Topic awaiting preservation: Undecided Sexuality Questions (Corollary of Undecided Religion Religious Question) (Page 2 of 3)

DL

But Jesue die a physical death. He was human.
What do you think of the shroud of Tturin being the burial garment of Jesus? I've read the image could of been from a bright light.

AFAIK the thing was analysed using the radio-carbon method and dated somewhere around 15th century. There is even a theory that it was made by leonardo da vinci.

I read somewhere that the radio carbon testing was dating matter that was on the shroud thru the handling of it thru the centuries, meaning it was picking up later period stuff on it. So the testing of it was not accurately giving a clear time period.

What it picked only ranged from the 15th century to later on jade...like it or not, there is simply no evidence that it is over 2000 years old...the material itself, the weave and what it's made out of weren't even

1. Weave: Used until much later that 0 AD, I'm talking hundreds of years here; and

2. Material: Even used in the region it's supposed to have come from...all it appears to be (note: I said appears to be, becuase nothing is ever certain...even faith) is a very convincing hoax.

It wasn't even a convincing hoax, because the image of the face is not what would appear from a cloth draped over a face. It looks "realistic" when the cloth is laid flat, because we have seen so many poorly done stylized images of faces.

But if a coth were draped over a face, and and imprint made, it would look much different when laid flat.

Of course, again, even if the shroud were in fact somehow authentic, it doesn't say anything about the humanity or divinity of Jesus.

And saying that 'jesus didn;t die a human death' because he's god is just one more circular reference that can't be resolved...
He's truly the son of god because he came back to life....but he didn't truly die in the first place because...well...he's the son of god....because he came back to life....but he didn't really die...

And if we round it out with a nice firm "because the bible said so! and the bible is right, because the bible is the word of god! and it's the word of god because the bible says so! And it's right because it's the word of god..." we can turn our circle into a nice spiral instead....

=)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 09-25-2003).]

But what about when the photo was taken of it and it got that 3D look?. Well, it has not been proven as a hoax yet. At least I've never read that. I would be interested in reading it where its proven a hoax.

I see it as Jesus dying a mortal death to pave the way for use to die the same way, except we are not Gods. That we too should have everlasting life. Maybe we will rise on the 3rd day too. Who knows.

But you have to think, that even if the bible was never put together, today we would still have the oral history handed down thru the ages that Jesus was and is the savior. And it would not be because the bible said so.

Jade - re-reading your post, it seems I misunderstood. I thought you said in your previouspost that jesus did not die a mortal death...

My point in what I said before that was that the apostles clearly had a huge motivation for making people beleive that Jesus had come back to life. If their "saviour" and alleged son of god died and that was the end of it, they would have looked pretty foolish.

How better to spread the things that this revolutionary man was saying than by making him out to be the lord himself....?

It was a great bit of PR work in a time period where you could get away with that sort of thing.

You think so DL? That 12 uneducated ordinary homeless men could pull that off & without help. Well, they sure did fanstastic PR work considering the history, growth and the scope of what Christianity is today.

As DL stated that death can be caused becouse of starvation and tortue, jesus was only tortured right before he was crusified...this is my oppinion...I dont think there is enough cause for him to die...

jade I dont understand you, you yourself are catholic and I dont undertsand why you dont even know those things what really happened....it seems like religeon is truly blocking you from knowing the truth..

and as for jesus being "raisen from death" it doesn't make sense, not a bit of sense that... " he died for our sins or evil" or whatever you call it.

if you might actually think about it in christian way, pretending bible is "true" about what happened to christ

Jesus was a kind and loving person. He loved mankind so much that he was willing to die for our sins. For this the church argues he deserves the gratitude of being loved in return...

It is remindful of a parent who would give up their life to push a child away from an onrushing car, or of a soldier who would sacrifice his life to protect his country, or of a fireman who would risk his life to save someone from a burning building, to give up ones life for the innocent is certainly an admirable trait... not many of us have that capability.

There are crucial differences between the kind of sacrifices described above and Jesus sacrifice.... Once a person gives up his life, there can be no expectation of further reward beyond knowing in the last seconds that the saved will continue to live.....Jesus wants gratitude in perpetuity......... typically, what motivates human sacrifice is the thought of protecting the innocent, Jesus died to protect evil....

actually as a god Jesus didn?t really die..... It was just his human form that died, on that basis his death was a sham, because god didn?t get the obedience he thought he deserved, he denounced the human race guilty of evil, so he tried a second time to get the human race to worship him by pretending to die for what he hated.........


but my oppion he didnt die if he was really alive.....but then again as DL states the apostles could have easily made it up....


edit: ohh and jade, I personally dont see what so increadible those 12 men did...

christianity has a lot in common with communism, the communists had some bad ideas on how society should work, so they set themselves as the arbiters of right behavior. Because their reasoning was fallacious, their methods of changing behavior were necessarily brutal. If there is one lesson to be learned from history, it is that coercion always fails in the long run. It has been the ruin of every empire.

like communism, christian morality is founded on the principle of obedienc which can?t work without a means of enforcement, thus the character of Jesus reflects what you would expect from a phony with a god complex, if he cant get his way, he gets angry and bluffs with threatening images of a fiery hell.

?Why do you call me ?Lord, Lord,? and not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46)

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matt. 12:30)

You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:14)


anger will make you liable to be sent to the hell of fire.

?But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ?You fool!? shall be liable to the hell of fire.? (Matt. 5:22)

it is better to cut off your offending body parts than have your whole body go into hell.

?If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.? (Matt. 5:29


jade you once said that you were flatered by alot of good looking man, but according to Jesus, you have already commited adultery and you shall pluck your eyes out....

sure now you gonna tell me I shall not take this literally, then who decides what I shall take literaly and not?



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 09-25-2003).]

Ruski
The way I look at his death is this way:

For me, I think that the only reason I live here in this world is to learn love, so I will know it (God) in the next. If I never learned it here, how can I know it (God) there, wherever it is. And Jesus for Christians is the example to follow, to totally die to self for the love of others. Lots of people already do that today. So you can say God came down and met us to show us by becoming one like us. Like see,do this too. Suffering for love of others; it hurts. Sometimes really hurts. Jesus dying for us is giving all our hurt to him and he takes it lovingly, because he feels our hurt in us and offers up the hurt to the part of himself which is God the father. Jesus horrific death of pain and suffering means we will have pain and suffering too. Jesus would not allow us to suffer unless he himself had bee thru suffering too. So to sum it all up. Jesus died on the cross for love, not evil.

you think juses suffered more than any man in first place? there were a bunch of men who suffered inoccence whole alot more than Jesus himself...jesus only suffered couple of hours...some men suffered for years, or even for half of their lifes, regardless to time period...some were inocent some commited crime...


I disagree with you, and to die for love makes no sense to me....I think I should in fact life for love and live to love, not die for love cuz it sounds too stupid in first place....

Imagine me comming to my mom and saying...I am going to Iraq and talk shit in public in order to get sentenced and executed and I will die becouse I love you very much.....does it makes sense? I dont think so...

so enough of blabling nonsense, lets face something so called "reality" and live our life the way we think best suits us...

ruski, you're coming off as rather preachy just fyi.

as for your bible comments, as i've mentioned before (including in this thread) things are to be taken in context. christ spoke specific things at specific times to specific groups of people. not that there aren't lessons to be learned from everything he said because there are, but you're taking things rather literally.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig I understand what you mean....this is my whole point, that I completly dont take bible literally...

at the same time you have to understand me, in my school I am surounded my fanatics, I am studing in christian buble where people in fact dont know anything and speak of bible as literate gospel truth....

I am explaining to jade this things, since she appears not to know alot of things about bible itself and history as well, during which time period and people the bible was written...and for what purpose it was written.....which has many reason...and so on blach blach blach

in other worlds....the people that surround me where I study make me become "assholish" and this is why I do what I do.....I, still being young, am not used to accept that people just dont want nor care to understand anything....
this drives me trying to explain things in more natural way rather than supersticiouse...

Jade - what has happened since has little to no bearing on what happened *then*.

Uneducated? By what standards??

By the standards of the time? What were the standards of that time?

PR was a bit easier back then on this level, as people were far more willing to believe outlandish thi8ngs in the name of the mystical, and there wer *far* more "uneducated" people around who would have no reason to disbleive whatever half-ass scheme was thrown their way

ruski-

quote:

---

so enough of blabling nonsense, lets face something so called "reality" and live our life the way we think best suits us...

---

Just because someone's vision of "reality" does not match up with yours does not invalidate their own. We are here to exchange opinions and ideas, and to learn from one another. Despite the fact that you don't agree with what is being said does not automatically equate it to 'babbling nonesense'. I agree, we should live our lives the way we think best suits us, and for some here, that includes teaching others about their faith. I can understand your frustrations in dealing with others that won't listen, but claiming that it is them that makes you unpleasant is not taking responsibility for yourself. You are capable of deciding how to react to people, it is your choice to be surly or not.

In response to a few posts up...
The 12 apostles were not wholly educated, but among them were some very learned men. Paul was first a rabbi before he converted. Luke was a physician. Several of the other apostles went on to write what became books in the New Testament. What DL is suggesting, that the resurrection was more-or-less made up, is just as much a possiblity as Christ truly rising. You (Christians as the religious following) take it on faith that Christ died for the sins of humanity. Not everyone can simply take that on faith. There are legitimate questions about the origin of Jesus and the Christian church, and answers are not readily available, unless you fall back on believing it on faith alone. Belief in Christ as Savior who died for humanity goes hand-in-hand with belief in the ones who wrote the New Testament, because it is by their words alone that the story of the resurrection comes down to us.

There are some very dishonest people out there. This is no different from 2000 years ago. What is basically being asked is that one takes the word of a group of men whom you never knew and know nothing about and stake your soul on it. That's a scary thing to ask of someone. I don't doubt that the man Jesus existed, and he had some really good things to teach. Was he Divine? It's a possibility, but I only have the words of the New Testament to prove it.

It is often said that History is written by the historians. There is a very strong element of truth to this statement. What is passed down to us is a biased account of events. The only way we truly know what happened at any point or any event in history is to have been there ourselves and see with our own eyes. Now, this is an extraordinarily difficult thing to accomplish, so we have to settle with what we get: books of history. Because of the bias inherent in history, the words should be taken with a grain of salt - to leave room for the possibility that things may not have actually happened as written. The same thing applies to the Bible: that things may not have actually occurred as portrayed. Does this make sense?

DL

I think in the times of Christ & before, there were lots of educated, intelligent, brilliant thinkers who had great standards. Intelligence & greatness is not only limited to 20th century. Sure we have advanced in technology, science etc, but that doesn't mean we are any smarter as as a people. Only need only look at the way of the world and see how its morally degenerating in standards.

Look at the the achievements of the past great civilizations of the Egyptians, Mayans, Atlantians(?) and civilizations of the far east?

MD.

The bible books were not written by the apostles. They were long dead before the words were written. The gospels and letters all were written by followers who came way after. The order of the NT books are not even in a chronogical order. The titles of the gospels are " the gospel according to Matthew, the gospel according to John, according to Mark and also Luke. Same with letters of Paul. They were not written by Paul, but by followers. Revelations was not written by the apostle John either. The only educated apostle was Judas. He was a scholar. And for sure he didn't write anything down. Learned men who became followers recorded the sayings and events that took place according to the oral teachings of the apostles and the evangelist, Paul. Paul didn't even know Christ. He was a Jewish scribe who hated Christians and killed them by the thousands, but had a conversion by Jesus in spirit on the way to Damascus. Most of the apostles were fishermen. I will bet most of them didn't know how to read or write. Jesus picked ordinary working class fisherman to be "fishers of men" for a reason.

You posted,

The only way we truly know what happened at any point or any event in history is to have been there ourselves and see with our own eyes.

So your saying a lot of past history of the world is bias? So you should believe all of what you see and half or lesof that what you hear? Or not at all? What about the history of you as a person from the time you could remember. The parts you don't remember, who can account for you life? Your mother, older brothers and sisters?
And why should you believe them? Is it because they are your flesh & blood family and you can depend on them? And would they give the accurate truth on a certain important event that happened in your life? Or could they a make mistake and be wrong or at odds at what really took place? If so, who would you believe? Would it be important to know how it happened or did it happen at all? I think you would have faith in believing it did happen because your family loves you enough to not deceive you. So the point I am trying to make is the family of Christianity operates in the same way. Christ would not give us false beliefs because he loves us in the way of a family, like a mother, father, sister, brother. We are a spirtitual family. Christ would only give us truth to bulid on. We have faith in Christ even if we have never seen him with our eyes, because we rely on the the faith of our past family to give us the truth.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-26-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-26-2003).]

quote:

---

DL

I think in the times of Christ & before, there were lots of educated, intelligent, brilliant thinkers who had great standards. Intelligence & greatness is not only limited to 20th century. Sure we have advanced in technology, science etc, but that doesn't mean we are any smarter as as a people. Only need only look at the way of the world and see how its morally degenerating in standards.

Look at the the achievements of the past great civilizations of the Egyptians, Mayans, Atlantians(?) and civilizations of the far east?

---

ehh.....and your point

I was simply addressing your statement that the apostles were "uneducated" men, and pointing out that "educated" is a rather relative term.

MD points out that some of them were in fact rather educated....though I know nothing on that subject personally.

You seem to change your point of view very quickly whenever it is convenient as defense of your religion. That results in a great deal of contradictory statements from you, and doesn't help solidify your position at all....


{edit -

quote:

---

Christ would not give us false beliefs because he loves us in the way of a family, like a mother, father, sister, brother. We are a spirtitual family. Christ would only give us truth to bulid on.

---

But....you said yourself that the words that define what we know as christ were only written by followers of the followers of the followers of christ, after christ and his followers were long dead.


So again, we have a huge margin of error when it comes to who said what, and what about, and when, and why.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 09-26-2003).]

DL

The point I was trying to get across and may have not explained well was that we rely on the living spirit of Christ who guided the followers of the followers of the followers of Christ to inspire the truth in the written as well as oral words. So what we have as faith today is the result of a family of believers making it possible thru preserving written and oral traditions of the faith with the guidance of the Holy Spirit thru the centuries to the present. Christ in spirit lives among us as a people and its him in the divine and we as in the human who work together to proclaim the faith. Its like Jesus never left the earth. Referring to Jesus own words in scripture after his ressurection, Peter says to him, "Stay with us Master, for the night is still young, etc. and Jesus replies, I will be with you always, until the end of time."



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-26-2003).]

"Why do you believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit?"
"It says so in the bible!"
"Why do you believe what´s written in the bible?"
"Because there´s a father, son and a holy spirit!"
(rinse and repeat)

Just for fun, I´ll throw this in: Satan is the prince of lies, right? How do you know the bible (or the whole christian faith) is not one big (and very succesful) lie created by Satan to misguide all mankind? Maybe true faith is something totally different, and if you follow the bible you´re going straight to hell...

MW

The dogma of trinity is not mentioned in all scripture. That teaching is of the church thru revelation.


But what if Christianity is not a lie, but the truth. Lets say you were presented before truth on judgement day? What would you say to Christ the lord when asked why didn't you follow the way of truth?
Would you blame it on someone?

Please excuse my inaccuracy, I have to admit I don´t know the bible very well. So it should have been:

"Why do you believe in God?"
"It says so in the bible!"
"Why do you believe what´s written in the bible?"
"Because God guided those who wrote it!"
(rinse and repeat)

quote:

---

But what if Christianity is not a lie, but the truth. Lets say you were presented before truth on judgement day? What would you say to Christ the lord when asked why didn't you follow the way of truth?
Would you blame it on someone?

---

You know, it´s not nice to answer a question with another question (because my mom says so). Plus I asked first!
But yes, I would blame it on all the christians who made me swear: "I´ll never be like that!"

BTW, what if your horse was a cat? You could ride up trees! Wouldn´t that be great?

Your funny MW. How old are you?
I am glad you listen to your mom.

gotta love hypothesis and conjecture

is it possible this is all totally fabricated? sure, anything is possible. the thing is that i've seen in my life how real God is and that His relationship to me lines up with how its described in the bible. i've also seen and had friends experience things that convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God and spiritual warfare are very real. because of this i do believe that the bible is entirely accurate. that doesn't mean there aren't things that i don't understand or agree with, but those things rarely (if ever) have an impact on my daily life and relationship with God, they're primarily historical. but to each their own.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

gotta love hypothesis and conjecture

---

Exactly

Is it possible that your in a delusion DL. Like who you are and what you are presently doing are in a dreamscape? And maybe you haven't awaken yet. Like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. What if you finally wake up and you find out your a Catholic priest. Wouldn't that be a nightmare starting for you?


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 09-26-2003).]

haha jeez jade it seems you are the one who is not awaken....bwahahahaha....ohh so funny

Ruski,
I am glad I gave you some hahas.
Well am off for a while to a conference.
Hate to fly. Hope I come back in one piece.
Check back in a week.

Jade - I really have to ask, for real: do you ever actually have a point? I mean you ask questions in a way that makes it seem that you think they are deep, thought provoking questions, as if maybe nobody has even considered any alternate posibilities in life....

but more often than not, it is you have refuses to consider any alternate possibility.

And this is not to be antagonistic. I mean, what is your point/purpose in asking such a question?

Is it possible? Sure. Just as the same thing is entirely possible for any person here. Just as it's entirely possible that, as I said earlier, the Son of Sam really did get his instructions from his dog, just as it's entirely possible that Zeus is still high up on Mount Olympus hurling thunderbolts, just as it's possible that jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, and it's possible that the Dali Lama is in fact the same soul that has been reincarnated for centuries straight and always comes back to be the leader of tibetan buddhism, and just like it's posible that big-foot runs around my back yard...

But what do any of those remote possibities have to do with anything?


Doodely-Squat.

ruski, your total disrepect in this topic is annoying. if you've got nothing constructive to offer please keep it to yourself.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

Our country is only 200 years old and the greatest nation in the world.

---

Jade, I'd like to hear some solid explanation why your nation is the best.

I don't doubt your statement, I'd just like to know how you, in your professional opinion, came to that conclusion. Ever been outside your beloved country?

I stumbled upon some nice texts in the new testaments, also.. The Brick testament: Epistles of Paul

Which goes to show that not only some of the laws of the old testament, but also some laws and guidelines laid down in the new testament are... not quite followed today, for obvious reasons.

Anyway, I'm going to try to kick this thread back ontopic with some questions, for anyone to answer:

a) If a man or a woman discovers to have homosexual feelings, what should he or she do, according to either the bible, or to your interpretation of it?

b) should he or she be allowed to choose a partner of the same sex, or should he or she remain single for the rest of their lives?

Also -even though I myslef am to blame, too- please keep the bickering and personal insults to a minimum.

D'oh! I completely missed this...

quote:

---

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.

---

Both or Either. Whichever you prefer. Neither of them does a good job of accurately representing history. Written word is written by those that are either victors, or are only on one side of the story. I defy you to find any written history that isn't biased at all. Hell, in our own history books there is incorrect information and, as you point out, we're only 200 years away from that information. Mistakes get made, meanings get changed, things are put in a different light after a while. As far as the spoken traditions... have you ever said a sentence of 10-12 word to someone next to you, had them say it to the person next to them and so on all the way around a circle of 20+ people? When the sentence comes back to you, you'll wonder if the first person was even listening to you. Regardless of either of these reasons no one can argue something as immutable as the past. It happened. What happened? I don't know. The bible isn't conclusive enough on it's own. I need more proof.

As to why it's been around so long... nothing is more curious than a human except a cat. Humans rival cats, however, in their efforts to kill themselves in their curiousity, at least as it comes to religion. There aren't any answers to be found. It is the unknown that causes the religion to persist.

I hardly think we're the greatest nation in the world. We're just another nation in the world. We just happen to be the strongest and most influential at the moment. That will change with time. Hopefully a long time.

The arguments above about the actions of the apostles after Christ's death are key. I base much of my decision in favor of their accounts being true on the very actions that some consider false. The theory that DL mentions about making up the whole resurrection thing to save face, on the surface I would say it sounds quite plausible. But then it doesn't make nearly as much sense when you realize the kind of opposition they faced because of it. And it seems even less plausible when all of them, save one, died horrific deaths and never admitted it was all just a hoax. But then if the original 11 made it all up, then how do we explain Paul's involvement?

I find that the more I look into what they did, the more I lean towards their testimonies being heartfelt. I suppose we would then argue that if they believed what they said, then perhaps they were all just mutually delusional. But that brings up another whole discussion.

mahjqa, are we the greatest nation? I think that totally depends on what criteria we're using to judge

And I can't resist your on topic questions.

a) Deal with them the way you deal with any other feelings that urge you to sin.

b) Remain celibate or get married to someone of the opposite sex.

I think this topic is not helped by the people who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds when they don't point out that the *only* appropriate way to have sexual relations is in the context of a committed heterosexual monogamous union. This means that all of that running around that heterosexuals do all the time is wrong too. Perhaps it's a bit too easy to focus on the gay sex when you're busy sinning in your own heterosexual way behind the scenes.

I've pointed out earlier that it is very difficult to accept the bible as God's word *and* say homosexuality is not a sin. I know there are lots of groups out there that do just that but they have to trash several key passages in the process.

. . : slicePuzzle

"mahjqa, are we the greatest nation? I think that totally depends on what criteria we're using to judge "

Very politically correct answer. I like it

quote:

---

And I can't resist your on topic questions.

a) Deal with them the way you deal with any other feelings that urge you to sin.

b) Remain celibate or get married to someone of the opposite sex.

---

Also very correctly put. I'm gonna respond to them in the opposite order:

b) Marrying somebody that youre not sexually attracted to does not seem like a good idea to me. Marriage isn't purely about sex, but having one without it seems nearly impossible to me.

a) I don't know how it's in the rest of the world, but here in the Netherlands a lot of christian adolescents I know have a bracelet or other item that reads "WWJD" which stands for "What Would Jesus Do". They use it to remind themselves to think about every action they make, if it's the right thing to do, if it's something Jesus would do. From cheating on tests, to eating candy, to helping that old granny cross the street. Since there's nothing in the bible about chemistry tests, you'll have to use what you know to determine if something is the right thing to do.

Surely, I have no way of understanding God, but I can't see how, in this time, in this society, a gay, monogamous, loving relationship can be damaging to anyone involved.

I think I should make it very clear that my answers to your questions, mahjqa, are for what a Christian should do.

About your comments on my answer to b)... I agree. Therefore, the real answer to that one is to remain celibate.

About a)... I said above that I think we over-emphasize sex in our lives. If we really believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, then we should be prepared to do what it takes to avoid that temptation.

quote:

---

Surely, I have no way of understanding God, but I can't see how, in this time, in this society, a gay, monogamous, loving relationship can be damaging to anyone involved.

---

I am no expert and I have not really looked at the statistics involved, but I must admit from my vantage point right now in my life, neither can I.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Perhaps it's a bit too easy to focus on the gay sex when you're busy sinning in your own heterosexual way behind the scenes.

---

bugs: there's a simple explanation for that. If I have an intense desire to sleep with a woman, and decide to 'give in' to it, it won't be that big a deal if i decide that i will marry that woman.... so, that's relatively close to the way God intended, right? I mean, how can something be completely wrong, but as soon as there's a couple of rings around our fingers, it's ok? (general reasoning, not my own)

whereas with homosexuality, well.... that form of sex is not permissible in any context, which is where the problem lies.



reitsma

I don't think we can afford to say that God hates sin any less than he hates sin. Ultimately, all sin is sin and it carries the same penalty regardless. That's the very reason Christ had to die for us because we were incapable of living without sin.

I think you're right that from our perspective, as humans living in a fallen world, we make distinctions between different types of sin. The question is whether God sees it that way or not. I'm really not sure whether he makes those distinctions or not.

I was having a very similar conversation with my pastor the other day. He pointed out that he believes God does *not* make distinctions between different sins *but* that he expects us to do that while we're here. In other words, we need to prioritize our efforts in trying to accomplish His desire -- which is that all may come to a saving knowledge of Christ and therefore reconciled to the Father.

I was also looking into the "picking and choosing" which OT laws to follow. An interesting point came up about the not wearing mixed linens versus not having gay sex. At least in the OT, there is a distinction made since one is commanded of the Israelites themselves (not wearing mixed linens) and the other is directed at all of humanity, that is having gay sex is regarded as an abomination to God and wrong for anyone to engage in.

. . : slicePuzzle

I tend to look at this way (well...sort of...) -

It seems to me, historically speaking, that when a society becomes highly populated, or an 'empire' to widespread or powerful, and the fight for survival no more, you see homosexuality emerge much more prominently. The Roman empire is certianly a good example.

So, maybe it's god's way of controlling population.

In the middle east, 2000 years ago, a lack of breeding may have been a problem. In other areas, in other times, it's more of a blessing.

=)

Bugs I am sure you know that Paul admited that he actually never even met Christ in person, he only heard about him from John and Matt and probably luke if I am not mistaken...

it says supposedly christ appeared in Pauls dream or something....thats why he started spreading idea....

ahh and jade makes perfect point apostles didnt know how to write
and hmm...interestng the idea had been spread forth until someone finally started taking notes, eh...

edit: plus bugs...I mean what is marriege nowdays? a stamped document, a public party to prove that I can have sex with that woman?
I mean, I dont think this crap is necessary...
if you love the person, you love him inside your heart..not by public marriege...

I can live with a girl for the rest of my life and not have any kind of marriege and still say we are marriede inside our hearts...is that gonna be a sin too?
cmon....

P.S sorry I am little vulgar nowdays.



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 10-01-2003).]

Interesting observations, DL. I'm not really sure how we can ever really know about those things without accurate facts and figures. But I think one's sexual behaviors are best kept somewhat private. I'm very uncomfortable with splashing sex all over in public via media and public discourse. [edit]I didn't mean to say you meant sex should be splashed all over, I was just thinking out loud on that. [/edit]

Ruski, my point about Paul goes to what was his motivation for perpetuating the hoax? He was converted later on. He had been totally against this new sect started by the apostles. He went from persecuting the early church to becoming one of its most important servants. Why do you think he did that?

About your views on marriage. Several years ago I remember making the exact same point about marriage. Why do I need a piece of paper that just says what I already think I can do without it? That piece of paper most of us men have called it at one time or another, what exactly is the point of it? Commitment

I'll tell you what, if you love your partner as much as you say you will, then what's the point of not backing it up legally and socially? Of course you love your wife even before the day of the marriage, but the day you stand up together in front of God, family, and really all of society and declare that love to them all, you haven't really made it official. You make a public demonstration that day to your spouse *and* to all the witnesses that you love her as much as you say. If you really love her then how can a little piece of paper get in the way of that?

There is absolutely *nothing* about that little piece of paper that detracts from your love for your spouse, in fact, it supports it. So you don't need to worry about it, when you've found the right woman to marry, you'll be proud to make that public statement of your commitment to one another. You should be able to look in the eye and say that 50 years hence you will still be holding hands.

But let's not forget about the kids. All children *deserve* a loving mother and a loving father committed to themselves and to the kids. The importance of raising the next generation of citizens cannot be understated. It would seem to me that societies have tried all sorts of different ways of doing this but none has come close to the track record of one mom and one dad raising a family together. That is precisely why our society has benefits for marriage. It is because it is in society's interest to see the next generation raised such that the society will survive and since the traditional family is the best way of doing it, the government supports it.

I don't believe the government has any business sanctioning gay marriage because it is a private matter. Sanctioning traditional marriage is the government's business *only* because it relates to society's survival. If it didn't, I would not support all of these government regulations about marriage.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-01-2003).]