Jump to bottom

Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages (Page 2 of 4) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=24357" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages (Page 2 of 4)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages <span class="small">(Page 2 of 4)</span>\

 
Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-15-2004 18:52
quote:
Dan said:

Your bible may just be wrong. You may be praying to the wrong god (given that
one even exists), all the morals you choose to live your life by may just be
making some divine being more and more angry.


Perhaps. Then I would be a fool wouldn't I? Because if Christ didn't rise from the dead my faith is in vain. Heh, well, let's just hope you are right and my God is wrong then.

quote:
Dan said:

Some people also believe Christianity is wrong


Some people believe canabalism is wrong. You still have not answered my question. Who then makes the decisions that something is to be acceptable and something not? Who has that power. I know that I don't. Do you? Does a government? Who?

quote:
Dan said:

No free country has a religon


But then no free country has no religion.

quote:
DL-44 said:

But it is still just your opinion.


Perhaps. That statement, if I agree with it or not, did not come from me. It is not my opinion. It is a statement.

quote:
DL-44 said:

Please clarify, as I am unsure if I've seen you state what your actual position
is on the issue - do you wish to see it illegal for homosexual couples
to marry in the US?


My wishes are immaterial. If I want it or not I have no real power to influence it either way. I can voice my opinion, but without support that goes through the cracks anyway. My position is the position of God. That is it. My morals are mixed up. My opinion is biased. Do not accept them. God's aren't. He knows what works and what doesn't. That is why He explained life to us.

Mobrul, Southern Baptists as a whole may support it, but Jesus himself drank wine, so what do you think? Alcohol or drunkardness? (wine in that day was hard to get drunk on, you had to drink alot. Now you only have to drink a little to get drunk)

quote:
mobrul said:

And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to
produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a
thought about homosexuality.


I can do better than that. I can say one part where he denounces all sexual sin.

quote:
mobrul said:

It is YOUR version of morality


No, it is God's. Mine is immaterial.

quote:
WebShaman said:

Didn't God make Nature?


And man destroyed it.

quote:
DL-44 said:

And quoting Paul doesn't count - that tells us what Paul thought about it, not
what Jesus thought.


Well, not precisely. What Paul wrote down is what was revealed to Him by God. But don't worry, I can find one that is not in one of his epistles. Many actually.

If you can wait a little, my time is up today. I can get them to you next time.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 19:17

Actually fellas there's plenty in the old testament regarding homosexuality. If you look at the first of the book of John in the new testament it explains that in the beginning was the word (Jesus), and the word was with god and was god, trinity stuff. They all agree, they're all the same person.

edit: daggum it, failed to see page 2 yet again



(Edited by JKMabry on 12-15-2004 19:20)

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-15-2004 20:12

I understand, Mr. Mabry, that there are a handful of places in the Old Testament that denounce homosexuality. I am relatively comfortable with the contents of a Bible (RC and Protestant versions). I asked the question because

  • I know damn well there is no place in the Gospels where Jesus is said to [directly] express any opinion on homosexuality
  • I know (with almost certainty) that someone would bring up the Old Testament


Which brings me to those passages. I'm familiar with the passages in question. I also know that on either side of those passages are laws concerning

  • the cutting of one's hair
  • the composition of one's clothes
  • the covering of one's head
  • one's menu
  • the treatment of women during menstration
  • the marrying of one's brother's widow


...and many, many more laws that nobody makes any deal about today. If one is going to quote John (or Matthew) to show Jesus wishes for those laws to be upheld, then that lengthens my list of things we must outlaw if we base our laws on somebody's religious doctrine.

[SIDENOTE: To be perfectly clear, I don't believe JKMabry thinks these things should be laws. I believe JKMabry understands the seperation of church and state very well. I belive JKMabry does all he can to be both a pious, God-fearing man and a fair, honest, and patriotic citizen. I believe JKMabry is a reasonable human being.]

I point this all out for one reason, and one reason only. Gideon is (and others are) calling for laws to legislate someone's version of morality. Doing so opens one up to all sorts of problems. I'm usually wary of the "slippery slope" argument, but in this case, I believe it is warrented.

Gideon still has not answered the question, "Why legislate one set of morals and not another?"
Do you advocate the outlawing of Birth Control?
Do you advocate the prohibition of alcohol consumption?
Do you advocate the outlawing of non-Kosher diets?
Do you advocate the outlawing of cutting the hair on the sides of a man's head?
Do you advocate the outlawing of wearing clothes made from two different materials?

[edit: stupid spelling mistake]

(Edited by mobrul on 12-15-2004 23:05)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-15-2004 22:24

Hmmm...I see no evidence whatsoever that man has destroyed Nature. I see that man has altered some of it. Nature is huge. It also includes the ENTIRE Universe (all of existence, actually). Truly, Gideon, next time think before posting.

I also see no direct evidence of Jesus directly prohibiting just homosexuality. As Morbrul so eloquently posted, there are references in the Old Testament - but so are references to the other laws that Mobrul posted. I'm curious to see how Gideon responds to that. He says he follows his god's laws.

Gideon, das that mean you follow all those laws mentioned above in Mobrul's post, as well? Apparently, you must, because you believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

And in response to JKMabry - please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting homosexuality. Not from the Old Testament, not from other authors - but from Jesus himself.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-16-2004 18:55
quote:
mobrul said:

all he can to be both a pious, God-fearing man and a fair, honest,
and patriotic
citizen.


Why can't both be the same?

quote:
mobrul said:

If one is going to quote John (or Matthew) to show Jesus wishes
for those laws
to be upheld


Actually, He addresses one of those directly if I remember right, and several others indirectly. Including the Homosexual issue.

Well, my stance, as a usual Baptist, is with the Bible. All quarrels are men just trying to interpret God's Words in different ways. If you want my personal opinion to those questions, I can give them, but it is the same as the Bible, so why don't I tell you what the Bible says about them?

quote:
mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of Birth Control?


Me personally, my morals say go for it, but that is why I am wrong. It sounds okay to me, but the Bible says that God has chosen a life for each person before they are born, thus all forms of the destruction or predestruction of a child is against the Bible.

quote:
mobrul said:

Do you advocate the prohibition of alcohol consumption?


Jesus, who never sinned, drank wine. Thus, it isn't a sin. Thus alchohol in moderation is okay.

quote:
mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of non-Kosher diets?


Romans does a good job of talking about that subject, read chapter 15 (I think).

quote:
mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of cutting the hair on the sides of a man's head?


That is for a ccertain person, can't remember the name now, but John the Baptist was one of them.

quote:
mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of wearing clothes made from two different
materials?


I don't remember this part, so could you help me out here?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-16-2004 19:54

Leviticus 19:19 talks about not sowing two different kinds of seeds in the same field, nor wearing clothes made of two different kinds of material. (In some translations, it says specifically, clothes made of wool and linen. Some translations leave it generic - any two materials.)

So, if I understand you correctly, you would like to make US law reflect how you/your church interprets the laws, regulations, and commandments of the Bible?

Do you not understand, that is the EXACT same attitude we condemn in fundamentalist/totalitarian regimes of the Middle East?
Making the US a theocracy, regardless of whose religions doctrine is used, can only result in one thing - ugly, violent, bloody, civil war.

It's OK for you to believe the things you do; please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. But to use the power of the federal and state governments to legislate morality and religious doctrine is just simply a horrible way to run a country -- any country -- but especially one as diverse as this one.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-16-2004 20:03

Ok, once again, I'd like to return to the original topic, at least to some extent.

Gideon - you are basically skirting every issue put before you, and very distinctly refusing to put your own opinion into the mix. You can say all you want that it is "god's" opinion, and not yours, but as you yourself stated, any person's belief, even if based on the bible, is dependant on your personal interpretation of it. Therefore your *own* opinion is of the utmost importance in such matters.

Now, what I really want to know is this (as asked before) -

are you arguing that homosexual marriage should be illegal, or are you simply throwing in your 2 cents by saying that you personally think it is 'wrong'?

There is, of course, a very big difference.

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 12-16-2004 20:13

mobrul: thanks for the vote of confidence (I may have cried had you not put that in there, very merciful ). You bring up laws that I struggle with myself, that seem absolutely rediculous to me. But they are in the Bible, a book I hold in high regard regardless of whether I understand the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts inside out and within the context of the time they were written. I do not know a great deal about the Bible, I am not a religious person, but my faith is unshakable, as is my relationship with God, and my understanding of the Bible is most likely greater than most on the planet. These laws however, have always bothered me, and here I sit confronted with them yet again and not knowing how to answer, thanks, fartknocker.

I've heard some great "context of the time they were written" arguments for these types of laws in the past but haven't bothered to research them in great detail for my own satisfaction, that to me is very low on my priority list. I do believe however that there is an overwhelming amount of mention in the Bible, old and new testaments, regarding sexual sin. This is something I'm familiar with, looking at magazines as a kid started me on the natural path until I could've had quite a trophy room as a young adult were it kosher to make headmounts for such a thing. That admission to qualify my authority to say that things labeled as sexual sin in the Bible lead to no good at best, not optimal at least. In my case I was no respecter of women as independent worthy souls and I can say the same for lots of guys I've known. As for homosexuality not being optimal, it's just plain to me that Tab A is not to be inserted into Slot B, Slot A is much more accomodating and actually produces fruit (if you can follow that example, to me it's obvious).

Throughout the Bible family is a sign of blessing, offspring. There is no such fruit from a homosexual realtionship.

God is our Father, he doesn't hate any of us. He does however show us the law and tell us what's best for us as any father would. When our children don't heed our warnings they suffer the consequences of their actions, we may be dissapointed, furious, feeling like they're little ingrates, but we love them deeply, and when they see the light and decide to obey, lesson learned, don't we reeeejoice

God is my father, that's the relationship I have with Him, I feel that love in a very real way, I've experienced the fruit of heeding His wisdom. It's just a great relationship. He's not told me lately to forego the poly cotton blend, or to quit shaving.

That was a disjointed ramble, I apologize, I'm at work and don't have the luxury of composing my thoughts into coherent chunks. I just wanted to share a little bit about the faith I live as it was pointed out that I'm not the most open book in the room here.

quote:
ws said:
And in response to JKMabry - please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting homosexuality. Not from the Old Testament, not from other authors - but from Jesus himself.



There is none that I'm aware of, that is why I pointed out what I did, so you'd see where Gideon comes from. Or any other Christian for that matter, though I wouldn't presume to speak on Gideon's behalf or any other Christian's, just a high level overview kinda statement that was.

Gideon:

I never meant to make you sound homophobic at all, sorry if you felt that way. I've gotta admit I've seen your name attached to some long posts within mostly philosophical/religious threads that I try to stay away from for the most part, but I've not read those posts so I hardly know you. I'd like to get to know you better and will try to read some of what you've said in order to do so. We are brothers no doubt, different parts of the same body even, none more critical than the other and each with it's function. I don't desire you to be like me, I just throw out who I am in Christ, when I mention my priorites, they are mine, I don't mean to imply that they should be yours, you just go man, shew y'self approved workman

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-16-2004 22:04

^Amen to that faith JK

quote:
WebShaman said:

Truly, Gideon, next time think before posting.


I did, and I stand by what I said. Man's actions destroyed nature, and all it's potential.

quote:
WebShaman said:

He says he follows his god's laws


And I do (or at least try to. It is a hard thing with this sin nature.)

quote:
WebShaman said:

Gideon, das that mean you follow all those laws mentioned above in Mobrul's
post, as well?


Some yes, most no. There are human interpretations behind those "laws" if you look a little deeper. I follow Jesus, not human interpretations.

quote:
WebShaman said:

please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting
homosexuality


All in good time.

quote:
mobrul said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you would like to make US law reflect how
you/your church interprets the laws, regulations, and commandments of the
Bible?


No, you don't understand me correctly. God's laws are exclusive, not inclusive. All people do not choose to follow Jesus. It is sad, but it happens. In that case, not all people are going to want to follow God's Word. It is a simple case in logic. I would like US law to reflect God's Word, but it can't if it is going to allow all people an equal voice and an equal share of freedom.

quote:
mobrul said:

Making the US a theocracy, regardless of whose religions doctrine is
used, can only result in one thing - ugly, violent, bloody, civil war.


And I agree. The US should not be a led by people who twist God's Word. That happened in the Middle Ages and that gave us the crusades.

quote:
DL-44 said:

is dependant on your personal interpretation of it. Therefore your *own* opinion
is of the utmost importance in such matters.


My *own* opinion changes every day with new revelations from God. Every day. My opinion is changing, God doesn't change. His "opinions" (if that is what you want to call His laws that were there for a good reason) don't change. My point is that I can't base anything on my opinion because it really doesn't stand up to much, only God's does. Do you really want an opinion that might change tomorrow?

quote:
DL-44 said:

basically skirting every issue put before you,


Like what?

quote:
DL-44 said:

are you arguing that homosexual marriage should be illegal, or are you simply
throwing in your 2 cents by saying that you personally think it is 'wrong'?


I am saying that homosexuality is illegal, and should be recognized as such by the National Government.

quote:
JKMabry said:

I do not know a great deal about the Bible


Me too, another reason why my opinion doesn't count.

Thanks JK, will do. Sorry about having such long posts, but as my situation stands, I have about 6 or seven people I am responding to, and only once or twice to do it.

To anyone else, that is also the reason I might miss something, so if I do, please remind me.

quote:
JKMabry said:

I never meant to make you sound homophobic at all


It's okay. Some people get "homophobic" and "disgusted with the sin of homosexuality" mixed up. I am a part of the latter.

Oh, and Mobrul, I will definitly look up those leviticus verses. I too have had questions about the linen and hair things as well. No doubt that is why many ancient Jewish leaders (and Jesus) had long hair. I just wish I could remember the name of that type of person. If you recall the story of Samson, who had long hair, and if he kept his hair long he would have power from God. Then Delilah came along and seduced him to get it cut. Then he lost his super human strength and later died. He was one of those people, I just can't remember.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 12-16-2004 22:07)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-16-2004 23:09
quote:
Gideon: No doubt that is why many ancient Jewish leaders (and Jesus) had long hair. I just wish I could remember the name of that type of person.



I believe the term is Nazarite. The Nazirites were people that had devoted themselves to God and given Him a pledge. As a sign of their pledge they let their hair grow long. Their long hair was the outer sign to people around them that they had devoted themselves to God.

Samson, IIRC, fell under this definition.

EDIT:
As far as homosexuality and the NT goes:

Romans 1:26-27

"(26)Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27)In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves due penalty for their perversion."

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-16-2004 23:39)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-17-2004 00:01

Another:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"(9)Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."


Skipping forward a bit:

1 Corinthians 6:18

"(18)Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."


EDIT:
As for the old Testament and the 600 or so laws of the Pentateuch (clothing, pork, carrion, shellfish, stonings, etc.), unlike many Christian Fundamentalists, I do not folllow them. The Old Testament is mostly history in my view, pre-Christ history, and they were written for a specific people in a specific time. That people was the Jews and that time was pre-Christ.

Quite simply, the Bible states that Mosaic Law ended with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Followers of Christ are not under the Law of Moses:
"He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations" (Eph. 2:15)

And to this can also be added the fact that Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses:
"I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 00:20)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-17-2004 00:02
quote:
Gideon said:

I am saying that homosexuality is illegal, and should be recognized as such by
the National Government.



So you are saying that not only marriage, but any homosexual act should be illegal?

And yet you keep saying that you don't wish to force your views on anyone else?

You have to pick one or the other.....it can't work both ways

quote:
Gideon said:

My *own* opinion changes every day with new revelations from God. Every
day. My opinion is changing, God doesn't change. His "opinions" (if that is
what you want to call His laws that were there for a good reason) don't change.
My point is that I can't base anything on my opinion because it really doesn't
stand up to much, only God's does. Do you really want an opinion that might
change tomorrow?



If it's your own honest opinion, YES. That's what opinions are - thoughts that can change at any moment given different circumstances/newly found knowledge.

Saying that your views are god's views is very much a copout. Again, it must be reiterated: everything that you call the laws/views of god, is only YOUR OPINION of what the interpretation of those works is.

quote:
Gideon said:

Some yes, most no. There are human interpretations behind those "laws" if you
look a little deeper. I follow Jesus, not human interpretations.



But all you have to tell you of the wishes of Jesus are human interpretations!

These are two very irreconcilabe things, IMO....

You won't accept human interpretation.
You claim that parts of the bible which you apparantly disagree with are *not* the solemn and holy word of god?
Yet you insist that the bible is to be taken literally, cover to cover (you've said as much yourself many times now).

Please....explain this giant contradiction to me.

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?



{{edit - Ramasax-

most of us are aware of parts of the bible which talk about homosexuality.

But Gideon spoke specifically of Jesus' view on it, which is what is in question for us. What did Jesus ever have to say about the issue?

(Edited by DL-44 on 12-17-2004 00:04)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-17-2004 00:43
quote:
How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?



See the end of my previous post concerning the OT. Since I am not sure which contradictions specifically you are referring to I am supposing it is in reference to OT/NT.

quote:
most of us are aware of parts of the bible which talk about homosexuality.


Gotcha DL, I missed the qualifier "directly from Jesus." My fault. I do believe that the writings of Paul and Timothy were directly inspired by Christ, but shant expect of you to believe the same so I guess this one is a dead end road for.

Direct usage of the word homosexual, or the equivalent, by Christ, does not exist as far as I know.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 00:47)

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-17-2004 02:33
quote:
How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?



just my personal view on this, but taking the bible as truth but not necessarily taking every bit as literal is certainly possible. a number of the items quoted from leviticus, for example, need to be looked at as a set of rules put forth for the levitical priests of that time (which is what they were if you do some research). homosexuality is referenced in a number of places aside from leviticus in the OT.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 12-17-2004 02:35)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-17-2004 07:19

Well, ALL the religous members of the Asylum have failed the "Jesus vs Homosexuality" test.

No evidence. I find this incredible. Yes, we are ALL aware that it is mentioned in the OT. But Jesus came after the OT. Apparently he came to "wash away our sins" - but he never once personally mentions that Homosexuality is a sin. Following that train of thought - Jesus was against other types of sin, and made mention of such. I find it incredible, that some believers of christ can take some of what is in the Bible literally, take some of it in opinion, and throw the rest of it out as "not relavant" to themselves!

Gideon says he follows Jesus - Jesus never said directly that Homosexual activity was wrong. But Gideon says that it is illegal. Gideaon follows the Bible literally (according to his own words) and that of opinion??!!

I think I have had enough of this type of illogic. It is for inherent illogic like this, and descrepancies and conflicts within the Bible itself that eventually lead me away from it, and the christian faith.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-17-2004 18:10
quote:
taking the bible as truth but not necessarily taking every bit as literal is certainly possible.



Certainly - I can agree with that.

But Gideon has argued extensively that the entire bible is to be taken literally.

This is the contradiction in question in my previous post Ramasax - specifically that Gideon states that the bible *must* be taken literally, and yet just now brushes off parts of the bible with which he disagrees as something that should *not* be taken literally.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

To take something "literally" is not open to grey areas. Either you DO or you DON'T.

quote:
I do believe that the writings of Paul and Timothy were directly inspired by Christ, but shant expect of you to believe the same



Good thing

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-17-2004 18:49
quote:
Ramasax said:

I believe the term is Nazarite. The Nazirites were people that had devoted
themselves to God and given Him a pledge. As a sign of their pledge they let
their hair grow long. Their long hair was the outer sign to people around them
that they had devoted themselves to God.


That is right, thanks Ramasax. I just discovered that last night in my reading. Samson, John the Baptist, and Saint Paul were some of the most know ones.

They also could not:
-Drink wine
-Go near dead bodies
-Cut their hair.

They did this to be "specially devoted" to God. You can read about it in Numbers 6.

quote:
DL-44 said:

any homosexual act should be illegal?


Is illegal, not should be.

quote:
DL-44 said:

is only YOUR OPINION of what the interpretation of those works is.


Very true, but most of God's laws are pretty straight forward. My point for that was that for truth I look in the Bible. I can form an opinion about the truths presented in there, but again, they pale to truth. My Pastor says this every Sunday:

quote:
Remember! Anything is say to you pales in comparison to what is written in here. This is the Words of God, and they hold absolute truth.


That is my beliefs as well.

quote:
DL-44 said:

You claim that parts of the bible which you apparantly disagree with are *not*
the solemn and holy word of god?


Which parts? I agree with all the Bible.

quote:
DL-44 said:

You won't accept human interpretation.


No, I am saying that human interpretation might be wrong, which is why you must always go back to the Bible to affirm the positions.

quote:
DL-44 said:

Yet you insist that the bible is to be taken literally, cover to cover


Correct, possibly not the translations, but the ancient texts have no errors, and the new texts are as close to those as we can get.

quote:
DL-44 said:

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet
have parts that must *not* be taken literally?


The entire Bible is literal, but there are symbols in the Bible. You can tell when something is a symbol and when it is not. I am currently reading a Revelations novel that is trying to explain many of the symbols in Revelations. The problem is that you have to know when they are symbols/parables, and when they are literal occurances. I am learning how that works.

Please don't ask me anymore questions about this, because I know where you want to go with it and there is another thread for that discussion.

quote:
Fig said:

a number of the items quoted from leviticus, for example, need to be looked at
as a set of rules put forth for the levitical priests of that time (which is
what they were if you do some research).


That would make sense. That would make lots of sense considering the rest of the book.

quote:
WebShaman said:

Gideon says he follows Jesus - Jesus never said directly that Homosexual
activity was wrong. But Gideon says that it is illegal. Gideaon follows the
Bible literally (according to his own words) and that of opinion??!!


Okay, there is a part from

quote:
Genesis 2:23-24 23 The man said, " This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.


This speaks of a man for a woman. Now lets look at

quote:
Leviticus 18:22
' You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.


Okay, now at what Jesus said:

quote:
Mark 10:2-9 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Now, granted Jesus was talking about divorce when He was questioned, and like Ramasax said there is no direct saying that homosexuality is bad, but Jesus never said that murder was bad either. He stood on the Biblical truths written in the scriptures. This was one of them. That a man should leave his parents and marry a woman. It repeates throughout scripture that that is the plan for a marriage. Jesus said:

quote:
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

He still adhered to the law and wanted His people to do the same. He just wanted to say the He was the fulfillment, where the laws killed, He redeemed. He took all the sins in the Laws of old, and died with them. He gives each person the chance to accept His gift of righteousness. If someone was a homosexual, he could accept Jesus' gift of holy righteousness and become fully redeemed. They were no longer condemned to the death they were supposed to have. Paul says that the Corinthians were homosexuals, but now by the Grace of Jesus Christ's gift, they were not homosexuals any longer. They are now redeemed, and anyone can do it too.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 12-17-2004 19:37

You still cannot present ANY evidence, that Jesus was himself against Homosexuality. None. Nothing. Not one little iota.

And don't forget, Gideon, the Bible was written by men. Thus, you are faced with quite a dilema - have they truly written, what God revealed to them? Isn't speech a problem, when translating from thought to word? Are you sure you are following the direct word of god, or are you instead following the interpreted (filtered) word of some men?

In any regards, some parts are literal, and some parts symbolic? And you just "know"?

Oh, that is just splendid.

Good grief.

I'm done here.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-17-2004 20:45
quote:
No, I am saying that human interpretation might be wrong, which is why you must always go back to the Bible to affirm the positions.



No, that's not what you said.

You said that the laws in question which Mobrul spoke of in the bible contained 'human inmterpretations' which need not be applied literally.

How is it that this particular part - specifically the laws you disagreed with - are "human interpretations" but the part - in the same set of verses - speaking of homosexuality is not?

As for knowing "where I want to go with this" - THIS is exactly where I want to go with this. beyond that, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The laws in question (the ones that mobrul spoke of) are obviously *not* parable or symbol.

Yet you hold one up as the true word of god, and the rest you disparage as "human interpretation". Both are in the bible, which you say is truth, and in the same part of the bible at that.

But - honestly....I'd rather not bother going round in circles over this again. If your answers are going to remain as vague and meaningless as they have been, don't even bother (and I won't bother pushing further).

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 12-17-2004 23:46
quote:
This is the contradiction in question in my previous post Ramasax - specifically that Gideon states that the bible *must* be taken literally, and yet just now brushes off parts of the bible with which he disagrees as something that should *not* be taken literally.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

To take something "literally" is not open to grey areas. Either you DO or you DON'T.



I can't speak for Gideon, and I am not sure on his exact words, but I think there is a misunderstanding here. Yes, many believe the Bible is the literal word of God, meaning inspired by His will, but that does not mean everything in it is supposed to be perceived in a literal sense. There is a big difference. The book of Revelations is the obvious example. While inspired by God, and being the literal word of God, it is obviously not meant to be perceived literally.

I don't prescribe to any manmade church's doctrine, and do not attend church in the organized sense, so I could be wrong. If he actually said that it *must* be taken literally, then I tend to disagree.

In any case, I am not here to quibble over semantics.

Back to the homosexual discussion.

There are a couple of important points which are being overlooked. They are:

1. Scripture does not condone sexual relations of any type out of wedlock.
2. Scripture clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

We can logically conclude from these points that any and all sexual relations, homosexual and/or heterosexual, without marriage, are sinful. Furthermore, one can also conclude that homosexual marriage is not a possibility because we are explicitly told that it is reserved for unions between a man and a woman. Hence, it goes without saying that homosexual activity is a sin just as fornication is a sin.

What we do not know for certain is the scale of the sin, but sin is sin.

That ultimately brings us back to the original topic, more or less, should the secular government act in a theocratic way by legislating a certain viewpoint? The answer is no. We saw what happened in the early Christian Church when this happened, and we still see it today in many Muslim countries.

My main concern still goes back to the impact on society and culture.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 23:53)

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-18-2004 01:52

About Jesus, if he did speak of homosexuality and not the depraved habit of roman upper class to f**k little boys, why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?
- There was a "Michael Jackson"-problem going on at that time, and Jesus would probably take offense, and probably speak against that.
So, what's the likelyhood that christians - who even today try to confuse matters in an attempt to trivialize the scandals - would try to do the same back then?
The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the church.
- Bring the children, Jesus said, but I doubt that this was what he meant.
I think he was upset about adult men into young boys.. and not homosexuals at all.

(^-^)b

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 12-18-2004 07:51
quote:
why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?



'homosexual' is not gender specific.


(The word "lesbian" comes from the island of Lesbos and the communities of women there.)

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sappho.htm

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 12-18-2004 15:58

Ram - If you have problems with gay 'unions' causing a negative impact on society I would really ask you to step back and spend your time working on the divorce issue instead. That is scientifically and theologically proven to be a detriment to children and society. I can't see why anyone would want to step away from this issue to worry about anything so marginalize as homosexual cival unions.

Dan @ Code Town

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-18-2004 18:59
quote:
The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the church.



please do not confuse or lump in the decisions of the catholic church with those of the general christian population. they're two entirely separate things, the opinion of one does not reflect the other in any way.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-18-2004 19:17
quote:
NoJive said:

quote:

why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?


'homosexual' is not gender specific.(The word "lesbian" comes from the island of Lesbos and the communities of women there.)http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sappho.htm



I know that - that's the whole point.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuals, he talked only about men with men, and he was'nt sloppy with his wording either.
- Infact, he was very articulate and specific in everything he said.
And knowing of this situation in the roman upper class, one might suspect he was'nt referring to homosexuals at all...but to something else entirely.

(^-^)b

BiGCaC
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Hartford,Ohio,USA
Insane since: May 2003

posted posted 12-18-2004 21:00
quote:
And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?



That is a bad example. But you know what in some twisted way you are right. See most murders have some kinda of mental illness so in THEIR own mind its right to them. That statement shouldnt be used for homosexuals either, or for every murder. Because not every homosexual or killer has some kinda of mental illness there maybe some out there but not every single one. And in case you are wondering how I would know about homosexuals, well think about it. Why do people steal? Some steal because they dont have the money to pay for something they want or need. I am not entitled to say whats right and whats wrong, I am a very open minded individual, and what others do in their own personal lives I dont need to know nor care to know. Unless it affects me directly.

I dont know what you or anyone else has against homosexuals, I would like to know what and why people think it is so wrong but whatever. As long as homosexual marriages dont affect you directly why care? And if you think they would affect you directly how so? If you were to get married it wouldnt really affect me. So why even bother.

I also agree that we are just trying to make everyone happy, but you cant make one happy with out at least trying to make another happy. And I somewhat am starting to see (or have been seeing) that you cant make someone happy and have everyone else agree or be happy also. There is always someone some where that will always be unhappy about something.

BiGCaC

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-18-2004 23:43

The depressing part is that these people made this issue a big deal.
It's not - especially not today.
It's like in Chicago, when the cops gave out traffic tickets because they could'nt touch Al Capone.
The Pope himself released a statment saying that being gay was a minor sin in any respect - and that there where many other, accepted practices - that where to be regarded as much worse sins.

It's "traffic tickets", and it's bloody pointless.

(^-^)b

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-19-2004 19:38
quote:
WebShaman said:

In any regards, some parts are literal, and some parts symbolic? And you just
"know"?


You're right, my mistake. I said the Bible is all literal, it isn't. I was mistaken and switched some words around. Again, I am sorry.

Actually, what I believe (I'm sorry, if I lead you to believe that some all is literal) is actually in the GARBC (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) booklet I got at my Baptism. It is quite interesting that I found this:

quote:
Biblical Authority The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of scripture, do not carry scripture's inherent authority. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
quote:
DL-44 said:

Yet you hold one up as the true word of god, and the rest you disparage as
"human interpretation"


There are many human interpretations of the Bible (about as many as there are Christians and non-Christians). My thoughts on the matter are that some people look at parts of the Bible, like drunkardness, and say that all alcohol is wrong. It isn't, the Bible points out that Jesus Himself drrank wine. He just didn't get drunk.

As for the linen and cutting of the hair, I don't know for certain what those mean. They could possibly be literal for everyone, or for Levites, or for Nazarites, I don't know 100%, enough to say with certainty what the answer for your question is, I am sorry.

quote:
DL-44 said:

in the same set of verses


Actually, where the cutting of hair is touched on once, it is quite clear that throughout the Bible homosexuality is on the same bar as extra-marital relationships. It is a sin like any other. I am not saying that homosexuality is worse worse than murder, nor is it worse than stealing, nor is murder worse than homosexuality, nor is stealing worse that homosexuality. They are all on the same level and labeled as sin. The cool part is that they are all redeemed by Jesus' gift.

quote:
Ramasax said:

That ultimately brings us back to the original topic, more or less, should the
secular government act in a theocratic way by legislating a certain viewpoint?
The answer is no. We saw what happened in the early Christian Church when this
happened, and we still see it today in many Muslim countries.


This is true that many times when men get a hold of something good they tend to corrupt it. The thing is that if we even look at nature, taking God out which I hate doing, it is still wrong. I want to say something: the parts don't fit!
You can go on and on how much you like about how animals do things like that (I have witnessed that disgusting thing myself when my cats do it to eachother), but the point is that the parts weren't made to do it. Animals don't know better, they can't think like that: we can. Why don't we show that we are better than the animals? All they are looking for is an outlet for their lusts and desires, why can't we show that we are more civilized and better than animals?

quote:
amikael said:

The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but
rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since
homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the
church.


Actually the Pope just issued a decree for all Catholics to make a stand against same sex marriage. It has been on the news a lot.

quote:
amikael said:

There was a "Michael Jackson"-problem going on at that time, and Jesus would
probably take offense, and probably speak against that.


That is another reason why Jesus probably never said anything directly against homosexuality: the people in His area of ministry didn't have a problem with it. Homosexuality was already considered wrong by them. He didn't have a need to speak about it like Paul did to the Gentile churches.

quote:
WarMage said:

I can't see why anyone would want to step away from this issue to worry about
anything so marginalize as homosexual cival unions.


Because people want to take the spotlight off themselves. The Bible speaks much about how divorce is wrong. God hates divorce.

quote:
amikael said:

Infact, he was very articulate and specific in everything he said.And
knowing of this situation in the roman upper class, one might suspect he was'nt
referring to homosexuals at all...but to something else entirely.


Perhaps, but He was God, as His name suggests, and He spoke out against against homosexuality, and virtually all sexual stuff prior to His first coming. He really had no need to reiterate it to a people who had been living with that mind set for thousands of years.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

I am a very open minded individual, and what others do in their own personal
lives I dont need to know nor care to know. Unless it affects me directly.


So you don't do anything unless it helps you out personally?

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Some steal because they dont have the money to pay for something they want or
need.


Exactly, and that is wrong. Turn the television on and you will see things on TV about homosexuality. I saw a Drew Carey episode where he turned gay to keep his job and allow his boss to stay in the counrty. Do the ends justify the means?

quote:
BiGCaC said:

I dont know what you or anyone else has against homosexuals


I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

As long as homosexual marriages dont affect you directly why care?


Because they affect me inderictly, and over a couple of decades perhaps they will do more damage than I could dream of.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

If you were to get married it wouldnt really affect me.


Possibly, right now, not much. In the future, it will.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

There is always someone some where that will always be unhappy about
something.


That is true, but my thoughts are that why should we change something that has worked for thousands of years? Why redefine marriage?

quote:
amikael said:

The Pope himself released a statment saying that being gay was a minor sin in
any respect - and that there where many other, accepted practices - that where
to be regarded as much worse sins.


Yes, he could have that opinion, but it is still a sin, no matter how small the sin a man says it is, it will still keep you out of Heaven.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-19-2004 20:20

"Perhaps, but He was God, as His name suggests, and He spoke out against against homosexuality, and virtually all sexual stuff prior to His first coming. He really had no need to reiterate it to a people who had been living with that mind set for thousands of years."

Homosexuality was widely accepted by that time, so it would'nt have hurt if he did speak up, since basically *nobody* agreed at that time that homosexuality was wrong.
- Quite the opposite actually.
- There was no such mindset.
And the priests were'nt exactly Jesus best friends, and it wouldn't suprise me one bit if the reasons where the same back then as they are now.

And we ARE second guessing Him here, which is a sin in itself, since there's really nothing written anywhere about God saying anything about homosexuality specifically.

(^-^)b

BiGCaC
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Hartford,Ohio,USA
Insane since: May 2003

posted posted 12-20-2004 04:43

Ok Gideon, so you dont want to redefine marriage. Fine so what, theres things called Civil Unions. They are similar to marriage but they are not titled as a marriage. Reason for this is god for bid if marriage isn't exactly what it is said to be in your bible.

quote:
So you don't do anything unless it helps you out personally?


Did I say that? No. I said I dont let things bother me so much when it DOES NOT effect me directly.

quote:
Exactly, and that is wrong. Turn the television on and you will see things on TV about homosexuality. I saw a Drew Carey episode where he turned gay to keep his job and allow his boss to stay in the counrty. Do the ends justify the means?


The Drew Carey show? Wow that is a reliable source of what is really going on in the world huh? I mean I normally stick to CNN or Fox headline news but the Drew Carey show wow I never knew. I do watch tv, and I think I would or at least should know what is going on with homosexuals in the news because if you haven't figured it out yet I am one.

quote:
I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.


Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?

quote:
Because they affect me inderictly, and over a couple of decades perhaps they will do more damage than I could dream of.


How can homosexuals do more damage to you indirectly? Are you refering to going to the PTO meeting at your childs school and seeing that the president of the PTO is in fact homosexual?

Us homosexuals do not agree completely with the way you heterosexuals chose to live life, but we dont sit here and bitch about it. Its your own life and we have no jurisdiction to tell you any different, and the same goes for everyone else.

BiGCaC

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 12-20-2004 09:56
quote:
I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.


Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?



not at all hypocritical. my grandfather was an alcoholic when i was very young, i hated the way his behavior affected my mom and other parts of our family. i loved him despite his alcohol problem.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-20-2004 15:54
quote:
Ramasax: Yes, many believe the Bible is the literal word of God, meaning inspired by His will, but that does not mean everything in it is supposed to be perceived in a literal sense. There is a big difference. The book of Revelations is the obvious example. While inspired by God, and being the literal word of God, it is obviously not meant to be perceived literally.



I understand this view, and the differences between the two types of views completely.

I addressed this specifically because Gideon has said that the entire bible *must* be taken literally.

I addressed it specifically to Gideon because he is the one who said it.

I am not speaking generally, but addressing a specific issue with a specific person who has professed a specific belief.

In his latest post, which I don't care to address directly, he further side-stepped and circled the issue with no relevant conclusion....again. So, that can be the end of it.

Just wanted to be sure there is no misunderstanding - I realize there are many views of the bible, but was addressing one specific one, because the person in quesion has been an adamant supporter of a completely literal reading of the bible. And yet contradicts himself very strongly with his most recent arguments.

</lengthysidenote>

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 12-21-2004 17:09
quote:
amikael said:

Homosexuality was widely accepted by that time, so it would'nt have hurt if he
did speak up, since basically *nobody* agreed at that time that homosexuality
was wrong.


Not in the Jewish community. Jesus came at a time of great "law abiding." He had to constantly tell Priests that people's soul are worth more than traditions. In that time if you were caught as a homosexual, adulteress, etc. you were stoned to death. I think you are refering to Rome, Greece, Crete. Those civilizations did have homosexuality (not many if any marriages) and that is why Paul wrote in so many of his letters that it was wrong. That was not his conclusion, though. He said there is hope for every single homosexual. Not just homosexuals, but murderers, theives, liars, etc. Those were letters of hope to lost communities.

quote:
amikael said:

And we ARE second guessing Him here, which is a sin in itself, since there's
really nothing written anywhere about God saying anything about homosexuality
specifically.


I beg to differ. Just read in God's Word some time. The Paul Epistals, Genesis, Leviticus, and possibly some other epistles.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Reason for this is god for bid if marriage isn't exactly what it is said to be
in your bible.


God forbid marriage isn't what it was started in the Bible and continued for 5-10,000 years.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Wow that is a reliable source of what is really going on in the world huh?


Not the world, American media. People spend so much time in front of the television now, it is amazing. It just goes to show what the American media accepts, more often than not, the American public accept. There are instances they don't, but it happens.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?


No, I love homosexuals. Just like I love all other sinners in this crapped out world. From God's perspective we should all die, and I'm in the same situation as many other murderers, homosexuals, "swingers," etc. I try my best to just love everybody like my family. It is hard sometimes, like when your brother or sister calls you a bad name you want to sock them, but I am getting better, and Jesus is being great about helping me out.
I hate homosexuality. I hate the sin, love the sinner. Just like Jesus hated my sins, but loved me enough to die on the cross for me.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

How can homosexuals do more damage to you indirectly? Are you refering to going
to the PTO meeting at your childs school and seeing that the president of the
PTO is in fact homosexual?


No, I am refering to a particular mind set. It is the mind set of doing something wrong, and not knowing it, or ignoring that it is wrong. You may or may not be a Christian for various reasons, but my God has revealed to me that the homosexual act is wrong.

Now, if someone has the mind set that speeding only a few miles above the speed limit is against the law, but not bad, then they have that mind set unless it is changed. Going on a few years let's say that the "lead foot" teaches her son that speeding just 5 miles over the speed limit is against the law, but not too badly that you can't do it. Later on that son teaches a drivers ed class and tells those students that, "Eh, the speed limit should be taken, but it is okay if you feel like speeding when there are no cops around." Then all those children go out and speed just 5 miles over the speed limit. Then Congress passes a law saying that all broken laws result in imprisonment, then they hire enough cops to catch all who break the law (I know it is far fetched, but work with me). Then all of those children who were taught that it "isn't too bad" all go to jail for speeding.

I know that is a little far fetched, but that is what will happen with homosexuality being displayed as "not too bad."

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Us homosexuals do not agree completely with the way you heterosexuals chose to
live life, but we dont sit here and bitch about it.


I wouldn't use all inclusive words like "us" and "we", because it is happen with a few. Minorities have a big voice, particularly if they are in Holywood.

quote:
DL-44 said:

In his latest post, which I don't care to address directly, he further
side-stepped and circled the issue with no relevant conclusion....again. So,
that can be the end of it.


My conclusion was this DL: I was wrong!

I am sorry if you don't like how I write, I am still trying to improve it. The point still stands that I used the wrong word, I am wrong, and I am sorry.

quote:
BiGCaC said:

Because not every homosexual or killer has some kinda of mental illness there
maybe some out there but not every single one.


Correct, then why do killers kill? Would they do something they have not already justified in their minds?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-21-2004 17:40

"Not in the Jewish community. Jesus came at a time of great "law abiding." He had to constantly tell Priests that people's soul are worth more than traditions. "

Yeah, but the point of Jesus was to reach out to others oustside the Jewish community, and there, it was - again - widely accepted.

Not quite awake yet, are we?

(^-^)b

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-21-2004 18:10

That is incorrect.

Jesus' main focus was the Jewish community. He was a jew.
His main goal was really to bring the jewish community back to their faith.

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-21-2004 18:21

"Jesus' main focus was the Jewish community. He was a jew.
His main goal was really to bring the jewish community back to their faith."

Think not - because if that was the case, he sure failed, and made some pretty corny moves in the process - inviting all kind of peoples that was'nt jewish at all.

Me thinks you're reaching...

Sure he wanted that, but his main focus was the human race, and that's why there's quite a lot non-jewish christians out there today.. not that this is all good by the way, considering world war 2 and all that..

(^-^)b

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 12-21-2004 19:22

And calling those people dogs all the same. Inviting them in for the scraps is far from inviting them in arms wide.

And no, his main focus were the Jews. He was a Jew. The Jews also believe Jesus to have been a good person with some good ideas but they don't believe him to be the son of god. They still await their Messiah. Take a good gander at the gospels again. Jesus way trying to save the Jews and the Jewish religion from the laws that governed the jews but stifled their faith.

The Christian religion chases after those scraps that Jesus tossed us. The Jews, as stated in the bible, are gods choosen people, not us goys.

Dan @ Code Town

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-21-2004 19:59
quote:
Sure he wanted that, but his main focus was the human race, and that's why there's quite a lot non-jewish christians out there today..



The end result has nothing at all to do with the original intent.

Of course "non-jewish christian" is a bit redundant.
Yes, his word spread all over, but he constantly strove to get 'his people' back on the right track. Many of the things he did were based on the idea of following scripture properly, and the basic idea of 'living by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter'.

quote:
Me thinks you're reaching...



Me thinks you need to learn more about the subject matter

amikael
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: övik
Insane since: Dec 2002

posted posted 12-21-2004 20:15

"The end result has nothing at all to do with the original intent. "

*LoL*
I'd love to say that to the Lord.

"Sorry dude, you messed up.."

I'm giving up, man, you are killing me..

(^-^)b

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 12-21-2004 21:22

Messed up?
Who said anything about messing up?

And what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

(Edited by DL-44 on 12-21-2004 21:24)

« Previous Page1 [2] 3 4Next Page »

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu