Topic awaiting preservation: Undecided Sexuality Questions (Corollary of Undecided Religion Religious Question) (Page 1 of 3)

A question was asked of me and my being of bisexuality. I responded there, yet I felt it would be better appropriate to set off a new topic to speak of that. So, instead of continuing the discussion in 'Undecided Religion Questions,' I have decided (yes, I can make a decision every now and then) to create this folder to discuss the previous idea. Peace. Jade, this is for you.

MichaelAndrewChristopher

It may just be for Jade, but I would like to join in. There is really no such thing as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual in my opinion. Human sexuality is completely maleable. We decide what we want to do and with whom we want to do it. I do believe that we are born with predilections that we have inherited but those can be superceded quite easily with our will. I also believe that most people don't choose to deviate from the inherited desires.

For me, the real question is not what I was born as but how I decide to live my life and for what purpose. I think we place far too much emphasis on our sexuality, so much so that it eclipses far more important aspects of our existence. Our sexuality should be subject to our higher thought patterns and ethics just as anything else that relates to our carnal desires.

. . : slicePuzzle

wow.

one very well put post.

always great reading in these corners of the 'sylum.



reitsma

On the other hand, the current leading thought strings, define a life form as something whose impetus is mainly reproduction. Rocks are not such a case, tho humans are.
So if you think you can roll around without interfering with the all mighty gene pool, you are wrong.

But then again, there is no gene pool anymore, evolution is now directed, not directional. So whatever, have fun and die.

nicely put bugs, as always. i agree wholeheartedly. we all have predispositions toward different things, whether they be good or bad, it simply comes down to whether we follow those impulses or not.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Umm...

According to what a bi-friend of mine is saying it seems that bisexuals have a harder time "fitting in" than heterosexuals or homosexuals. Apparently both the hetero- and homo-communities have problems with the people that does not fit those two standards ie: heterosexuals do not know what to think, and homosexual people either think that bisexuals are "not-quite-out-yet" or some kind of traitors...

All above is of course blatant generalisations (mostly fitting those with narrower minds), but according to both bisexual and homosexual friends of mine there are some truth behind it.


Bugs/Fig.
I do not quite think I agree with you.
In my book ones sexual preferences is not subject to rational control in that aspect.
All you can do is chose whether you want to act on it or not, but that does not change who you are.

We can almost cetrainly agree that there's difference between love and lust/desire, right?
Love is something we feel. Noone can tell us whom to love and I do not think one can choose to love someone.
I think lust/desire (and thus sexuality) works in the same way.

If someone is attracted to the same sex but does not act on it, is he/she then a heterosexual?
(after all the person still feels desire for people of the same sex)

Would this be true even if he/she was not at all attracted to the opposite sex?
(leaving the poor person with absolutely no sex at all...)

My take on things is that when it comes to these soft values (love/hate/desire/sorrow etc) it is the thought that define us rather than the acting of the thought itself..

Sure, I would certainly label someone sleeping with the same sex as a homosexual without knowing about his/her desire to do so. But then again, I would have a hard time understanding why you would do it, if you didn't want to.

Myself I could not care less. Who anyone goes to bed with is not anything I'm going to lose sleep over




[This message has been edited by Nimraw (edited 09-15-2003).]

quote:

---

Who anyone goes to bed with is not anything I'm going to lose sleep over

---

...unless of course, they choose you.

What about "philes" then? (gerontophiles, paedophiles, necrophiles)

does simply having that specific 'desire' make them a phile, or is it acting on those desires? Is someone who has decided to starve his paedophilic desires unable to maintain a healthy heterosexual relationship?


reitsma

Labels are for cans.

That being said, I believe that almost nobody is 100% gay or straight, unless they don't allow themselves to think freely about these things. I however do NOT believe that sexuality is a choice. It's a preference, but not one that can be changed. Just as one's hair color or eye color cannot be changed. Sure, you can dye your hair or take colored contacts, just like you can pretend that you're straight or homosexual while you're not. It does not change the way you are.

I know quite a lot of gay people, and almost every one of them has had issues with their sexuality, and tried, sooner or later, to ' revert to the right path' (As in: 'tab A in slot B'). They all assured me that it doesn't work that way.

Nimraw; the issue about bisexuals does exist, and there are a lot of prejudices. I know a guy who is (as he said) '80% gay and 20% straight', but he calls himself gay since people either don't believe what he says, or believe he's a sex-crazed freak.

As for myself, I'm not quite sure yet. I know I'm sexually and romantically interested in girls, but when I think of guys, I don't really see the problem. I find that I'm less interested in gender, and more in personality. If my perfect partner is everything that I would want in a partner, but happens to be a guy, then so be it.

Then there's this whole issue with homosexuality and christianity or religion in general, but I won't open that can of worms unless I'm asked to.
(I myself, being a christian, believe there's nothing wrong with it.)

Having read the other thread I think it's quite safe to put in my own thoughts about homosexuality and christianity...

Leviticus 18:22 states:
'Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination. If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death.'

This seems quite clear, don't you think? Read on.

Deuteronomium 22:28

'If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married, and he seizes her and rapes her but is caught in the act, the rapist must pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels. She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

Kind of a weird law, don't you think? We don't do that, nowadays. We put the rapist in jail and make sure he never bothers the woman again. Forcing the rapist to marry his victim would be inhumane.

But, back in the days where the israelites were just a small bunch of people, living in the desert with some tents and camels, this was the best solution. The girl's honour and virginity was taken, and no other man would ever marry her. Also, social control was high. The elders, and the other people would take care that the rapist would treat the woman as any other. In this case, the punishment for rape was far higher than nowadays. The rapist doesn't spend some time in jail, but he is forced to serve the woman he raped, for the rest of his life.

However, times have changed, and outdated laws are not longer in use. Even 50 years ago, people didn't marry because they loved eachother. They married because they had to, because they needed to have kids to take care of them later on, and for the security marriage offered. Nowadays, that's not the case anymore. In the ancient days, homosexuality was not an option. If nobody procreated anymore then it'd be exit human race.

I also believe that, outside the ten commandments, the rules and laws God has given us are not laws per se, (law meaning that if you break them, you will be punished) but more like guidelines and moral warnings. I see it like the advice a parent gives to their children. The parent gives the advice because in the end, if you'll listen to it your life will be better. But there's this thing called 'free will', so it's going to be your own choice wether you listen to it or not.

edited; finished (for now)



[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 09-16-2003).]

mahjqa - thanks for sharing your view..... you wouldn't happen to have spent any time with christians in the netherlands, have you?

now, that is a fairly common argument, to which a common response is to outline the different types of laws in the old testament, and how the different types have different meanings for us today.

but how about these verses:

Genesis 2:18

quote:

---

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

---

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

quote:

---

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

1 Peter 3:1

quote:

---

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands.....

---

1 Peter 3:7

quote:

---

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives

---

All of these verses seem to say that the only natural, God given sexual relationship is that of a husband and wife. Is this a fair enough viewpoint to hold, or is there something about these verses that i do not see?

reitsma

Reitsma ;

"thanks for sharing your view..... you wouldn't happen to have spent any time with christians in the netherlands, have you?"

Well, I happen to call myself christian, and I live in the Netherlands... So yes. However, I don't really get your question. Is my view considered the ' standard view' of the dutch christian population? I didn't have much of a chance to discuss this view with the people of my church.

"but how about these verses:"

Indeed, also these verses say the same, and are also more recent. However, all of them were still written 2000 years ago. I am sorry that I am unable to give more arguments against them, other than the fact that our society has quite changed since then. The only other argument that I can think of is that, with two consenting partners, nobody is harmed in any way, neither by what the two people do together, nor by the fact that these two people decide not to pursue in a heterosexual relationship which would fail anyway.

Also, I believe, for whatever reason, that God has created us humans as we are. I think that homosexuality is no disease, no mental illness, is not caused by psychological traumas and the like. It's simply a part of someone's being, and unchangeable.

And, to add a nitpick I always have... people have a lot of ideas on how homosexuality ' starts', by what it's 'caused' and the like... however, I think that the only people who have a real insight on what homosexuality is, are the gay people themselves.

The main reason that I believe that homosexuality in unchangeable, whatever the cause may be, is the person who is now my best friend. When we first met, everything was nice. we shared the same interests, went to some movies together, and we had a lot of discussions about life, the universe and everything. This friendship eventually got further and we became boyfriend and girlfriend, which lead eventually to kisses and further. You know the deal. until that time, she had always thought that she was bisexual, since she knew she was also attracted to girls.
I respected that, and she explained a lot of things to me how it was, that it was no disease and perfectly normal for someone to have.
(the many gay people I know all agree on this.) However, as we got further she noticed that the male body was something she just didn't feel attracted to, and at times even repulsed by. If you're a straight guy, imagine your best (male) friend. Now imagine the idea what it would be like to have sex with him. Repulsive, right? Doesn't feel natural at all, and is no way what you consider the right thing to do. That is the feeling she gets when she thinks about having sex with guys. It's just not right.
She is aware, and I am aware, that nature, evolution, God or what or whoever it might be, designed tab A to go into slot B, but it's something she'd rather do without.

We're still best friends, and we love eachother dearly. I'd take a bullet for her, and I don't doubt she'd dot the same for me. Believe me, we've tried, and she's tried, but there is no way to change it. We'd be happily engaged to marry if things were different, and I'd love to spend the rest of my life with her, but further than the platonic way it's never going to happen.
There are countless stories of people who decided to bite the bullet and live a good, 'normal'* heterosexual relationship, and have failed. Prayer didn't solve it, therapy didn't solve it. (it may be nice to know that in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) (see here under the header 'Declassification')

Once again, I apologise that I have no other arguments to back this up than my own experiences, and the countless conversations that I have had with gay people. If you have any more questions, please ask them and I'll answer them to the best of my knowledge. I eagerly await your response, or anyone's for that matter.(and I hope I don't sound too agressive in my arguments. I'm trying to make my point here, not to slap you silly with idiotic banter)


* Normal is only what society believes it to be.

edit: typo



[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 09-17-2003).]

Reitsma:

OK, about the "philes"
Gerontophila is something I know very little about (I actually had to look the word up), so without better background reading about the definition I'll keep away from that one in this post.

However if we look at the other two they are not used as sexuality definitions but also in a criminal sense.

quote:

---

does simply having that specific 'desire' make them a phile, or is it acting on those desires? Is someone who has decided to starve his paedophilic desires unable to maintain a healthy heterosexual relationship?

---

Yes and no!
Yes in a definition of sexual pereference that someone is, but not legally.
The law only acknowledge the accusations if you act on them in any way (since otherwise they would not have a case).

And I guess some people are perfectly able to adjust in the way that you describe, but they are still adjusting their actions and not their basic sexual preference.

For example:
I'm not a fan of one-night stands. I actually stay away from them.
Now considering that and the fact I'm single, means that I do not have sex.
Would my actions then define me as asexual, even if I'm attracted to women?

I'd say not.

"does simply having that specific 'desire' make them a phile, or is it acting on those desires? Is someone who has decided to starve his paedophilic desires unable to maintain a healthy heterosexual relationship?"

(pasted AIM conversation with Solle)

Solle: Kinsey discovered that there are two different definitions for the word "sexuality"; what you fantasize about, and what you'd actually like to DO. You can tell 'em that.
Mahjqa: Okay, I will. shall I also add that Kinsey was a complete fraud?
Solle: sure, and that he forced newborn boys to have orgasms for his research.



[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 09-17-2003).]

quote:

---

Indeed, also these verses say the same, and are also more recent. However, all of them were still written 2000 years ago. I am sorry that I am unable to give more arguments against them, other than the fact that our society has quite changed since then.

---

with that logic i don't see why i have to believe in christ, even tho i am a christian. sure, its in there, but it was written several thousand years ago so i dunno, things have changed a lot since then.

if you consider yourself a christian, which you appear to, imo your logic is fatally flawed.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Then it would appear, based on that logic fig, that christianity itself is fatally flawed.

I would assume you agree there are things in the bible that are not to be taken literally?

Well....who gets to choose which ones *are* taken verbatim, and which ones you need to take with a grain of salt?

Each individual it would seem. Or else, noone at all and the whole thing must be taken as it's written (assuming people could agree on who's written version is the right one ).

Do you follow every, and every little detail, every law in the bible? Please read this one:

quote:

---

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who
dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio
show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an
abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be
condoned in any circumstance. The following is an
open letter to Dr.Laura penned by a US resident and
also posted on the Internet:

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice
from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws
and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

d) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 5:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

f) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

g) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

h) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I
am confident you can help. Thank you again for
reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

---

God gave humans two great instruments, the body and the mind. When you read the bible, don't just plainly read what it says, but also overthink it. The meaning of a certain text, the ideas behind them, and why it says what it says.

The way you put it, there are two options. Either way, I will follow the bible in every minute detail, or I'm a nonbeliever.

Most of us here live in a country where there's freedom of religion, where you are not only free to choose in which religion you believe, but also to interpret that religion in the way as you see fit. Overthink what you read the bible, or you're better of not reading it at all.

edit: I did it. I repent. I used the 'holier than thou' attitude in a religious post. I sound like a self-righteous asshole. er, please take that attitude thing with several grins of salt. I'm a firm believer of not forcing one's opinions on someone else, and it seems I forgot to keep that in mind while making this post.




[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 09-18-2003).]

DL posted:

quote:

---

Well....who gets to choose which ones *are* taken verbatim, and which ones you need to take with a grain of salt?

---

The religious instutition who put the bible books together and translated it about 300 years after the death of christ can be the only translator. That would be the Catholics. All other versions, editions & revised copies are (King James version, etc) are not even the original texts. In scripture it clearly states you cannot add or take out or change scripture. The Catholics closed the cannon of the bible after they offically figured what books should be in holy book.

Right.....

So, because a group of people 1700 years ago edited and translated a group of religious, mythological, and historical texts, and compiled them to their liking, the people who follow the religion they mutated christianity into are the only ones capable of interpreting the meaning of those texts? Even though many of those texts existed for centuries before hand?

Justify that for me...

.

And of course, the types of issues brought up in Mahjqa's most recent post seriously need addressing. How can you pick and choose what rules and laws to follow?

How can you say that although the bible says this one thing, it needn't be obeyed, but because it says this *other* thing, that one *must* be obeyed?

Yes we are, because the church council labled them inspired by the holy spirit, which every christian not catholic believes too. Why do they believe that and nothing else she teaches. I wonder.


For one thing Catholic teaching is not based only on the bible. What came first, the bible or the church? The church did along with tradition. Then church and tradition collaborated on a history of a chosen people and a book inspired for moral living. First christians didn't tote their bible around from town to town. Somewhere down the road someone added in the bible that persons are saved by scripture "alone". Not in original text. Catholics put the church and her traditions equal to the importance of the bible. All three are divinely inspired by God. All three necessary & interwoven in mystery to make one like the trinity. So to argue about what a scripture passage really means or how one should interpret goes back to what in the old testemant is revealed in the new testament. The old books are the start of a history of a chosen people & their traditions waiting for God to come and the new is a fulfillment of God comming to them revealed and here today. If you pull out a verse and dissect it or analyze it, you can make it mean many different things and it can. I believe if we christians believe in the supreme higher intelligence of God, we have to know God wouldn't leave us a holy book inspired so we can argue about it for centuries on what this verse means or doesn't mean and leave us in limbo. That is not the essence of what God wants us to figure out. God is living love. But that doesn't mean that God meant sexually loving homosexually or bisexually is love. It is not the natural plan for what God intends. Christians know our God given bodies are meant only as temples which house the part of us that can live forever, the spirit. So to misuse the body for carnal purposes harms the spirit/soul.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-18-2003).]

a big part of the bible, which SO many people miss, is that things are to be taken in context. leviticus, for example, is primarily laws laid out for the levite priests. i would not happen to be a levite priest so while there's historical relevance in what's written it doesn't directly apply to me. the same goes for many other parts of the old testament, it contains rules specific to the people of that time, the israelites under moses for example. christianity's basis lies in christ and teachings derived from him, starting with him as the way to salvation and developing from there. paul's writings are to churches who are following these teachings of christ, and as such as those are directly relevant and applicable to a christian's daily life.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

fig- I'm not trying to be smart here, but where does it state that Leviticus is primarily laws for Levite priests? Perhaps I missed something, but the way I understood the book was that it applied to everyone. Christ makes many references to the teachings and instuctions of the Old Testament in his own teachings, and thus many apply to daily Christian life. However, one runs into contradictions between the Testaments. The Book is supposed to be perfect - yet in one part it tells you that it is not right for a man to trim his hair (as per Leviticus) and yet in the New Testament, it is said by Paul that it is not right for men to have long hair. (Context, I know...) This is really a paltry example, but there are others. How does one reconcile the contradictions? I know that Paul goes on to say that if the guidelines for worship create a hinderance to the growth of faith, then basically let it go. The important part is the faith. Am I understanding that correctly?

I'm not sure if that came out coherently, but I can't think of any other way to phrase it right now...

jade-

quote:

---

The religious instutition who put the bible books together and translated it about 300 years after the death of christ can be the only translator. That would be the Catholics. All other versions, editions & revised copies are (King James version, etc) are not even the original texts. In scripture it clearly states you cannot add or take out or change scripture. The Catholics closed the cannon of the bible after they offically figured what books should be in holy book.

---

Why can they be the only translator? How many times were the books translated before they finally reached the hands of the priests? The books that were Canonized were not the original texts. How can one be sure that the priests who put the Bible together chose the books correctly? Divine inspiration/intervention? Those priests were human, and just like every other human on this planet were prone to human error and perhaps carried ulterior motives. Why did it take 300 years after the death of Christ to Canonize the Bible? If the Holy Writ was so utterly important, why didn't the apostles or Christ himself take on the task of putting the Book together? Was it because the populous was not literate? That should not have mattered, they still depended on the priests for spiritual guidance.

I am just curious jade... Have you learned Latin, that you can read and understand the Bible as it was originally Canonized? I'm not trying to attack you, I am just really struggling to understand the mindset.

MD - valid question. the book of leviticus as a whole deals with worship at the tabernacle. if you look back a book earlier exodus contains instructions for building the tabernacle, and leviticus follows with rules for what goes on there. each chapter begins with something to the effect of "speak to the israelites" or "speak to the priests" and follows with rules for sin offerings, conduct, etc. several of the passages quoted (which, btw, need to rechecked because several of them aren't accurate) deal with parts of leviticus pertaining to the priests, and anything involving how a sacrifice is to be made also deals primarily with the priests as duties in the temple were theirs. the book as a whole deals with God's covenant with israel (which christ came to fulfill, rendering it no longer applicable) so the entire book is very people-specific in this case.

on your other point you're pretty much spot-on, different books were written to different churches or groups in different time periods and as such have specific instructions for them in some cases. one thing to really look at is the overall themes in the bible, which are very consistent as a whole. with homosexuality for example, if it were one isolated mention somewhere in the old testament it might be argued that it wasn't relevant for society post-christ, but paul mentions homosexuality numerous times in his letters to churches in rome, corinth, etc. make sense?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

fig- Thank you for the explanation. And it does make sense. It gives me some more to think on...

MD

I am no bible scholar, but what I do know of bible history I will relate to you what I understand. You might of never heard of this below and I hope I don't confuse you.


Why can they be the only translator?

Here I will note some scripture passages

Jesus said to Peter "You are Petros(Rock) and upon you (Petros faith) I will build my church and the gates of Haddes will not prevail against it" " I give you Petros the keys to the kingdom of heaven and what ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...and whatever is bound in heaven will be bound on earth"

There are so many scripture passages to relate to the church but I am limited in time. What I do know that as catholics we embrace the N & O Testaments as the dynamic history of our family handed down to us like a precious heriloom made possible by the church which scripture says is "the pillar and foundation of truth". Now nowhere in the bible does it say " the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth". Holy scripture is subject to the wisdom of the church in her revelation thur divine intervention. She (the magisterium) sees it as her duty to safeguard the writings of the Christian faith.

How many times were the books translated before they finally reached the hands of the priests?

The OT writings were written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. The church gave the task to St Jerome to translate the bible into latin which took many years, but by far is the best translation. We call this Catholic translation the Vulgate which was used for centuries until the reformation. Back when there was no printing press or copy machines, Christian monks & jewish scribes were responsible for the bible we have today. Christian monks translated scripture into latin which took up to a year each bible. Bibles were scarce. Only the rich could afford them. Most people read the faith thur pictures on walls. So in the beginnings of Christianity the gospels where taught orally and the faith still grew by leaps and bounds.

The books that were Canonized were not the original texts. How can one be sure that the priests who put the Bible together chose the books correctly?Divine inspiration/intervention? Those priests were human, and just like every other human on this planet were prone to human error and perhaps carried ulterior motives


St Paul describes scripture as "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righetousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work"


The council of Hippo in the 3rd century cannoized the bible on being the inspired written word of God. Here again since the church is the pillar and foudation of truth, she dictates what books are "inspired of God" or "breathed of God". I am sure there was much debate in which books should be considered as inspired. Revelations was not going to be put in at first. The church affirmed the bible valuable in the ongoing life of the church. Catholic masses use scripture in liturgy everyday. It takes a 3 year cycle to go thru gospels.

I am just curious jade... Have you learned Latin, that you can read and understand the Bible as it was originally Canonized? I'm not trying to attack you, I am just really struggling to understand the mindset.

You know at the time most learned people spoke latin and I think that is why it was translated into that language. Translated to other languages for the sake of spreading the gospels, I don't think scripture lost the meaning it intended, just when translaters came along later and took books out and added words or changed words. St Jerome didn't do that.
And we Christians know thru the power of God, God would not allow it, since God guides the church. Thru faith the catholic faithful trust in her wisdom.

Fig wrote:

the book of leviticus as a whole deals with worship at the tabernacle. if you look back a book earlier exodus contains instructions for building the tabernacle, and leviticus follows with rules for what goes on there. each chapter begins with something to the effect of "speak to the israelites" or "speak to the priests" and follows with rules for sin offerings, conduct, etc. several of the passages quoted (which, btw, need to rechecked because several of them aren't accurate) deal with parts of leviticus pertaining to the priests, and anything involving how a sacrifice is to be made also deals primarily with the priests as duties in the temple were theirs. the book as a whole deals with God's covenant with israel (which christ came to fulfill, rendering it no longer applicable) so the entire book is very people-specific in this case.

I want to post here how this applies to practice in my faith today. We still follow a tradition from this book in mass with a taberanacle. We worship what is in the taberanacle, which is the a holy sacrifice with reverence and incense. This is practiced daily in the sacrifice of the Mass every hour of the day worldwide. We partake of the body of Christ in thanksgiving. We do this also because Christ himself in scripture tells us to do it in memory of his death, by eating his body and drinking his blood. Its mystical. This is the ultimate binding convenant with God thur his own son thru which we become one with Christ and we honor it. I know this sounds weird but its the center of what the faith is built on.

The bible has alot of prefigurement called typology in how old scripture fulfills or relates or unifies to the new. In this lies revelation like an unlocking of a passage meaning you could of not understood before. But thats a whole other thread.


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-20-2003).]

cheap excuses....they could say anything they wanted to keep people quite and afraid of them in order for catholic church to be in higher power

Thank you, jade for your response. No, you didn't confuse me, and there was certainly information in which I was not familiar with. I guess it really comes down to whether or not one has faith in those that put the Bible together. I have an extraordinarly hard time doing that. Because I wasn't there, and wasn't part of the process, I can't know whether what has been passed down through history is "true" or not. I did not know those men, and I certainly didn't know their motivations. It basically comes down to the fact that I don't trust what was compiled. And for something as important as Spirituality, I can't accept an Institution's "Because I say so" as an answer. It is that reason for which I follow no organized religion. That isn't to say I don't think the Bible is a useless book - far from it - it is just something that I am unable to use as a spiritual guide.

Hmmm... I guess this kinda got off topic.... sorry...

Well that's really what it comes down to....

To have faith in god is one thing.

To have faith in the men who claim to speak for god is quite another!

DL & MD

Well you have to think that there could be a possibility that just maybe God is choosing to reveal who God is thru a people? Who are we, that we choose how a God should come to us? Instead of us choosing what or who we think represents God. If a God reveals thur mother nature, why not people who have the higher intelligence to guide and help? So there is a possibility the God did insprire to create a historical and inspiring book to help us understand what God is and how he wants us to live.

That´s entirely possible.

It´s also entirely possible that it´s all just a bunch of fairy tales and con artists.
Which is what I believe.

That's right, jade. it is possible that God chose to reveal himself through people. What MD and DL are trying to say that you are missing is that it is also possible that those people made mistakes. Interpreted things incorrectly or flat out added/removed things according to their whim. The people are the unknown, not necessarily God.

Is it possible?

Sure.

In the same way that it is possible that the 'son of sam' really did hear instructions from his dog.
(who are *we* to say he didn't?)

But am I going to devote my life to what is written in a collection of writings, because it's possible that "god" revealed his thoughts to the people who wrote them? Writings which hold the same possibility of having been 'revealed' by aliens as a practical joke, and have a high probability of being written by people who were doing the best they could to make sense of the world and keep somesense of order by imposing rules and attributing them to a "god"?

No.

=)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 09-23-2003).]

GD
Are you referring to written words or oral traditions given and preserved over centuries? What kind of mistakes? Mistakes in translation by millions of religious thru the ages. So you think they were and are they still getting it wrong. Or its all made up hocus pocus. Given its been 2000 plus and counting years we should have been able to come up with some good answers. Our country is only 200 years old and the greatest nation in the world. And we know it. Comparable to the faith we are in an infancy. But the ideologies of nations & man will fall & perish, but the faith of Christianity will never fail one or perish. This speaks volumes.

jade its so old because people didnt seem to have enough brain until the late 19th century to give more explainable answear to us...even great people like Galileo, Isaac Newton, nobody almost believed them when they appeared to be totaly right....those where one of the people who actually used their brain on something more than just fallowing mindless rules. Plus they have nothing to do with bible.


I personally read bible alot, but happened not to believe in it becouse to me everything can be explained quite naturally.

as an exemple the age of noah was the idea adopted by jewish from babylonian mythologies and so on.

I dont see anything so inspirational in bible....the stories are fun to read, of course,but am I to fallow everything it says literally ? no

I picture myself in that time, what would person think when he wrote this or that

remember, there was no one who was running around and recording notes as if documetal movie being filmed for 2000 years

of course not, the mistakes were made, the translation was tweaked, the mythological ideas were added and peoples thoughts were written....
of course they can be wrong...a very big percent

I personally dont even think christ died on cross.....I dont know, but that just mine oppinion. I dont think we woulds have lost enough blood to die.
In my oppinion he lost his conscious, when his skin was pearced they just scratched skin, they didnt actually pearced a rib or any futher ....thats when they decided that he was probably dead and didnt even bother breaking his legs.

after all when christ awoke he went to apostles and in fact asked for food to eat....meaning he was alive.

edit: typo



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 09-24-2003).]

Crucifixion was a common way of carrying out death sentences. You will most certainly die, from a variety of possbile factors. Loss of blood not really being a big one.

So DL

I had assumed Jesus died due to loss of blood. Whats the other factors?
I know he was pierced on the side with a large lance, but theologians think he was already dead when that was done.

I believe the primary cause of death from crucifixion was suffocation. A person being crucified would attempt to bear their own weight with their feet, extending their legs to relieve the pressure on their arms and allow themselves to take a breath. Some could keep up this process for a long time. If the person was not dying quickly enough, sometimes they crucifers would break the victim's legs to prevent them from raising themselves. The weight of their bodies on their arms would put too much pressure on their chest to adequately draw breath, thus they would slowly suffocate. It was a horrible way to die in so many ways.
Shock from the pain would also cause death before blood loss. Not all crucifixions were done using the nail method... so external blood loss was minimal.

Thank you MD.

That is good to know. Never thought about the actual dying process of a crucifixion. What a terrible way to die.

as I said jade, in my oppinion he lost concious from the pain, and as I said the spear didnt pearce his organs or the rib cage, it just cut the skin

soldiers didnt even investigate at that time anything, they see he is not moving, thats is they are taking him down...

and this opinion is based on..?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

As MD said, suffocation would be the primary cause.

Blood loss would almost never be a factor, unless there were other serious wounds inflicted along the way or before hand...or if a nail placement want bad.

There are also beatings and torture before hand to take into account. And dehydration, starvation, scavenging animals and the like....assuming things went on long enough (and given the condition some of these people might be in....'long enough' might not have to be all that long).

I feel pretty confident that, assuming Jesus was crucified, he died.

Now, the part I have a problem with is the coming back to life part. It's simply too easy for the apostles to have completely created that part for the sake of saving face (the saviour can't *die* for crying out loud....).