep instead" then god changed his mind. And if god can change his mind, then his decision at one point is in error.

Either god lied to Abraham, or god was wrong. Either he lied, or he is fallable. That is the only two possible options.

By your own admission, god told abraham to go do something, something god didn't REALLY want him to do, in order to test his faith. That is a lie.

Well simply you guys blind yourself to the fact that every Christian is to have a fear of God. Though the fear is to be reverence to him. God simply showed he can do whatever he wants in the old testament where he had one man kill 400 people after them witnessing Gods actions. God is loving but he is no push over which is what im getting from you guys. You think he is some pansy in a pink dress who hugs people and says its okay. If God wanted to he could destroy everything around you for a mile but leave you perfectly fine with no marks or anything. How you take it depends on you... whether you want to believe he did that to show you he is real and that he protects you or he did that to strike fear in your heart(which would most likely be the opressing words of Satan if not then your own mindset).

The bible is also very clear and easy to understand and if anything its being dumbed down for those who are pretty much illiterate so they can get the bible themselves. Yes the text may be changed in the process but the meaning and power never changes regardless of the changed text. Though if you want straight up real bible with no change in the text then head over to Israel and pick up one of those which is in hebrew, greek, and aramaic(i believe not sure). The bible can be just as complex as it can be simple. It has an incredible amount of depth that studying it pretty much can go on for your entire life and not know everything about it. Yet you can read it and have understanding without having to dig up bones.
What bible are you reading? The meaning changes in almost every version and it is full of apparent contradictions.

Maybe you should stop wasting your time admonishing us and read a few of these versions for your self because unlike most of us apparently you have not read it. (that or you are choosing to remain ignorant)

Which version of the bible is definitive and why?

He just made up some BS that they are all the same … apparently he never read more then one (if one at all)

He just made up some BS that they are all the same … apparently he never read more then one (if one at all)

As is typical, he's dodging the question due to the inarguable fact that all of the versions differ, many times in major areas, and cannot all be the "true" word of god.

As is typical, he's dodging the question due to the inarguable fact that all of the versions differ, many times in major areas, and cannot all be the "true" word of god.

Not to mention the issues from within a single version in and of themselves


Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Apparently the saviors last speech was not important enough to accuratly record if he was on a mountain or plain

As is typical, he's dodging the question due to the inarguable fact that all of the versions differ, many times in major areas, and cannot all be the "true" word of god.
And that's the case even if you go back as far as you can in the original Greek.

Not to mention the issues from within a single version in and of themselves



Apparently the saviors last speech was not important enough to accuratly record if he was on a mountain or plain

My personal favorite is that Joseph, step-father of Jesus, apparently had two daddies:

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

My personal favorite is that Joseph, step-father of Jesus, apparently had two daddies:

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Yeah I am also a fan of "Can god be seen"

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

My personal favorite is that Joseph, step-father of Jesus, apparently had two daddies:

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Hah, that's a new one for me. /ggchristians

*Hell and thunder*

I demand this topic be bumped, and that more fundamentalists come and replace the ones we have destroyed!

*Hell and thunder*

I demand this topic be bumped, and that more fundamentalists come and replace the ones we have destroyed!

Unfortunately, they haven't been destroyed. They just scurried back into their holes to come out again later and repeat themselves while ignoring every previous question.

My personal favorite is that Joseph, step-father of Jesus, apparently had two daddies:

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I've heard 2 reasons for this, the first is the one I think makes the most sense...

The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke calls Joseph the "son of Heli" because of that. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son has precedent. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the son-in-law of Heli.

2. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the adopted son of Heli (if they mean adopted via marriage than I agree with it, but if not, I don't know why this story would have any credibility, I don't know the source of it.

I've heard 2 reasons for this, the first is the one I think makes the most sense...

The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke calls Joseph the "son of Heli" because of that. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son has precedent. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the son-in-law of Heli.

2. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the adopted son of Heli (if they mean adopted via marriage than I agree with it, but if not, I don't know why this story would have any credibility, I don't know the source of it.

So the bible says "son" but doesn't mean "son"? It clearly says that Joseph was the son of both Jacob and Heli. Not "son-in-law". The Jerusalem Talmud is apocryphal literature and not recognized by most churches as it contains many inconsistancies w/ traditional christian theology.

Yeah I am also a fan of "Can god be seen"

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

In short, God's essence and entirety has not been seen, the Holy Spirit felt, Jesus felt and seen, the OT quotes about ‘seeing’ God refer to acronym/vassals meant to be used as a substance that can be 'seen' by a mortal person, different than the seen which is horao the word may be used literally or figuratively. When figuratively employed, it conveys the concept of perception, recognition, experience, etc....

Here:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/can_god_be_seen

So the bible says "son" but doesn't mean "son"? It clearly says that Joseph was the son of both Jacob and Heli. Not "son-in-law". The Jerusalem Talmud is apocryphal literature and not recognized by most churches as it contains many inconsistancies w/ traditional christian theology.


It does mean son, then and now. In how many weddings is the groom called Son by his new wife's father immediately following ceremony? Even today? Pretty much always.

Just dont turn into this guy or go to New Jersey and you should be OK.


http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r...fredphelps.jpg

It does mean son, then and now. In how many weddings is the groom called Son by his new wife's father immediately following ceremony? Even today? Pretty much always.

So you're trying to say that Josephs' geneology is then traced through both his wife and his own after marriage? Don't think so. Then or now.

I don't know what I expected to see when I started looking over this thread.

What fascinates me is the utter arrogance of people who claim the Scriptures are utter bunk, but then pretend to posess greater understanding of the meaning of those Scriptures than people who study them with an open heart and mind.

Yes, I am implying that some of you are closed minded. You'll survive.


The most laughable part is, of course, that they accuse the Scripture-reader of closed mindedness. Ah well. What was it the Stones said in Sympathy for the Devil? All the cops are criminals and all the sinners saints? I love classic rock. They sometimes hit the nail squarely on the head.

For people who present themselves as representing the open minded bunch, some of you folks are remarkably judgemental of others. If Edwardis had come on here saying he'd lived as a heterosexual but then one day realized that his true self was homosexual, you'd congratulate him for his courage and personal conviction. Reverse the polarity, and you show your true colors in short order. Kinda like being in a gang, once you join it, you can never leave without severe reactions from the rest of the group.

Was it Szanth that arrogantly claimed to have destroyed the fundamentalists who debated here? That's frighteningly arrogant, too. Do you really think your twisting of terms and pretense at Scriptural understanding is strong enough to make somene go away convinced? All you're doing is convincing such people that they can't come here and expect to be heard in intelligent discourse... that they can instead expect to be shouted down and ganed up on until further discussion becomes pointless. Why would someone persist for long? You either show yourself to be willing to talk openly together, or you don't.

But then maybe you WANT them to stick around because using them as your moralistic punching bag is how you self-validate. That's fairly sad.

And no, I'm not a troll. I took a break from Nationstates for awhile and my account starved. I was New Bretonnia. I know some of you remember me so I won't bother rehashing my old statements.

...unless you really want me to.

It does mean son, then and now. In how many weddings is the groom called Son by his new wife's father immediately following ceremony? Even today? Pretty much always.

Which is actually a fair point, but not worth anything when you consider it is not the ONLY inconsistency within the geneologies. Indeed, they differ on details as basic as how many interval generations might come between certain 'steps' in the familial chains - which is important when you consider that people often make a big deal about the 'fourteen generations from such to such' scenarios.

I've heard 2 reasons for this, the first is the one I think makes the most sense...

The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke calls Joseph the "son of Heli" because of that. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son has precedent. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the son-in-law of Heli.

2. Joseph was the son of Jacob and the adopted son of Heli (if they mean adopted via marriage than I agree with it, but if not, I don't know why this story would have any credibility, I don't know the source of it.

In the end a lot of these contradictions can be explained away

Correctly or not was not the issue we were talking about now but the fact that god allowed this convoluted text be his representation

In the end real error or not it is just another grey confusing area that god somhow feels justified letting it represent him to the masses when their eternal suffering is on the line

*snip*

Translation: I refuse to answer the questions asked so I'll red-herring the place to death.

Will you answer my question?

Which version of scripture is correct?

Translation: I refuse to answer the questions asked so I'll red-herring the place to death.

Will you answer my question?

Which version of scripture is correct?

Your point would be valid, if I were claiming to respond to that particular question. I was not. I had an entirely separate statement to make, and I made it. I hope I haven't confused you.

To OP: If you believe in God and are generally confused about this issue, why not tell him and ask him to give you a sign or something. I know a couple of christians who do this when they don't know about the meaning of something in the Bible, after all if it is really the word of God then he would know, right?

But alas, I am a mere agnostic with little knowledge of different branches of Christianity, so my opinions may appear flawed and pointless (to both sides) due to an excess of open-mindedness.

Translation: I refuse to answer the questions asked so I'll red-herring the place to death.

Will you answer my question?

Which version of scripture is correct?

QFE.

Also, yes, it was me who said we'd destroyed the little bastards, because it seemed like an appropriate verb to use - they showed us their sword, we cut their sword in half and stabbed them in the heart, and they left before they even had the chance to bleed.

Your point would be valid, if I were claiming to respond to that particular question. I was not. I had an entirely separate statement to make, and I made it. I hope I haven't confused you.

In other words, you are hijacking the thread to debate an entirely different topic?

QFE.

Also, yes, it was me who said we'd destroyed the little bastards, because it seemed like an appropriate verb to use - they showed us their sword, we cut their sword in half and stabbed them in the heart, and they left before they even had the chance to bleed.

I seem to recall Edwardis stating that he had to head off to class.

But whatever helps you preen your feathers.

In other words, you are hijacking the thread to debate an entirely different topic?

Yes that's what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

Yes that's what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

You realise you can start a different thread, if you have nothing to contribute to the topic on this one?

Hell - it's even a topic I might enjoy debating.

I seem to recall Edwardis stating that he had to head off to class.

But whatever helps you preen your feathers.

Class it may be, but he left with a hole in his chest regardless.

I don't know what I expected to see when I started looking over this thread.

What fascinates me is the utter arrogance of people who claim the Scriptures are utter bunk, but then pretend to posess greater understanding of the meaning of those Scriptures than people who study them with an open heart and mind.

Yes, I am implying that some of you are closed minded. You'll survive.

You're the closed-minded one here, because you assume that one cannot appreciate the Scriptures without believing that they are inerrant fact. I know them to be full of problems, contradictions and holes, but I appreciate them more now than I ever did when I was a believer because I see them for what they are--an incredible cultural snapshot of another time. The Old Testament is in essence a picture of a civilization growing from a group of small, unorganized tribes into a fledgling nation-state. It's like reading a more detailed Arthur legend, or the Iliad and the Odyssey, complete with magicians and intervening gods. And I won't even get into the poetry.

And as for the New Testament, at least as far as the Gospels are concerned, it's a curious meld of existent philosophy from the far east with newer Greek thought of the period. It's fascinating to read and study--as long as you don't get trapped into believing that it's factual and then have to make the contradictions work out by torturing logic like it's a poor Afghani picked up by mistake and tossed into Gitmo.

So if you want to talk about closed-mindedness, look in the mirror and talk to yourself.

As is typical, he's dodging the question due to the inarguable fact that all of the versions differ, many times in major areas, and cannot all be the "true" word of god.

You would not believe it if you were told which version is correct so why ask?

You don't want to know.
If you knew, you would have to change and you obviously have no desire to change.

You are not seeking the truth about the word of God.
You are seeking to blow smoke (by calling it an "Inarguable fact" that all versions differ).

That is not the point.
The point is: (or actually the major points are)
1) There is a God.
2) He (God) wants us to know him and love him.
3) He (God) has left a written record (written by fallible men) of his actions.
4) Man is guilty of sin against God.
5) He (God) Sent his son (Jesus) to die for man's sins against God.
6) Believe this and you will have eternal life.

Any version which fails to convey this is the wrong one.
Every version which includes these is acceptable.

Learn Greek so you can study the word in the original language.
(The Greek Septuagent was written before Jesus was born. Or you coulod learn Hebrew and read the Old Testament).
(I studied the language for 3 years so I could find the truth).

You're the closed-minded one here, because you assume that one cannot appreciate the Scriptures without believing that they are inerrant fact. I know them to be full of problems, contradictions and holes, but I appreciate them more now than I ever did when I was a believer because I see them for what they are--an incredible cultural snapshot of another time. The Old Testament is in essence a picture of a civilization growing from a group of small, unorganized tribes into a fledgling nation-state. It's like reading a more detailed Arthur legend, or the Iliad and the Odyssey, complete with magicians and intervening gods. And I won't even get into the poetry.

And as for the New Testament, at least as far as the Gospels are concerned, it's a curious meld of existent philosophy from the far east with newer Greek thought of the period. It's fascinating to read and study--as long as you don't get trapped into believing that it's factual and then have to make the contradictions work out by torturing logic like it's a poor Afghani picked up by mistake and tossed into Gitmo.

So if you want to talk about closed-mindedness, look in the mirror and talk to yourself.

... :( I'm sorry, Nazz, I imagine you as a girl because of that title you had, and because I'm fairly certain "Nazz" was a name of a girl from a cartoon I used to watch. I apologize in advance for imagining a woman pwning Brittania in your place.

Which is actually a fair point, but not worth anything when you consider it is not the ONLY inconsistency within the geneologies. Indeed, they differ on details as basic as how many interval generations might come between certain 'steps' in the familial chains - which is important when you consider that people often make a big deal about the 'fourteen generations from such to such' scenarios.

I agree that there are at least 4 different theories that I am aware of to try and come to an understanding for the differences between the two genealogies given in the gospels.

My particular favorite is the idea that Luke was giving Mary's family genealogy from Joseph back to David and not Joseph's paternal family, the view being that Heli died with no sons and Joseph became the heir apparent by being the husband of Mary the child of Heli. This would best explain why there are huge differences in the lists involved and the reason Luke would want to give us Mary’s should be self-evident.

My secondary point for being brief is that the accusations made here that the Heli ~ Jacob was a problem for Christianity is naive at best anyway. Barely scratching the surface of the real debate and yet they pretend to have put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak... silly at best and deserving of only a short reply (short accusation, short reply).

You would not believe it if you were told which version is correct so why ask?

You don't want to know.
If you knew, you would have to change and you obviously have no desire to change.

You are not seeking the truth about the word of God.
You are seeking to blow smoke (by calling it an "Inarguable fact" that all versions differ).

That is not the point.
The point is: (or actually the major points are)
1) There is a God.
2) He (God) wants us to know him and love him.
3) He (God) has left a written record (written by fallible men) of his actions.
4) Man is guilty of sin against God.
5) He (God) Sent his son (Jesus) to die for man's sins against God.
6) Believe this and you will have eternal life.

Any version which fails to convey this is the wrong one.
Every version which includes these is acceptable.

Learn Greek so you can study the word in the original language.
(The Greek Septuagent was written before Jesus was born. Or you coulod learn Hebrew and read the Old Testament).
(I studied the language for 3 years so I could find the truth).

Finally, someone responded.

Now, back it up with facts. I'll gladly change, if you can convince me that you're right. If all it took was some yokel to point to three or four books and go "this, this, and this" then I wouldn't have gotten this far, intellectually.

You admit to it being made by fallible men - how can you be sure anything from any book is correct?

You realise you can start a different thread, if you have nothing to contribute to the topic on this one?

Hell - it's even a topic I might enjoy debating.

Ok I take that to mean my reply wasn't obvious enough. I will elaborate and add in something for the OP.

Christianity, at its core, teaches that Homosexual behavior is sinful. Period. If you're Pentacostal then thats' what your church teaches. Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals of all flavors and Jehovah's Witnesses all teach the same thing.

You said you dind't want to be viewed as a right-winger... Well then your mistake is to let your political affiliation influence your spiritual understanding.

People on here, as well as the rest of the world will revile you and they will attempt to shout you down for stating those beliefs. They will attempt to confuse you by pretending a greater understanding of the Scriptures than you. They will operate under the premise that if you can't defeat them in a lopsided shout down then you must be wrong. They will attempt to convince you that if you can't quote the entire New Testament in Greek word for word then you know nothing about the Bible.

God makes every single person. He never said He made them all equal. Some people are born blind. Some are born missing limbs or mentally incapacitated. Such people will face greater challenges than someone born without those troubles.

Where do Gay people fall in that? I don't pretend to know, but I do know that it's not necessary to know ancient Greek to understand the simple fact that both the Bible AND the prevailing wisdom of the church teach us that certain behaviors are considered an abomination by God and that's true whether the idea is popular or not.

The world was round even when everyone thought it was flat.

If you find yourself unable to reconcile with that, then I suggest prayer with an open mind. Keep the faith. If we could just sit down and chart everything on paper in such simple terms, then we wouldn't need faith, would we?

And where does Faith come from? Well, it comes from the Holy Spirit. When we put our troubles into God's hands, He will make the truth known in our heart. This is different from simple belief. I can sit here and I can tell you that God is real and Jesus Christ is our Savior, and you might believe every word I say... but without the truth of it testified by the Holy Spirit directly in yoru heart, thats' all it is, simple belief, not faith. And faith isn't based on anything that I or anyone else can ever tell you. Faith is based on that testiminy.. the knowledge that God imparts to us into our heart directly. No human can give us that faith. It must come from God. Conversely, if you trust that faith, and you KNOW where it came from, then you require no further proof of God's love and divinity, and once you have that, then none of these troubles will harm you.

You're the closed-minded one here, because you assume that one cannot appreciate the Scriptures without believing that they are inerrant fact. I know them to be full of problems, contradictions and holes, but I appreciate them more now than I ever did when I was a believer because I see them for what they are--an incredible cultural snapshot of another time. The Old Testament is in essence a picture of a civilization growing from a group of small, unorganized tribes into a fledgling nation-state. It's like reading a more detailed Arthur legend, or the Iliad and the Odyssey, complete with magicians and intervening gods. And I won't even get into the poetry.

And as for the New Testament, at least as far as the Gospels are concerned, it's a curious meld of existent philosophy from the far east with newer Greek thought of the period. It's fascinating to read and study--as long as you don't get trapped into believing that it's factual and then have to make the contradictions work out by torturing logic like it's a poor Afghani picked up by mistake and tossed into Gitmo.

So if you want to talk about closed-mindedness, look in the mirror and talk to yourself.

I figured you'd be the first one to use the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument, Nazz.

I make no assumption. I know that to be fact. How can you say you appreciate the Scriptures and then from the other side of your mouth admit you believe it to be nothing more than a collection of ancient essays?

You say you were once a believer. I take you at your word.. but what you appear never to have posessed is Faith.

Class it may be, but he left with a hole in his chest regardless.

I doubt that.

I agree that there are at least 4 different theories that I am aware of to try and come to an understanding for the differences between the two genealogies given in the gospels.

My particular favorite is the idea that Luke was giving Mary's family genealogy from Joseph back to David and not Joseph's paternal family, the view being that Heli died with no sons and Joseph became the heir apparent by being the husband of Mary the child of Heli. This would best explain why there are huge differences in the lists involved and the reason Luke would want to give us Mary’s should be self-evident.

My secondary point for being brief is that the accusations made here that the Heli ~ Jacob was a problem for Christianity is naive at best anyway. Barely scratching the surface of the real debate and yet they pretend to have put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak... silly at best and deserving of only a short reply (short accusation, short reply).


Well, first - let me point out there are non-Biblical histories of the family tree inquestion - and neither of the biblical list accords with the external evidence, either.


Second - if the number of generations IS important - and people do make these assertions (14 generations for event A to event B, 14 more from event B to event C, and 14 more from event C to event D (or, the alleged birth of Messiah), then is it not important that we should actually KNOW the number of generations? Especially since even Matthew refers to this 'fact'?

Hebrew evidences conflict with both New Testament geneologies, even on the number of generations, and the the NT sources disagree with each other.


Third - the geneologies of the New Testament follow the patriarchal line. There is no logical reason why they should do this for most of their length, and then suddenly flip in the last verse... and only in one version.


Fourth - this is another of those internal inconsistencies of scripture - the New testament and the Old disagree, even. Luke and Genesis disagree over who the father of Shelah was.


Fifth - it is worthy of mention... one of the geneologies traces Jesus through Jeconiah - of who we are told no offspring could EVER sit on the throne of David.


Sixth - the geneologies conflict even over who the 'progenitor' of the line is, after David. Is it Solomon, or Nathan? You could argue this is okay, because they are tracing different lineages - but they obviously aren't SUPPOSED to be - because both lists trace through Zorobabel, son of Salathiel.

Ok I take that to mean my reply wasn't obvious enough. I will elaborate and add in something for the OP.

Christianity, at its core, teaches that Homosexual behavior is sinful. Period. If you're Pentacostal then thats' what your church teaches. Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals of all flavors and Jehovah's Witnesses all teach the same thing...


Interesting - you don't differentiate in your post between the persons you are supposed to be responding to - thus, I must assume all the rst of this post was aimed at someone other than myself, and you just didn't bother to make it clear.

'Christianity, at it's core', does not teach that homosexual behaviour is any MORE sinful than heterosexual behaviour. You might want to bear that in mind.

People on here, as well as the rest of the world will revile you and they will attempt to shout you down for stating those beliefs. They will attempt to confuse you by pretending a greater understanding of the Scriptures than you. They will operate under the premise that if you can't defeat them in a lopsided shout down then you must be wrong. They will attempt to convince you that if you can't quote the entire New Testament in Greek word for word then you know nothing about the Bible.

Hyperbole, but let's roll with it: Regardless of how you can quote the bible, you can't ever be sure who wrote it, why, or with what inspiration unless you were there every single time the pen hit the paper.

God makes every single person. He never said He made them all equal. Some people are born blind. Some are born missing limbs or mentally incapacitated. Such people will face greater challenges than someone born without those troubles.

Which doesn't really make sense. If he wanted just the result of their souls, he would have to have a control - that control being present in the scientific method, having been proven to be able to measure and decide things, it would be sufficient enough to be able to be able to weigh the balance of someone's soul. If he really wanted us all to be on equal grounds, with an equal chance of going to heaven or hell, then we should've all been born the same, with only the differences in our heart being the deciding factor. But no, he doesn't want an equal playing ground. God obviously knows nothing of science.

Where do Gay people fall in that? I don't pretend to know, but I do know that it's not necessary to know ancient Greek to understand the simple fact that both the Bible AND the prevailing wisdom of the church teach us that certain behaviors are considered an abomination by God and that's true whether the idea is popular or not.

It's not simple, and it's far from a fact. Just because the church says something does -not- make it so. Just because a supposed holy book says something does -not- mean it is representative of god's intent. Therein lies the problem: uncertainty. The fact that god has left us with such uncertainty is a testament in itself to god's relationship to humans.

The world was round even when everyone thought it was flat.

And gay people are perfectly fine even when Christians think they're abominations.

If you find yourself unable to reconcile with that, then I suggest prayer with an open mind. Keep the faith. If we could just sit down and chart everything on paper in such simple terms, then we wouldn't need faith, would we?

If only.

And where does Faith come from? Well, it comes from the Holy Spirit. When we put our troubles into God's hands, He will make the truth known in our heart. This is different from simple belief. I can sit here and I can tell you that God is real and Jesus Christ is our Savior, and you might believe every word I say... but without the truth of it testified by the Holy Spirit directly in yoru heart, thats' all it is, simple belief, not faith. And faith isn't based on anything that I or anyone else can ever tell you. Faith is based on that testiminy.. the knowledge that God imparts to us into our heart directly. No human can give us that faith. It must come from God. Conversely, if you trust that faith, and you KNOW where it came from, then you require no further proof of God's love and divinity, and once you have that, then none of these troubles will harm you.

Faith comes from the human mind. If it just came from the holy spirit, then people of the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Seventh Day Adventist, etc religions would have no faith, and the religions would not exist. Obviously it comes from something other than something that's exclusive to Christianity.

Interesting - you don't differentiate in your post between the persons you are supposed to be responding to - thus, I must assume all the rst of this post was aimed at someone other than myself, and you just didn't bother to make it clear.

You are at liberty to assume whatever you like. Not sure why that's so interesting, though.


'Christianity, at it's core', does not teach that homosexual behaviour is any MORE sinful than heterosexual behaviour. You might want to bear that in mind.

So?