NationStates Jolt Archive

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.

Some supposedly Christian people mistakenly believe that all abortion is wrong, and that to be pro-choice is un-Christian. This is not true. Many Jews believe that a baby is only alive when it has taken its first breath. The Bible also does not specifically take a position on abortion in the Old Testament, nor does our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must rely on the traditions of God’s Chosen People as a guide to this controversial issue. In this regard, the pro-life position is incorrect.

However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women. This obviously also extends to the fetus in her belly, which is not considered alive until it has taken its first breath. Therefore, the obvious choice should be that it is in the father’s power to decide on the issue of abortion of the child of his wife (Sex is only permissible between a married man and a married woman.) This also extends to birth control; birth control should only be used by women if their husband asks them to. Thus, the feminist pro-choice movement is also out of line with God’s holy desires. Therefore, we come to an abortion policy that is most in accordance with Sacred Scripture and God’s Word and everlasting Love; that it is morally acceptable to be pro-choice as long as it is the father’s choice.

I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

1. That is not the 'true Christian position on abortion'.
2. Unless the post is by God, it is hardly 'his word'.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

I will tell you what I said in the last thread....

Give up for you are giving the rest of us Christians a bad name on here.

1. That is not the 'true Christian position on abortion'.
2. Unless the post is by God, it is hardly 'his word'.

LOL

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

how do you know it's gods word?

1. That is not the 'true Christian position on abortion'.
2. Unless the post is by God, it is hardly 'his word'.

1. It is.
2. It is.

I will tell you what I said in the last thread....

Give up for you are giving the rest of us Christians a bad name on here.

How am I giving Christians a bad name by posting God's Word? Are you afraid of it?

ah trolls... :rolleyes:

I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

I'm thinking of all the ways that excuse can be used.
"Please clean the 'New Limacon Rox' off the company wall."
"I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave."

Nice joke, Red Baptism. Now I know for sure what kind of person you are.

Nice joke, Red Baptism. Now I know for sure what kind of person you are.

A God-fearing Christian who is bearing Witness?

How am I giving Christians a bad name by posting God's Word? Are you afraid of it?

Question #1: by being a fool and condemning everyone to hell who disagrees with you.

Question #2: No for I am a Christian and proud to be one.

Question #1: by being a fool and condemning everyone to hell who disagrees with you.

Question #2: No for I am a Christian and proud to be one.

But they disagree with God. I agree with God; how is this foolish? And capitalists are still not Christians.

A God-fearing Christian who is bearing Witness?
Nope. A flamebaiter.

For example, take the part on 'Man's dominion over Women'. Not only is that your interpretation, but anyone with common sense knows that you can't say that on a forum with a substantial portion of female members (NSG, for instance) without starting bitter arguments.

If you are 'bearing Witness' as you say, you would know that doing such in a both blatantly disrespectful towards women's rights and so biased it can't be gyroscopically stabilized.

And capitalists are still not Christians.
Reasons? Lets see some scripture quotes at least. I think Corneliu would like to see them as well.

But they disagree with God. I agree with God; how is this foolish?

Condemning people to hell for disagreeing with you is foolish.

And capitalists are still not Christians.

Prove it!

Nope. A flamebaiter.

For example, take the part on 'Man's dominion over Women'. Not only is that your interpretation, but anyone with common sense knows that you can't say that on a forum with a substantial portion of female members (NSG, for instance) without starting bitter arguments.

If you are 'bearing Witness' as you say, you would know that doing such in a both blatantly disrespectful towards women's rights and so biased it can't be gyroscopically stabilized.

Indeed. In order to bear witness properly, one must tailer one's responses to one's audience. RB is definitely not doing that.

Instead he is deliberately taking a position for some other ulterior motive. (Could be evil, could be ignorant, could be spaghetti)

Instead he is deliberately taking a position for some other ulterior motive. (Could be evil, could be ignorant, could be spaghetti)

haha! I would not be surprised.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

YOU FAIL.

This is a test of our official "YOU FAIL" system. You may now return to your regularly scheduled lunacy.

Instead he is deliberately taking a position for some other ulterior motive. (Could be evil, could be ignorant, could be spaghetti)

Leave the poor FSM out of this! He did not create this world to be blasphemed by such unbelievers as the OP.

I honor the FSM. :D

I didn't think anyone would ever post something on NSG such as 'man's dominion over women'.

This forum is not your pulpit, especially not if you're going to spew sexist shit.

This forum is not your pulpit, especially not if you're going to spew sexist shit.

I hate to say this. I really hate to say this! No I mean I really hate to say this but I agree with FSA.

Nope. A flamebaiter.

I am merely trying to save this forum from Hell. But the Prophets were always treated just the same; many would have called Elijah a "flamebaiter."

For example, take the part on 'Man's dominion over Women'. Not only is that your interpretation, but anyone with common sense knows that you can't say that on a forum with a substantial portion of female members (NSG, for instance) without starting bitter arguments.

If you are 'bearing Witness' as you say, you would know that doing such in a both blatantly disrespectful towards women's rights and so biased it can't be gyroscopically stabilized.

But it is what God commands, and to ignore it will incur his wrath. One must bear Witness in order to incur God's good grace, no matter the controversy.

Reasons? Lets see some scripture quotes at least. I think Corneliu would like to see them as well.

Here is one. There are many more, but Christianity is socialist, not capitalist.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Don't forget that Jesus also overturned the tables of the money changers, prohibited usury, and smote the people who hid their possessions from the collective ownership of the early Christians.

Condemning people to hell for disagreeing with you is foolish.

I don't condemn them to Hell. They condemn themselves to Hell for disagreeing with God's Word.

Prove it!

I already showed why. God will not tolerate greed and selfishness, and that is why all must be held in common.

I hate to say this. I really hate to say this! No I mean I really hate to say this but I agree with FSA.


As do I!

I cannot believe someone has these views in the 21st Century. Which country are you from, RB, if you don't mind my asking?

I don't condemn them to Hell. They condemn themselves to Hell for disagreeing with God's Word.

And that is precisely why you are foolish!

I already showed why. God will not tolerate greed and selfishness, and that is why all must be held in common.

Um no you didn't. All you pointed to was verses that said to give to the poor.

I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.
Let's make this official. This is your interpretation of God's Word, and your interpretation does not determine how forum rules are implemented.
How am I giving Christians a bad name by posting God's Word? Are you afraid of it?
That second sentence is perilously close to trolling. Watch yourself, Red.


This forum is not your pulpit, especially not if you're going to spew sexist shit.
Despite the admonitions above, this forum is anyone's pulpit, as long as they follow site rules. Don't assume that majority rules in this or any other case. If you disagree, feel free to debate. Do not counter-troll, flame, or flamebait.

Got it? Good.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

As do I!

I cannot believe someone has these views in the 21st Century. Which country are you from, RB, if you don't mind my asking?

If he says the US, it explains why we're hated everywhere :D

As do I!

I cannot believe someone has these views in the 21st Century. Which country are you from, RB, if you don't mind my asking?

I am from Canada. The United States is overrun by greed and selfishness, and I am glad that I do not live there.

And that is precisely why you are foolish!

I am foolish for believing in God's Word? Please explain.

Um no you didn't. All you pointed to was verses that said to give to the poor.

The Christians held everything in common. They sold all their possessions. This is not 'giving to the poor'; this is holding everything in common. Not to mention Christ's prohibitions on capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is still offensive to God.

The bible accepts the use of slavery, and even sets guidlines about how one should go about that.
Please take this one. I need a good laugh

The bible accepts the use of slavery, and even sets guidlines about how one should go about that.
Please take this one. I need a good laugh

This is Jewish custom, not part of the Ten Commandments, and the Bible even says so.

The triumphant OP returns! (sniggers)

I hate to say this. I really hate to say this! No I mean I really hate to say this but I agree with FSA.
Good God, I never thought this would happen. United under duress... sort of.

many would have called Elijah a "flamebaiter."

that would be rather anachronistic, don't you think?

I am merely trying to save this forum from Hell. But the Prophets were always treated just the same
You have a funny way of going about it. Hang on... the Prophets were always treated the same? Do you equate yourself as a Prophet of some form?

but Christianity is socialist, not capitalist.
I wish an organization could be affiliated with a form of government that doesn't exist yet, but it doesn't happen to my knowledge.

Don't forget that Jesus also overturned the tables of the money changers, prohibited usury, and smote the people who hid their possessions from the collective ownership of the early Christians.
Not only does that not take into account motive, but it also doesn't take into account time period. If there are many more, show them.

God will not tolerate greed and selfishness, and that is why all must be held in common.
God can and does tolerate greed and selfishness, because through God's grace he forgives us. I suppose the idea would be...
Hate the sin, not the sinner.

RB - if you believe in Jesus' teachings then all you need to know is that to know him is to know the way to God.

The sum of what Jesus' said is simply not to judge, for it is not your job to do so. As much as you can do is ask people to follow God, not to tell people what God thinks because it's fairly clear that God accepts all into heaven.

Where does Jesus have a position on man's affairs when they're unrelated to a love of God? He was angry with those who sold goods in a temple of worship because a temple is a place to be closer to God, not because it's bad to sell things.

So really, you can preach the word, but you are entirely mistaken if you think you can interpret what God wants, because it seems that what God wants is for you to accept all humans and hope they accept God into their hearts, not judge or make statements about the position of man and woman.

If you're going to be a Christian, at least be a good Christian rather than a judgmental one.

Well, what is your opinion on the Church? It, especially the Catholic church, can hardly be considered poor.

I am from Canada. The United States is overrun by greed and selfishness, and I am glad that I do not live there.

So are we. We have to many fundamentalists as it is.

I am foolish for believing in God's Word? Please explain.

By basicly condemning people to hell for not believing in God! That is how you are being foolish. It has nothing to do with the fact that you believe in God but how you are coming across on these forums.

The Christians held everything in common. They sold all their possessions. This is not 'giving to the poor'; this is holding everything in common. Not to mention Christ's prohibitions on capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is still offensive to God.

Um sure...if you want to continue to believe that even though the last part of the bible verse proves you wrong.

that would be rather anachronistic, don't you think?

If they knew the word, they would have used it.

You have a funny way of going about it. Hang on... the Prophets were always treated the same? Do you equate yourself as a Prophet of some form?

A Prophet is one who tells others of God's desires. One does not have to have a book written about them in order to make them a Prophet.

I wish an organization could be affiliated with a form of government that doesn't exist yet, but it doesn't happen to my knowledge.

Christian socialism predates the atheistic Marxist socialism. See Acts.

Not only does that not take into account motive, but it also doesn't take into account time period. If there are many more, show them.

It is fairly obvious from the other passages that I showed what God thought of capitalism; he does not tolerate usury or keeping one's property away from the rest of Christianity.

God can and does tolerate greed and selfishness, because through God's grace he forgives us. I suppose the idea would be...

God punishes greed and selfishness. He will only forgive you if you turn your back on these.

This is Jewish custom, not part of the Ten Commandments, and the Bible even says so.

Prove it.

Well, what is your opinion on the Church? It, especially the Catholic church, can hardly be considered poor.

The Catholic Church is an instrument in the hands of Satan; every true Christian from Martin Luther to John Calvin has renounced it as such. So is every other church that forgets Christ's hatred of capitalism.

The Catholic Church is an instrument in the hands of Satan; every true Christian from Martin Luther to John Calvin has renounced it as such. So is every other church that forgets Christ's hatred of capitalism.

Oh brother! A church needs money in this day in age.

If they knew the word, they would have used it.
That doesn't change the fact that they didn't.

Christian socialism predates the atheistic Marxist socialism. See Acts.
Christian socialism is a term applied to the 'religious left'. Straight from wikipedia.
Since the idea didn't come around until the 1800s, they came around the same time period. Of course, if you mean a somehow 'different' Christian socialism, by all means clarify.

It is fairly obvious from the other passages that I showed what God thought of capitalism; he does not tolerate usury or keeping one's property away from the rest of Christianity.

No, its fairly obvious that you showed what you think of Capitalism. I don't think that God explicitly decried Capitalism. Capitalism =/= usury or greed.

God punishes greed and selfishness. He will only forgive you if you turn your back on these.
Capitalism =/= usury or greed.

Prove it.

These limitations were removed when Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought forth a New Covenant.

Oh brother! A church needs money in this day in age.

A church needs money no more than it needs damnation. And if it pursues money instead of God it will have just that.

That doesn't change the fact that they didn't.

It was an analogy.

Christian socialism is a term applied to the 'religious left'. Straight from wikipedia.
Since the idea didn't come around until the 1800s, they came around the same time period. Of course, if you mean a somehow 'different' Christian socialism, by all means clarify.

I mean that socialism practiced by the Early Christians in that they held everything in common. How is this not socialism?

No, its fairly obvious that you showed what you think of Capitalism. I don't think that God explicitly decried Capitalism. Capitalism =/= usury or greed.

How is interest not usury? Christ specifically condemned the first, and by logic the second.

Capitalism =/= usury or greed.

Capitalism = usury and greed = damnation.

I mean that socialism practiced by the Early Christians in that they held everything in common. How is this not socialism?

Because holding everything in common isn't socialism.

Because holding everything in common isn't socialism.

Yes, it is. It certainly isn't capitalism.

These limitations were removed when Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought forth a New Covenant.

In other words, you cannot prove it.

These limitations were removed when Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought forth a New Covenant.

Wait, weren't they removed when Indiana Jones found the Ark of the Covenant and all the Nazis got melted?

A church needs money no more than it needs damnation. And if it pursues money instead of God it will have just that.

So having no money means they cannot reach out to the populace as a whole. Congratulations. You just condemned thousands of people to hell.

Posting this again:

No true Christian...

Posting this again:

No true Christian...

Posting this again:

No true Christian...

Great minds think alike. :eek:

Because holding everything in common isn't socialism.
Correct: its communism.

A church needs money no more than it needs damnation. And if it pursues money instead of God it will have just that.
Money serves a valuable purpose: exchange. If you give (of all places) a church money, then you can expect it to be used in a Christian, humanitarian way, or at least paying the pastor/priest/whatnot so he/she can actually have a living while preaching God's word. Capitalism for the sake of money itself is wrong, but the majority of people earn money to live, and at least in capitalism if you work for greed it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.

I mean that socialism practiced by the Early Christians in that they held everything in common.
They didn't practice socialism because socialism did not exist yet. They practiced a form of communism.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com
so·cial·ism
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Since the early Christians hardly formed a State, did not follow Marxist theory, did not have a command economy (or a real economy at all in the normal sense of the word) or collective means of producing capital (so despised) or land, the early Christians were hardly socialists.

How is interest not usury? Christ specifically condemned the first, and by logic the second.
Capitalism = usury and greed = damnation.
There are several problems with your argument:
1. Your logic is flawed. Usury is the charging of exorbitant interest, and the archaic form of 'usury' you refer to is obsolete. Second, you jumped straight from 'Capitalism' to 'Interest' which are literally different terms, and linked only in that Capitalism allows a reasonable amount of Interest. Third, Capitalism is a form of economic organization, and usury is a form of charging interest, and thus do not equal each other. Your third statement is not linked to either of the preceding except through spatial association.
2. Your arguments are rooted in opinion, not fact, and cannot be used in a logical argument, which is implied by your use of logical terminology (the '=' sign.)

1. That is not the 'true Christian position on abortion'.
2. Unless the post is by God, it is hardly 'his word'.

No no no, see... ummm... it is a post directly by God because... well it is you see....

that was a joke....

I myself disagree with abrotion, on the simple basis that whatever you deem human life, life itself starts at conception, and the fetus is human, therefore I feel that human life (and hence, all of humanity thence) is sacred, and has rights... I also realize people can disagree with me, which, hey whatever (I mean, right?)

No no no, see... ummm... it is a post directly by God because... well it is you see....

that was a joke....

I myself disagree with abrotion, on the simple basis that whatever you deem human life, life itself starts at conception, and the fetus is human, therefore I feel that human life (and hence, all of humanity thence) is sacred, and has rights... I also realize people can disagree with me, which, hey whatever (I mean, right?)

Never tell someone what is supposed to be a joke. Either they get it or they don't want to..
..and be more assertive.

"However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women. This obviously also extends to the fetus in her belly, which is not considered alive until it has taken its first breath. Therefore, the obvious choice should be that it is in the father’s power to decide on the issue of abortion of the child of his wife (Sex is only permissible between a married man and a married woman.) This also extends to birth control; birth control should only be used by women if their husband asks them to. Thus, the feminist pro-choice movement is also out of line with God’s holy desires. Therefore, we come to an abortion policy that is most in accordance with Sacred Scripture and God’s Word and everlasting Love; that it is morally acceptable to be pro-choice as long as it is the father’s choice."


:eek:that is wrong on SOOO many levels. wow my brain is like...working way overtime to even wrap my head around this one...:headbang:

Correct: its communism.


Money serves a valuable purpose: exchange. If you give (of all places) a church money, then you can expect it to be used in a Christian, humanitarian way, or at least paying the pastor/priest/whatnot so he/she can actually have a living while preaching God's word. Capitalism for the sake of money itself is wrong, but the majority of people earn money to live, and at least in capitalism if you work for greed it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.


They didn't practice socialism because socialism did not exist yet. They practiced a form of communism.


Since the early Christians hardly formed a State, did not follow Marxist theory, did not have a command economy (or a real economy at all in the normal sense of the word) or collective means of producing capital (so despised) or land, the early Christians were hardly socialists.



There are several problems with your argument:
1. Your logic is flawed. Usury is the charging of exorbitant interest, and the archaic form of 'usury' you refer to is obsolete. Second, you jumped straight from 'Capitalism' to 'Interest' which are literally different terms, and linked only in that Capitalism allows a reasonable amount of Interest. Third, Capitalism is a form of economic organization, and usury is a form of charging interest, and thus do not equal each other. Your third statement is not linked to either of the preceding except through spatial association.
2. Your arguments are rooted in opinion, not fact, and cannot be used in a logical argument, which is implied by your use of logical terminology (the '=' sign.)

RB got owned big time.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

I would like to see your proof for this statement.

I would like to see your proof for this statement.

Read the rest of this thread. He hasn't and can't.

Originally posted by Corneliu 2
He hasn't and can't.
And never will.

And never will.

"...and there was great rejoicing."

And never will.

Pretty much. Hey I wonder if he'll pull an AP and start a new thread after getting owned in this one :D

Wow, I am really surprised at the amount of hate being hurled at the OP, merely for stating his (albeit unconventional) opinion. What I am wondering is whether most of the flaming is coming from actual christians (who are refusing to consider alternative points of view) or from athiests (who make a sport of christian bashing).

Now personally, I disagree completely with the OP's views on the domination of women, but his general points that some instances of abortion need not necessarily conflict with Christian faith, and that Christian values as expressed by Christ are much closer to Socialism than to Capitalism are points that hold some merit and warrant consideration instead of knee-jerk reactionism.

Ok, thats my 2 cents, you can continue flaming now.

Jesus is not a Socialist. If anything he was simply advocating a welfare state.

If God wanted Communism, wouldn't he have blessed the USSR?

Jesus is not a Socialist. If anything he was simply advocating a welfare state.

If God wanted Communism, wouldn't he have blessed the USSR?

Interesting!! I never though of that. Very Very interesting.

Yes, it is. It certainly isn't capitalism.

/facepalm

There are more options than capitalism and socialism.

actual christians
Who are opposing his methods, ideas, and flamebaiting (funny thing is, he never denied it.)

but his general points that some instances of abortion need not necessarily conflict with Christian faith, and that Christian values as expressed by Christ are much closer to Socialism than to Capitalism are points that hold some merit and warrant consideration instead of knee-jerk reactionism.
I disagree with you there, and I applaud you attempts at resolution. <salutes>
However, he argues the early Christians both were socialists and invented socialism, thinks he is a prophet, and attempts to rile atheists by telling them they are going to hell, complete with logical inaccuracies, inconsistency of argument, lack of evidence, and in general the typical characteristics of flamebaiters.

There are more options than capitalism and socialism.
permit me to say, amen?

I disagree with you there, and I applaud you attempts at resolution. <salutes>
However, he argues the early Christians both were socialists and invented socialism, thinks he is a prophet, and attempts to rile atheists by telling them they are going to hell, complete with logical inaccuracies, inconsistency of argument, lack of evidence, and in general the typical characteristics of flamebaiters.


He doesn't rile me. In fact, I think he's dead good.

He's not very good at it then. What if he told you that you were saved?

Some supposedly Christian people mistakenly believe that all abortion is wrong, and that to be pro-choice is un-Christian. This is not true. Many Jews believe that a baby is only alive when it has taken its first breath. The Bible also does not specifically take a position on abortion in the Old Testament, nor does our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Not true. In the New Testament it says that God knew you even as he knitted you in your mother's womb. Which in my religions opinion means that you are a human being the moment you are conceived.

However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women.


Also untrue. The Bible says that a woman should be the husband's servant, but it also says that the husband should be the wife's servant. And then the two become one with God.

BTW, what is "True Christian" in you opinion Red Baptism?

Read the rest of this thread. He hasn't and can't.

I've seen him try and fail to prove his other opinions, but I haven't seen him tackle womens subordination to men.

It's amazing to me he can even think there is good basis for that. Especially considering that he thinks Christians should be charitable and socialist.

Not true. In the New Testament it says that God knew you even as he knitted you in your mother's womb. Which in my religions opinion means that you are a human being the moment you are conceived.
that's in Psalms, it's in the old testament.



Also untrue. The Bible says that a woman should be the husband's servant, but it also says that the husband should be the wife's servant. And then the two become one with God.

BTW, what is "True Christian" in you opinion Red Baptism?

no, it says the wife should be the husband's servant and he is the head, and he should love his wife like Christ loved the church.

You should read the Bible.

Awww~ I didn't even get to read the whole thread last time ;_; and it was getting good too!

Anyhow~ RB has gotten boring. I thought there might actually be a bit more substance than "It's true 'cause He said." but I suppose it was too much to ask. Also, this God doesn't seem very friendly. He actually seems rather insane. My quest for spiritual guidance continues!

G'night folks! :)

Oh noes. Our OP has not repliedz!

no, it says the wife should be the husband's servant and he is the head, and he should love his wife like Christ loved the church.
I could be wrong here, but much has changed since that was written, so social ideals as described in the Bible could simply be the social ideals proper and virtuous at the time.

However accurately you quote...

The Catholic Church is an instrument in the hands of Satan; every true Christian from Martin Luther to John Calvin has renounced it as such. So is every other church that forgets Christ's hatred of capitalism.

You mean like the Evangelical "Megachurches"?

Jesus is not a Socialist. If anything he was simply advocating a welfare state.

If God wanted Communism, wouldn't he have blessed the USSR?

Ok.... Why would God bless an athiest imperialistic dictatorship?

Secondly, I totally agree that there are more options than Capitalism and Socialism, the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century. I believe we need new conceptions for the 21st, based upon social justice and cooperation, which may not necessarily fit into either category.

RB, I am an atheist, raised Catholic, so I know a lot about the Church. Have you ever heard of the Catholic Reformation? Y'know the thing after the Church found that everyone was flocking to Protestantism, so they changed? Yeah, putting the whole molester preist aside, which is the deeds of a few, not of the many, the Church does as much good things as the Protestant Churches, they just have a central head.

This is Jewish custom, not part of the Ten Commandments, and the Bible even says so.

Ooh! Ooh! I've got this one!


OK... so the Ten Commandments are the rules, and Jewish custom is not? If that is so, we can discard all of Leviticus, because that was ALL Jewish custom. It then follows that since the Ten Commandments never once mention homosexuality, that homosexuality is not a sin.

Right?

:D

He's not very good at it then. What if he told you that you were saved?

Meh.

But I'd still find him funny. He manages to find fault with everyone.

Hey Red,

Do you honestly, truly, believe in your heart that if Jesus Christ were to post on this thread, His post would read like yours does? In the New Testament, Jesus spent very little time using scare tactics and threats, and a great deal of time teaching about love and charity. He used parables as a way to teach by example and metaphor, and He didn't go out of His way to provoke people. (He did have a sharp wit when dealing with the Pharisees, but they typically started the argument, not He.)

... Not to mention Christ's prohibitions on capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is still offensive to God.

The other stuff was already addressed by other people, so I focus solely on that quoted statement.

I think Jesus loves stock brokers and capitalist as much as he loves everyone else. Additionally, if God/Jesus gives you gold and money you best be investing them at the highest possible return rate…Whether that be gold or praises for God.

Matthew 25:
26But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Jesus seems to agree with paying his workers by Management decree, not by standardized or unionized or socialist scale wages…

Matthew 20
8And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' 16So the last will be first, and the first last."

It seems to me you’ve over stated your case. And here we see that Jesus was an accepting receiver of luxury gifts as well… And he had to rebuke his socialist minded (much like you here I suppose) apostles who tried to rebuke the lady for giving a gift of wealth to him.

Mark 14
3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4There were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment wasted like that? 5For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor." And they scolded her. 6But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.

Yup, seems pretty sure that Jesus liked capitalist ways as much as he likes socialists ways. As a matter of fact, Jesus talks about how his kingdom is not of this world entirely, he doesn't care if it's socialism, communism or capitalism here. Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and be done with proselytizing socialism.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

Shades of Whittier or is it just coincidence???

I'm curious how agnostic, bordering on Wiccan communists like myself fit into Red Baptism's scheme for "Christian Socialism", given his earlier remarks about women's equality and the condemnation to hell for not behaving exactly like he wants us.

1. It is.
2. It is.

Actually got anything at all to back that up? I mean, it may just be me thinkign this (though i doubt that it is), but it seems to me that sexist bigotry is truly the word of a so called "omni-benovolent" God as I was raised to see him as.

How am I giving Christians a bad name by posting God's Word? Are you afraid of it?
I'm not sure how we could be afraid. I mean, its only sexist.

Whether or not this is the 'true, scripturally supported' position is irrelevant, it's morally reprehensible. With 2 bonus points for spelling reprehensible correctly.

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.

I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

Reading this second thread it appears that you still have not been able to find scripture that states: (a) man has dominion over women and (b) that this dominion is thorough that it extends to complete control over the woman's body.

Given that these are your key premises and you claim they come from God's Word, surely you can quote some literal scripture on point.

Originally Posted by Red Baptism
... Not to mention Christ's prohibitions on capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is still offensive to God.

Really? Have you chatted with Him about it lately?;)

Christ made no prohibitions on capitalist enterprises whatsoever. No Scriptural evidence of such a statement. His only apparent opposition to business was when the Temple [our equivalent of a church] was being used as a marketplace instead of being treated with the reverence you would assume a place of worship would deserve. There's a lot more to that story, too, so take some time to check out the hermeneutics of it [ie. the historical, cultural, political context].

It's very easy to quote Scripture to fit a particular view. I find it strange when atheists use verses in an argument when they clearly have only an academic understanding of what they're talking about. Similarly, it is strange [and ridiculous] when believers [whatever form that may take] use Scripture in a manner that is clearly in opposition to the nature and will of God.

Re. abortion - I see no tacit acceptance of the practise of abortion in the Bible but I also see no particular mention of those who choose abortion - in fact abortion, as we know it, is not metioned in the Bible at all. This is not to say that an individual cannot reach a conclusion regarding abortion from the Bible but such a conclusion should be reached with determined prayer, study and humility. Shocking as it may seem, we Christians don't always take time to form our opinions in a manner that employs critical thinking! ;)

The bible accepts the use of slavery, and even sets guidlines about how one should go about that.
Please take this one. I need a good laugh

This is Jewish custom, not part of the Ten Commandments, and the Bible even says so.

These limitations were removed when Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought forth a New Covenant.

Slavery in the Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm)

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


Also supporting slavery: Luke 12:47-48 NLT; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21

<<However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women>>

The three major religion's in the world only exist to give men power over women.

They made up one all powerful god as an excuse to abuse 50% of the population.

Heh, this is why I'm a non-believer. Christianity and most other religions don't believe in men's fundamental right to spend there money as they will, to own their own possessions and to sell their product as they will it.

Red, you seem very fond of words like 'must'.....bad theology, dude.....immediately negates the very real, Biblical principle of free will. You know, that thing given to humankind by God, so we can choose?

Your views are just as prone to error as anyone elses. Christians can best serve the world by taking time to form their views with humility.

And, unless you claim to be the divine voice of God [another thread in itself I'm thinking;)], then I'd be a wee bit careful about claiming to know the definitive answer regarding anything.

ok....... sorry had to laugh, at the opening statement... But red... you are sounding a lot like someone I knew... I had a... lets call him a very distant relative, who lived nearby... He believed that he spoke for God on any matter, and expected you to jump when he said to, because of course, that was what God wanted. Just as a warning not to take yourself too seriously, and to forget that you are human, and therefore very capable of error... He accused his wife of an affair so he could divorce her, and run off with another woman. He also turned his back on everyone near him, writing them off to hell. He is now bordering on lunacy (if he wasn't there several years ago), and is friendless, and all alone. And I know you know what the bible says about being alone. I am worried for you, and praying for you. in parting, God gave us minds to use, and as was sung by the great band Five Iron Frenzy... "use your mind, don't lose your soul."

btw - sorry about the sarcasm laced thoughout... its a family thing

I hate to say this. I really hate to say this! No I mean I really hate to say this but I agree with FSA.

Yet...you confess to being a christian. A religion - actually only most denominations of - which is heavily patriarchal. Also, in the bible men and women are attributed different values (at least in the OT).

Now, unless your christian denomination approves of and advocates female priests and other authority figures within the church and doesn't interpret bible in any literal way I only see a case of double standards in critisizing someone promoting his or her own interpretation of the same primarily patriarchal religion.

Edit:
In case you're not a christian, I apologize

Edit 2:
In case you are a christian but have no objection to female priests and other authority figures within the church and don't put any value to certain sections of the bible then feel free to ignore this criticism.

I will tell you what I said in the last thread....

Give up for you are giving the rest of us Christians a bad name on here.

Indeed he is.

Instead he is deliberately taking a position for some other ulterior motive. (Could be evil, could be ignorant, could be spaghetti)

"I got pasta for free and all I did was flame a dozen people!"

Actually, I *would* do it for spaghetti.

Indeed he is.

Well, I for one wouldn't defend an openly sexist religion - like say Catholicism - under any circumstance.

Luckily there are intelligent christian denominations who approve of female priests and interpret bible in a way which put no value to any part of the bible which condemns people based on their characteristics or devalue people based on their gender.

Note:
I personally don't consdier males and females to be equal, though, for simple physiological reasons. Of equal value, yes, but not equal.

Well, I for one wouldn't defend an openly sexist religion - like say Catholicism - under any circumstance.

Neither would I. Still, RB gives -Christians- a worse name than Corneliu ever could :p

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/jesus_jeezus.jpg

Neither would I. Still, RB gives -Christians- a worse name than Corneliu ever could :p

Well..the question is do they actually *deserve* the bad name? :D

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html ;)

For example:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Colossians 3:18

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:11-12

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/women.html - is another nice url. :-)

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.
I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

I will reply with the same arguments a christian could use.

[inquisition mode]
Thou claimest that what thou sayest is God's Word.
Since thou art not quoting directly a translation of the Bible, thou art claiming that your own words be Gospel.
Hence, thou art either:
1.A minion of the Devil's - thou camest hitherto to cast doubts into the faithful Christian's hearts.
2.A false prophet - thou camest hitherto claiming that God spake unto thee.
3.A blasphemer - thou named His Name in vain.
4.Satan himself - thou triest to deceive other into thinking that thou art God.

Bring out the irons...
[/inquisition mode]

Neh?
I, personally, think that you're just being over-zealous, sexually chauvinistic and generally not very smart.

Yet...you confess to being a christian. A religion - actually only most denominations of - which is heavily patriarchal. Also, in the bible men and women are attributed different values (at least in the OT).

Yep.

Now, unless your christian denomination approves of and advocates female priests and other authority figures within the church and doesn't interpret bible in any literal way I only see a case of double standards in critisizing someone promoting his or her own interpretation of the same primarily patriarchal religion.

As far as I am aware of, there are some female methodist priests. I have to check on that though. If not, I'll be working on it.

Edit:
In case you're not a christian, I apologize

Nah. I am a Christian.

Edit 2:
In case you are a christian but have no objection to female priests and other authority figures within the church and don't put any value to certain sections of the bible then feel free to ignore this criticism.

hehe. its ok my friend :)

Neither would I. Still, RB gives -Christians- a worse name than Corneliu ever could :p

I have three puppets. I guess I could try but why would I want to?

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship ... 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Read this people, and answer me if being a Christian is reconcilable with participation in a capitalistic economy.

Well..the question is do they actually *deserve* the bad name? :D

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html ;)

For example:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Colossians 3:18

haha. Of course, I can point to the interpretation that it means that the husband has the final word but yet can give her input.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:11-12

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/women.html - is another nice url. :-)

And the day I meet the apostle Paul, I am going to give him a peace of my mind.

Read this people, and answer me if being a Christian is reconcilable with participation in a capitalistic economy.

Ah look....the answer is um...yes it is.

Ah look....the answer is um...yes it is.

Not according to Jesus, if you really followed him you would give your possessions to the poor and try to redistribute wealth, rather than just petty and meaningless symbolic displays of 'faith' which require no real sacrifice or action, how hard did Jesus say it was for a rich man to enter heaven? In Jesus's mind you would be just another money lender in the Temple. Or do I need to keep quoting biblical condemnations of wealth?

Not according to Jesus,

Not again! :rolleyes:

if you really followed him you would give your possessions to the poor and try to redistribute wealth, rather than just petty and meaningless symbolic displays of 'faith' which require no real sacrifice or action, how hard did Jesus say it was for a rich man to enter heaven? In Jesus's mind you would be just another money lender in the Temple. Or do I need to keep quoting biblical condemnations of wealth?

Except that I give what I can afford to charity. However I do need to live and provide for myself and later for my family. Which is not wrong. You lose.

Yes but the questions, are you living only at the absolute need, if not your living in excess and against Christian doctrine.

I'm missing the part where the Christians explain why I should care.

If somebody else wants to try to claim ownership of my uterus, they're welcome to give it a shot. It's nothing I haven't dealt with before.

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. (Act.2:44-45).
- 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet. (Act.4:32-36)

Ooh! Ooh! I've got this one!


OK... so the Ten Commandments are the rules, and Jewish custom is not? If that is so, we can discard all of Leviticus, because that was ALL Jewish custom. It then follows that since the Ten Commandments never once mention homosexuality, that homosexuality is not a sin.

Right?

:D

Romans 1:26
"Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural 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."

People need to read Romans more often. Also since the Ten Commandments states "Thou shalt not commit Adultery", homosexuality is taken care of except in two states in the US.

Well, I for one wouldn't defend an openly sexist religion - like say Catholicism - under any circumstance.

Luckily there are intelligent christian denominations who approve of female priests and interpret bible in a way which put no value to any part of the bible which condemns people based on their characteristics or devalue people based on their gender.

My problem with this is that the Catholic church isn't static. We are constantly reevaluating and changing. Very few Catholics I know actually believe that women are subservient to men. Also, I'd like to see where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it actually says we are suppose to believe this.


Note:
I personally don't consdier males and females to be equal, though, for simple physiological reasons. Of equal value, yes, but not equal.

QFT but I think a better way to say it is : men and women are not the same but have equal value.

Romans 1:26
"Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural 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."

People need to read Romans more often. Also since the Ten Commandments states "Thou shalt not commit Adultery", homosexuality is taken care of except in two states in the US.



God gave them over? It was God's doing the first place? Seems a bit unfair for God to make them homosexuals then penalized them for it. And do you know WHY God did this? Not because they showed any homosexual tendencies in the first place, but rather because they worshipped false idols. So basically, these folks created a statue and started praying to it, so God said "Zap! Now you are homosexuals, and I am going to punish you because you are homosexuals." Swell God you got there. I believe the word to describe this sort of treatment is "hypocritical".

I also believe that none of this had anything to do with God at all, it was simply that Paul was a prude and was putting his own prejudices in the letter.


As to the ten commandments, when homosexuals are allowed to marry, the "adultery" concern no longer exists, does it?

My problem with this is that the Catholic church isn't static. We are constantly reevaluating and changing. Very few Catholics I know actually believe that women are subservient to men. Also, I'd like to see where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it actually says we are suppose to believe this.

Well, I certainly haven't seen many catholic priests, cardinals or popes of female persuasion...

QFT but I think a better way to say it is : men and women are not the same but have equal value.
Aye, we should be able to acknowledge and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each gender without being labelled misogynists or misandrists.

Romans 1:26
"Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural 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."

That was Paul talking.

Fuck Paul. *nod*

That was Paul talking.

Fuck Paul. *nod*

I think that may have been the problem... I think maybe no one would, which is why he was so unpleasant about the whole subject. Sour grapes and all, you see.

Did anyone catch the part where he compared himself to a prophet? Delusional thinking at its finest. "All of the prophets were... Elijah would have been considered a flaimbaiter"

Did anyone catch the part where he compared himself to a prophet? Delusional thinking at its finest. "All of the prophets were... Elijah would have been considered a flaimbaiter"

Well...when you sit and think about it, Elijah was a flaimbaiter. He baited those worshipping assura and bail and when that failed, worshipped his god and flame came down and took the offering. So he "baited" the flames :D

Since my last thread on the true Christian position on abortion was deleted, here is what I said previously.



I would prefer this time if God's Word is not deleted, so please behave.

I am a Christian. If what you meant is what I have understood, you are saying blasphemy.

Anyway, Catholic Church, for what I know (I don't speak for other Christian Churches) is not against abortion, if it has to be done to save the mother's life, or for therapeutical reasons.

Well, I certainly haven't seen many catholic priests, cardinals or popes of female persuasion...

I was more implying that the Catholic Church will most likely change their position on this subject. It's not like they haven't admitted to making mistakes before and amending doctrine to fix said mistakes.


That was Paul talking.

Fuck Paul. *nod*

True but it does show that the New Testament states that homosexuality is a sin as well as the Old Testament.


God gave them over? It was God's doing the first place? Seems a bit unfair for God to make them homosexuals then penalized them for it. And do you know WHY God did this? Not because they showed any homosexual tendencies in the first place, but rather because they worshipped false idols. So basically, these folks created a statue and started praying to it, so God said "Zap! Now you are homosexuals, and I am going to punish you because you are homosexuals." Swell God you got there. I believe the word to describe this sort of treatment is "hypocritical".

I also believe that none of this had anything to do with God at all, it was simply that Paul was a prude and was putting his own prejudices in the letter.


As to the ten commandments, when homosexuals are allowed to marry, the "adultery" concern no longer exists, does it?

I took it to mean that the only people who engaged in such behaviors (which were deemed immoral by the Jews) were those who turned from God to follow other idols i.e. Roman deities. Considering the fact that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans and the Romans were known to have embraced homosexuality, I thought that Paul was condemning the worship of the other Gods because they lead one to commit "immoral"/"unnatural" behavior as defined by the Jews. It was the act of turning their backs on God that led them to "unnatural behaviors".

i agree.

The Christians held everything in common. They sold all their possessions. This is not 'giving to the poor'; this is holding everything in common. Not to mention Christ's prohibitions on capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is still offensive to God.

They sold their possesions? Hardly a socialistic pursuit.
Probably made a good buck out of it, too.

True but it does show that the New Testament states that homosexuality is a sin as well as the Old Testament.


No - it shows that 'unnatural' relations and 'indecent' acts are frowned upon (by Paul) in the New Testament.

Homosexuality occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - homosexual intercourse is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be... they probably involve fire or something.

No - it shows that 'unnatural' relations and 'indecent' acts are frowned upon (by Paul) in the New Testament.

Homosexuality occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - homosexual intercourse is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be... they probably involve fire or something.

Eating your own offspring occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - cooking your kids is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be either if we continue this erroneous methodology.

Thus, the methodology you used to reach what you think the scripture meant by 'natural' must be flawed because it doesn't mean anything with your method and I think we can be pretty sure the author meant something.

1. It is.
2. It is.



How am I giving Christians a bad name by posting God's Word? Are you afraid of it?

You are very certain that you are a messenger of god. If so shouldnt the choice be yours oh holy prophet

Eating your own offspring occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - cooking your kids is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be either if we continue this erroneous methodology.

Thus, the methodology you used to reach what you think the scripture meant by 'natural' must be flawed because it doesn't mean anything with your method and I think we can be pretty sure the author meant something.

He was probably high as a kite.

That's the stupidest thing I've EVER heard. You can tell this guy is retarded because he referred to modern Jews as God's people. Jews after the advent of Christ who refused to believe are not God's people and they are apparently the most blind to scripture because they do not see that Jesus is what the old testament points to. We Christians are God's people. Abortion is clearly wrong and we see it throughout the Bible like in Jeremiah where God says he called Jeremiah before he was born and John the Baptist lept in the womb when he came in contact with Mary... hmm sounds like a person with a sinsitive alive soul to me. Anyway don't be swayed by idiots.

Grace and peace,
Qualk

Quote/Some supposedly Christian people mistakenly believe that all abortion is wrong, and that to be pro-choice is un-Christian. This is not true. Many Jews believe that a baby is only alive when it has taken its first breath. The Bible also does not specifically take a position on abortion in the Old Testament, nor does our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must rely on the traditions of God’s Chosen People as a guide to this controversial issue. In this regard, the pro-life position is incorrect.

However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women. This obviously also extends to the fetus in her belly, which is not considered alive until it has taken its first breath. Therefore, the obvious choice should be that it is in the father’s power to decide on the issue of abortion of the child of his wife (Sex is only permissible between a married man and a married woman.) This also extends to birth control; birth control should only be used by women if their husband asks them to. Thus, the feminist pro-choice movement is also out of line with God’s holy desires. Therefore, we come to an abortion policy that is most in accordance with Sacred Scripture and God’s Word and everlasting Love; that it is morally acceptable to be pro-choice as long as it is the father’s choice./Quote

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship ... 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Read this people, and answer me if being a Christian is reconcilable with participation in a capitalistic economy.

Oh, but greed is good, if it's for the greater glory of God.:rolleyes: You made an excellent point. Good for you.

I took it to mean that the only people who engaged in such behaviors (which were deemed immoral by the Jews) were those who turned from God to follow other idols i.e. Roman deities. Considering the fact that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans and the Romans were known to have embraced homosexuality, I thought that Paul was condemning the worship of the other Gods because they lead one to commit "immoral"/"unnatural" behavior as defined by the Jews. It was the act of turning their backs on God that led them to "unnatural behaviors".

IF that is the case, and considering what we know today about homosexuality (that being that the worship of Zeus does not cause it) then this passage holds absolutely no value in judging homosexuality today.

IF that is the case, and considering what we know today about homosexuality (that being that the worship of Zeus does not cause it) then this passage holds absolutely no value in judging homosexuality today.

*bolded by me.

I was made curious by that bolded part. What exactly are you referring to? What do we know about homosexuality today? Do we know what causes it, that we can reproduce that result in a scientific experiment? Can we predict when it will occur naturally? Can we breed the condition in a laboratory? Can we rule out environmental, physiological causation or are we required to use environmental and physiological causation to create the right conditions to produce it? Because honestly, I don't know what we know about it. Is there a gene combination that can explain all of the variables and occurrences of it? Is there a known causation that can be tested to create or eliminate the possibility of it, something that I am unaware of?

But they disagree with God. I agree with God; how is this foolish? And capitalists are still not Christians.

Proverbs 22:29 (Or most of it) "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings..." Obviously the God you claim to worship at least recognizes some redeeming qualities in being a business man. But really it's none of my business unless you defile my Goddess, and really not even then, unless I'm bored.

*bolded by me.

I was made curious by that bolded part. What exactly are you referring to? What do we know about homosexuality today? Do we know what causes it, that we can reproduce that result in a scientific experiment? Can we predict when it will occur naturally? Can we breed the condition in a laboratory? Can we rule out environmental, physiological causation or are we required to use environmental and physiological causation to create the right conditions to produce it? Because honestly, I don't know what we know about it. Is there a gene combination that can explain all of the variables and occurrences of it? Is there a known causation that can be tested to create or eliminate the possibility of it, something that I am unaware of?


Ummm... these questions (in reference to this particular passage) were all answered by the next 11 words...

that being that the worship of Zeus does not cause it


Or do you seriously want to argue that the worship of Zeus is what causes homosexuality? :rolleyes:

Ummm... these questions (in reference to this particular passage) were all answered by the next 11 words...

Or do you seriously want to argue that the worship of Zeus is what causes homosexuality? :rolleyes:

I thought your Zeus comment was to familiarize the 'worshipping idols' generically. Seeing as how the origianal post thought it meant Roman Idols and you referenced Greek idols, I was under the impression that you knew what you were talking about and was ruling out idol worship altogether in all forms by showing other gods as well... (but the scripture says idol worship, whatever idol worship that might have been). Because the cause of the homosexuality was not the idol worship, according the scripture, but a punishment handed down by God, not by the idol. I thought you were saying you had a way to prove it wasn't that.

I thought your Zeus comment was to familiarize the 'worshipping idols' generically. Seeing as how the origianal post thought it meant Roman Idols and you referenced Greek idols, I was under the impression that you knew what you were talking about and was ruling out idol worship altogether in all forms by showing other gods as well... (but the scripture says idol worship, whatever idol worship that might have been). Because the cause of the homosexuality was not the idol worship, according the scripture, but a punishment handed down by God, not by the idol. I thought you were saying you had a way to prove it wasn't that.

You need to read back a few posts. Originally *I* said that the way I read that passage was that God made them homosexuals, then punished them for it and I thought that was rather hypocritical. The response was no, the worshipping of false gods was the key factor. I then said (and I thought the sarcasm was sort of clear, but maybe not) that since we now know that worshipping Zeus is not what actually causes homosexuality that this particular passage has no bearing on how we should treat homosexuality today. Forgive me if Zeus seemed funnier than Jupiter to my ears.

To be quite frank, I think Paul was a pushy, repressed jerk who preached against things he personally didn't like and used "God told me" as a way to bully people into his prejudices. To be equally frank, I feel much the same way about people who quote Romans when asked what makes homosexuality a sin.

However, either way that this particular passage gets interpreted, whether idol worship or God caused the homosexuality, it is horrendous. That someone today would use it to defend their prejudice against homosexuals is equally horrendous. If the claim is made homosexuality is a punishment from God, then God is certainly not worthy of anything more than utter disdain. If the claim is made that the worship of idols is what causes homosexuality, the person making that claim is obviously in need of psychiatric care and a padded cell.

You need to read back a few posts. Originally *I* said that the way I read that passage was that God made them homosexuals, then punished them for it and I thought that was rather hypocritical. The response was no, the worshiping of false gods was the key factor.

This is true.

I then said (and I thought the sarcasm was sort of clear, but maybe not) that since we now know that worshiping Zeus is not what actually causes homosexuality that this particular passage has no bearing on how we should treat homosexuality today. Forgive me if Zeus seemed funnier than Jupiter to my ears.

But since we weren't talking about how we viewed homosexuality today, I'm not sure how this is relevant. I was merely pointing out that there is more than one place in the Bible that claims homosexuality is a sin. I was also stating that the New Testament states it as well as the Old Testament because some people believe that the Old Testament became completely obsolete once Jesus fulfilled it.


To be quite frank, I think Paul was a pushy, repressed jerk who preached against things he personally didn't like and used "God told me" as a way to bully people into his prejudices. To be equally frank, I feel much the same way about people who quote Romans when asked what makes homosexuality a sin.

The problem is Paul wasn't the only one who thought that way. He was just the most vocal.


However, either way that this particular passage gets interpreted, whether idol worship or God caused the homosexuality, it is horrendous. That someone today would use it to defend their prejudice against homosexuals is equally horrendous. If the claim is made homosexuality is a punishment from God, then God is certainly not worthy of anything more than utter disdain. If the claim is made that the worship of idols is what causes homosexuality, the person making that claim is obviously in need of psychiatric care and a padded cell.
That depends on how you define the word idol. People worship more than just invisible men in the sky. Some worship drugs, money, gambling, themselves and other various things that lead to a lot of problems (not that any of these necessarily directly cause homosexuality but it is something to think about).

EDIT: I hate spelling.

That's the stupidest thing I've EVER heard. You can tell this guy is retarded because he referred to modern Jews as God's people. Jews after the advent of Christ who refused to believe are not God's people and they are apparently the most blind to scripture because they do not see that Jesus is what the old testament points to. We Christians are God's people. Abortion is clearly wrong and we see it throughout the Bible like in Jeremiah where God says he called Jeremiah before he was born and John the Baptist lept in the womb when he came in contact with Mary... hmm sounds like a person with a sinsitive alive soul to me. Anyway don't be swayed by idiots.

Grace and peace,
Qualk

Quote/Some supposedly Christian people mistakenly believe that all abortion is wrong, and that to be pro-choice is un-Christian. This is not true. Many Jews believe that a baby is only alive when it has taken its first breath. The Bible also does not specifically take a position on abortion in the Old Testament, nor does our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must rely on the traditions of God’s Chosen People as a guide to this controversial issue. In this regard, the pro-life position is incorrect.

However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women. This obviously also extends to the fetus in her belly, which is not considered alive until it has taken its first breath. Therefore, the obvious choice should be that it is in the father’s power to decide on the issue of abortion of the child of his wife (Sex is only permissible between a married man and a married woman.) This also extends to birth control; birth control should only be used by women if their husband asks them to. Thus, the feminist pro-choice movement is also out of line with God’s holy desires. Therefore, we come to an abortion policy that is most in accordance with Sacred Scripture and God’s Word and everlasting Love; that it is morally acceptable to be pro-choice as long as it is the father’s choice./Quote

That certainly brought a chuckle to my day :p

Eating your own offspring occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - cooking your kids is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be either if we continue this erroneous methodology.


Eating kids is natural (not cooking them, though), and cooking one is allowed by the Bible, so long as you don't boil it in mommy's milk.

It's not an erroneous methodology just because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.


Thus, the methodology you used to reach what you think the scripture meant by 'natural' must be flawed because it doesn't mean anything with your method and I think we can be pretty sure the author meant something.

Yes. The author was probably referring to temple prostitution. That's what those references are usually about.

Except that I give what I can afford to charity. However I do need to live and provide for myself and later for my family. Which is not wrong. You lose.

Show the verses.

I can find verses that tell you to vow poverty. I can find the verses that tell you to leave any family to follow Christ. I can find verses that tell you what the 'required' things are for a true christian.. and it is a damn sight less than most christians own... I think it is a table, chair and lamp.. I'd have to check.

So - where does the scripture tell you to 'give what you can afford'? WHere does it say to provide for yourself? Doesn't it say exactly the opposite? Consider the lilies, and all that.

But since we weren't talking about how we viewed homosexuality today, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

I was. Whenever this discussion comes up, people are asked to provide biblical references that justify their religious prejudice against homosexuality. Since you provided such a passage, I thought that it certainly was open for that sort of treatment.

I was merely pointing out that there is more than one place in the Bible that claims homosexuality is a sin. I was also stating that the New Testament states it as well as the Old Testament because some people believe that the Old Testament became completely obsolete once Jesus fulfilled it.

And I was merely pointing out how that passage is not relevant today.

The problem is Paul wasn't the only one who thought that way. He was just the most vocal.

And he used his position of power to push that view on others. Doesn't make it any better that he was supported by others who shared it. However, my point is that NOW we should know better than to pay any heed to the rantings of a prejudiced jerk. Often we DON't, but we should. Not to Godwin or anything, but Hitler's viewpoint was quite popular amongst his people. That didn't make him RIGHT as we now know.


That depends on how you define the word idol. People worship more than just invisible men in the sky. Some worship drugs, money, gambling, themselves and other various things that lead to a lot of problems (not that any of these necessarily directly cause homosexuality but it is something to think about).

EDIT: I hate spelling.

But referring back to the passage in question, was Paul suggesting that worshipping drugs or money caused homosexuality? Are you suggesting it?

Since the discussion was one of biblical passages that are used to condemn homosexuality, I think it reasonable to look at what the passage actually says and how it applies today. It actually says that God turned people into homosexuals (presumably because they worshipped the idols of other gods... and he was referring to actual idols of actual gods, not the various other things people worship) and then God punished them for being homosexual. I don't see any way of looking at that as anything that a sane person should consider as a moral guide to the treatment of homosexuals today, do you?

Frankly, we could take homosexuality out of the equation entirely. What if God had turned them all into women for worshipping false idols then punished them for being women? You see how the set up doesn't get any better, no matter what you think of homosexuality? In this passage, either Paul is a jerk that we should not listen to, or God is. Or both. Take your pick.

1. It is.
2. It is.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALA!" does not an argument make.

However, we must also realize that God meant for man to have dominion over women. This obviously also extends to the fetus in her belly, which is not considered alive until it has taken its first breath. Therefore, the obvious choice should be that it is in the father’s power to decide on the issue of abortion of the child of his wife (Sex is only permissible between a married man and a married woman.) This also extends to birth control; birth control should only be used by women if their husband asks them to. Thus, the feminist pro-choice movement is also out of line with God’s holy desires. Therefore, we come to an abortion policy that is most in accordance with Sacred Scripture and God’s Word and everlasting Love; that it is morally acceptable to be pro-choice as long as it is the father’s choice.

LOL. Dude, you're funny. Unintentionally, but still funny.

It's not an erroneous methodology just because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

That's correct, it is not erroneous just because it doesn't agree with my preconceived notion. It is erroneous because it makes false steps and comes to bad conclusions.

Yes. The author was probably referring to temple prostitution. That's what those references are usually about.

You seem to be confusing the OT with the NT and Paul's writings. Paul was a Roman, the Temple Prostitutes were with the Babylonians and Assyrians etc., the Romans didn't keep their prostitutes in temples, in fact their temple women were far more likely to be virgins. There was no need for prostitution in Rome to be called unnatural, it was perfectly legal and acceptable to the majority of Romans at the time.

Nice try though. More likely he meant exactly what it sounds like he meant. ...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men,... and what he said it plain enough. The normal translation of the passage is not wrong just because it doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.

Eating your own offspring occurs in nature - thus is 'natural'. Thus - cooking your kids is 'natural'. I don't know what 'un-natural' acts would be either if we continue this erroneous methodology.

Thus, the methodology you used to reach what you think the scripture meant by 'natural' must be flawed because it doesn't mean anything with your method and I think we can be pretty sure the author meant something.

So... you basically saying because other animals do it it must be morally acceptable? Other species kill each other over land and food. So killing must be natural and therefore I should be allowed to kill other people for the same reasons.

That's correct, it is not erroneous just because it doesn't agree with my preconceived notion. It is erroneous because it makes false steps and comes to bad conclusions.


I disagree. Un-natural means 'not natural'. That's not some secret meaning. Thus - if a thing is 'natural'... it is not 'un-natural'.


You seem to be confusing the OT with the NT and Paul's writings. Paul was a Roman, the Temple Prostitutes were with the Babylonians and Assyrians etc., the Romans didn't keep their prostitutes in temples, in fact their temple women were far more likely to be virgins. There was no need for prostitution in Rome to be called unnatural, it was perfectly legal and acceptable to the majority of Romans at the time.


I'm not confusing my Old and New testaments at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as I expected. It doesn't matter if prostitution was legal and acceptable among Romans... believe it or not, Paul wasn't writing for 'romans'... but for specific people - who were the nascent 'christian' church - and, more to the point, were likely to be mostly Greeks.

The sexual mores are thus mainly based on the laws of Israel... which didn't punish homosexuality, but DID punish temple prostitution.

As for the idea that romans didn't keep prostitutes in the temples... as I've pointed out, that is irrelevent. The Greeks definitely did... for example, the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth had somewhere in the order of a thousand temple prostitutes.


Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that - while Paul described himself as a Roman citizen, he was raised (according to Acts) according to Jewish tradition (Acts says he was circumcised on the eight day, and that he studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem). He even describes himself as a Pharisee. And he was born in (what would today be called) Turkey. To imagine that Paul some type of exemplar for Romans or Rome is kind of ridiculous.


Nice try though. More likely he meant exactly what it sounds like he meant. ...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men,... and what he said it plain enough.


Yep, the meaning is plain enough. Paul uses phrasing like 'malakos' (which describes the rentboys of pederasts) and arsenkoites (which would etymologically mean something like 'licentious men'). So - Paul attacks the use of children, and of temple prostitutes, both of which are consistent with the 'message' of Jesus, and the Hebrew laws.

And - if you look at ALL the sexual laws that Paul writes about - he always attacks 'lust'. Heterosexual OR homosexual, it seems that it was licentiousness that was Paul's big stumbling block.


The normal translation of the passage is not wrong just because it doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.

No, the 'normal' translations of the New Testament are wrong just because they are wrong. And centuries of tradition have carefully kept them wrong.

...
I'm not confusing my Old and New testaments at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as I expected.

Ah, nice. You make a mistake and I notice and point it out for you to correct, thus, I don’t know what I’m talking about? But of course.

It doesn't matter if prostitution was legal and acceptable among Romans... believe it or not, Paul wasn't writing for 'romans'... but for specific people - who were the nascent 'christian' church - and, more to the point, were likely to be mostly Greeks.

Really, you think Paul wasn’t writing to the Church in Rome in the Book of Romans? Or perhaps you think the Christian church in Rome was not Romans but mostly Greeks? Interesting. Perhaps you’d like to back that up for the rest of us. Seeing as how most of the material I’ve read seems to think that the church in Rome consisted primarily of Roman Jews and Roman Gentiles, with no real mention that it was Greeks and not Romans in the Roman Christian church at all, you should share this insight of yours with the rest of the world. It would be groundbreaking.

The sexual mores are thus mainly based on the laws of Israel... which didn't punish homosexuality, but DID punish temple prostitution.

As for the idea that romans didn't keep prostitutes in the temples... as I've pointed out, that is irrelevent. The Greeks definitely did... for example, the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth had somewhere in the order of a thousand temple prostitutes.

And if we were talking about Paul’s letters to the Greeks or to the Corinthians specifically, perhaps you’d have a point worth discussing. But we are talking about his letter to the Romans so until you show us how the Romans were Greeks I guess your Greek examples mean nothing here.

Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that - while Paul described himself as a Roman citizen, he was raised (according to Acts) according to Jewish tradition (Acts says he was circumcised on the eight day, and that he studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem). He even describes himself as a Pharisee. And he was born in (what would today be called) Turkey. To imagine that Paul some type of exemplar for Romans or Rome is kind of ridiculous.

And for you to suggest that I made any statement that he was an exemplar of Roman citizenry is a kind of ridiculousness in itself. Nice misdirection there though, it almost hides the fact that you have a lack of actual argument here. But at least you did show that you know Paul was not a Greek, and he wasn’t born in Greece, and we are talking about a letter he wrote to the Romans, perhaps you would like to explain again why you think Greek customs come into play with Paul’s letter to the Romans just because he might have been passing through Greece and Corinth when the letter was written?

Yep, the meaning is plain enough. Paul uses phrasing like 'malakos' (which describes the rentboys of pederasts) and arsenkoites (which would etymologically mean something like 'licentious men'). So - Paul attacks the use of children, and of temple prostitutes, both of which are consistent with the 'message' of Jesus, and the Hebrew laws.

Here, in Romans chapter 1, we are not talking about a couple of words that are included in lists of bad behaviors in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Here, in Romans chapter 1, we have descriptive sentences, telling us exactly what Paul is talking about. If we were talking about the word ‘homosexual’ being translated into certain English translation Bibles for 'malakos or arsenkoites, then yes, you might have an argument then. But not here you don’t, because here we are talking about what Paul says in Romans 1 and it’s clear and not ambiguous or questionable at all. It is talking about men (and women) who burn with lust for one another, not, as you would say, a child rape or a prostitution situation where only some of the people involved could be described as having a ‘lust’ for the relationship.

And - if you look at ALL the sexual laws that Paul writes about - he always attacks 'lust'. Heterosexual OR homosexual, it seems that it was licentiousness that was Paul's big stumbling block.

I can agree that Paul attacked ‘lust’ and thought it a stumbling block. Both heterosexual and homosexual lusts, any sexual lust that took a person to participate in sexual relations outside of the confines of marriage between a man and one wife was bad. Here you and I can agree.

No, the 'normal' translations of the New Testament are wrong just because they are wrong. And centuries of tradition have carefully kept them wrong.

You will likely continue to believe this, regardless that I have shown you that your argument is about the wrong book, wrong words, wrong passages, wrong cities and wrong customs, I suspect that you’ve made the same arguments so many times you’ve forgotten exactly which scriptures and verses you were attacking with them because clearly you’ve used the wrong ones here when you should be talking about the verses in the Book of Romans.