Random Christianity Discussion

[Kohan]

Beforehand, I will say this: Moosey, as he has explained, is but a child, and certainly not someone with the authority to state that what they say is God's will, as that is an arrogance his own religion doesn't permit. Furthermore, his rationalizations are unfortunate, as the greatest minds of the church were often willing to question their beliefs rather than settling for accepting nothing else; therefore, through his determination to dismiss homosexuality as sinful, he is disgracing the greater minds that came before him, discouraging the concept of exploring and questioning, and generally serving as a pall upon others who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

To him, I would suggest speaking with those much more experienced with the scriptures who also accept homosexuality. Here, he has started a conversation with the promise of discussion, but it's devolved into nothing more than a staunch believer doing a whole lot of telling—leaving him the equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing, and serving no greater purpose than that of frustrating the people around him. If he wants stimulation, he needs to engage someone who he will actually listen to, and not the people posting on this board.

http://christiangays.com/
http://www.gaychurch.org/

Those links, though particularly the latter, provide plenty of contact information which he can rely upon. Getting in touch with these churches and challenging their ministers to engaging discussions would not only be an act of humility, which he seems to desperately need, since he is so sure of himself, and no one is engendered toward open discussion by someone so blatantly arrogant.

Beyond that, there is the following:

Just as I was about to continue my reflections on sexuality, in an examination of the place of Scripture in these discussions, I saw that Dr. Robert Gagnon has re-issued, with slight modifications, one of his many essays on this topic. As he is widely considered the “gold standard” spokesperson for the anti-homosexuality position, it would be helpful to take a look at how he addresses this issue from a Scriptural perspective.

It soon becomes apparent that Gagnon is seeking to frame a larger argument rather than merely citing the usual proof texts (as well as a few not-so-usual ones): a kind of Grand Unified Theory of sexuality that will cover all of the various offenses. It is a laudable goal, and Gagnon is not the first to attempt it. There are, however, two problems with his approach.

The first is that his general attitude can be summarized as, “Why does the Scripture condemn homosexuality?” This is, obviously, rather begging the question; he naturally believes the proof texts already have made his case, which he has laid out in exhaustive detail. But in the broadest sense they have not: for the Scripture does not “condemn homosexuality,” or even “homosexual behavior” in a general sense. As I have already noted in previous sections of this series (and will return to again) the primary missing factor in a “general condemnation of homosexuality” in the Law of Moses is the lack of any reference whatever to female same-sexuality, and the fact that the one verse alleged to address this in Romans more likely refers to something else. So Scriptures (definitely the Hebrew Scriptures and very likely the New Testament) neither condemn nor penalize “homosexuality.” Rather, the Law of Moses explicitly refers to one male homosexual act, and Paul may be alluding to this in a few places. (I will return to these Pauline allusions in a subsequent section of this reflection.)

The second problem is that Gagnon ultimately bases his argument not on the Law of Moses or on Romans, but on his reading of Genesis — which he holds to be determinative in establishing God’s plan for human sexuality. Gagnon sees everything else through that lens, relating Leviticus (and Romans itself) back to Genesis at every opportunity. What he derives from Genesis in this process is the understanding that “difference” and “complementarity” are key to licit sexuality. In addition to applying this to homosexuality, in the article I reference above he seeks to draw the incest prohibitions in Leviticus under this same rubric — that is, incest is illicit because the partners are not different enough from each other.

Responses to this view

This argument suffers in the critical challenge that biblical scholars raise concerning the sources for the various scriptural passages and their differing literary style and intent. But responses to Gagnon’s basic premise need not rely on the apparatus of higher criticism.

The first response to his theory is that it does not fit all (or even much) of the evidence. If, for example, difference were the defining requirement for licit sexuality, female homosexuality would also have been ruled out in the Law of Moses. It isn’t. If difference were of primary importance, exogamy would be the preferred marriage structure under Jewish law. It isn’t. One might go further and observe that if difference were in itself the basis for licitness, then bestiality would be permissible — after all what could be more different? Needless to say, it isn’t.

A second response is to note a greater difficulty with Gagnon’s thesis, based on his understanding of his fundamental text: for the creation account in Genesis 2 simply does not emphasize Eve’s difference from Adam, but her likeness to him: she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. Adam rejects the animals as suitable partners (which though made from earth as Adam was, are fundamentally unlike him, and thus unsuitable) and chooses instead the woman who is made from his own substance, the one most like himself. That this is the correct reading is shown by Jesus’ use of this passage as the cornerstone for his doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage: what God has joined together (capable of proper joining not because different from each other, but because of the same flesh and bone) is not to be put asunder. The couple become one flesh because they already share that flesh. That is what Genesis says, and that is how Jesus applies it.

So Gagnon’s attempt to find out a “reason” for the prohibition on a male same-sex act (not all homosexuality, as he claims) fails. A Grand Unified Theory that will explain why some sexual acts are forbidden under Jewish law while others are permitted is perhaps possible; but we can rule out Gagnon’s theory on these two grounds.

Other theories

Better efforts at this involve either the concept of a divine command which is to be obeyed quite apart from any reason for it (a view favored in classical rabbinic Judaism), or the more anthropological approach (favored in present-day Jewish reflection on the subject) which sees the various laws as deriving from social constructions in a particular society or set of societies, constructions which may explain and unify some of the various laws, or at least demonstrate the process by which they came to be. Thus the incest law (and its mandated violation in the case of a childless widow) is not based on a concept of sameness or difference, but on concerns — both in prohibition and in mandate — about kinship and inheritance and avoiding the entanglement of multiple relationships.

Another important aspect of the sexual laws in general, is that far from representing a recognizable moral framework (in which all people are treated as essentially equal moral actors), the Mosaic sexual and marriage laws are strikingly asymmetric with regard to men and women: not only in the lack of the prohibition on female homosexuality, but (for example) on the question of adultery. Under the Law of Moses a man can only violate someone else’s marriage; a woman only her own. That is, a man could have licit relationships with a harlot, or take a concubine or a second wife, but was by no means permitted to have intercourse with another man’s wife. Similarly, the Law considers it a serious crime for a man to remarry his divorced wife if she has married another man in the interim. (Deut 24:1-4). I doubt anyone today would give such a rule any notice — they might even encourage it as a restoration of the original marriage — yet the Law opposes it in very harsh terms. Again, it would appear that the primary concern is not moral but has to do with kinship and inheritance rights — seen almost exclusively in terms of preserving the integrity of the male line and security of the father’s identity: with a related purpose to preserve the holy land and the inheritance it has become at the hand of God. Hence, most of these laws (as well as many others) refer to the land and its sanctity as a possession to be handed down everlastingly.

So if a Grand Unified Theory is to be sought, it more likely lies in the direction of understanding the sexual and marriage laws in relation to the separateness of Israel from the nations, their distinction in being deliberately unlike those nations, charged with preserving the holiness of the land and inheritance rights. Biblical scholars such as Jacob Milgrom (Leviticus, the Anchor Bible) have written extensively in this quest; and this approach does have the virtue of explaining much more than Gagnon’s employment of Genesis as a touchstone.

Applying these theories

This may help also to explain why female homosexuality is not mentioned in the Law. If Gagnon’s basic thesis were correct (that Genesis offers the key to understanding human sexuality, based on the union of differences) then both male and female same-sexuality would be equally prohibited, just as incest and bestiality are forbidden to men and women alike, and all in the same chapters of Leviticus (18 and 20) dealing with a male homosexual act. What does the Law actually say and what can we learn from it in seeking an explanation for the omission?

There is only one explicit reference to any form of same-sexuality in the Law: the act is described at Leviticus 18:22 and the penalty at Leviticus 20:13. It first says, “With a male do not lay the layings of a woman.” One might say more simply, “Do not (sexually) treat a male like a woman.” The wording of the second passage is slightly different: “A man who lays a male the layings of a woman” followed by the penalty for both. In both cases the word to‘ebah (abomination) is used to categorize the offense. I will address this word in a later section of this series. For the present, I want to ask, in keeping with the discussion, why there is no prohibition (or punishment) for a woman who “treats (sexually) a female like a man.”

I think the reason is quite simple, and it tells us a good deal about how the Hebrew culture saw sex, which supplements the notion of male primacy and inheritance. Put simply, sex is about something males “do” and females “allow.” The wording of the bestiality prohibition is indicative of this way of seeing things, in which men “lay” or “bed” an animal, but women “stand” or “lie down” before an animal to “present” themselves to it. (The vocabulary is different for men and women, reflecting the difference between what a man or a woman would do with an animal.) So the lack of an equivalent prohibition on female same-sexuality is based in part on the inability (from the Hebrew perspective) of a woman to act as a man towards another woman.

This also explains why later rabbinic law holds that a woman who engaged in sexual relations with a woman outside of marriage (a matter not addressed by Scripture) was not judged to have committed adultery, but rather was punished for disobedience:

Although this practice is forbidden [in the oral tradition], no flogging is imposed, since there is no specific negative commandment against it [in the Torah], nor is there any intercourse at all... Consequently, [women who do this] are not forbidden to the priesthood on account of harlotry, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband on account of it, since there is no harlotry in it. However, a flogging for disobedience (mardut) should be given, since they have performed a forbidden act. A man should be strict with his wife in this matter... (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah 'Issurei Bi'ah 21:8.)

So it would seem that there are ways to understand the asymmetry in the Law within its own context and without appeal to Genesis: as Maimonides puts it, lesbian sex isn’t sex (“there is no intercourse”), because sex requires a male.

In conclusion

This, of course, leaves us with what appears to be a clear biblical prohibition on at least one form of male homosexual activity, and a stern punishment for it. Obviously the church no longer demands the latter as much as some in it deplore the former. But is this a proper attitude to take towards this text, and the other texts which cast same-sex behavior in negative terms? In the next segment of this series I will address how we might best engage this and other texts, and the Scripture as a whole.

Source: http://www.chicagoconsultation.org/a...08-scripture-1

[Acturus]

This also explains why later rabbinic law holds that a woman who engaged in sexual relations with a woman outside of marriage (a matter not addressed by Scripture) was not judged to have committed adultery, but rather was punished for disobedience:

Although this practice is forbidden [in the oral tradition]

*snicker*

[Siatdiat]

There are much more interesting discussions to have, like how do we classify morals, and what do we base them on. The discussion in regards to this thread being is our conscience from a higher power, do we actually base our ethics on the bible, and the like. But it looks like this thread is either going to be a bible bending session that fails to ever explain why to believe the bible in the first place, or just a dead thread that will finally die and slip down the front page.

I can personally come up with more interesting reasons off the top of my head for why the bible should be considered "divine" revelation. I may share it if this thread gets any more boring.

[Kerberoz]

Faith is a discussion-killer. Can't use rational arguments against the willfully irrational.

[chiyio]

Faith is a discussion-killer. Can't use rational arguments against the willfully irrational.

exactly. Most of the time you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

[Sera]

I appreciate the attempts to get me to talk myself into a trap, but if you'll need to do more research on what we're talking about before making uninformed accusations about the topic.

Stop selectively responding to shit. Seriously. It only makes you look like MORE of a joke than people already see you as. Demos and Milkster had tongue in cheek responses, but they are VALID ones.

Explain why we still acknowledge SOME OT rules but not ALL of them.

THIS is why no one respects the Christian bullshit. You can't cherry pick your rules and claim that it's okay. Either stone your children/wives and hate homos, or neither.

You can't sit there and cherry pick and expect people to NOT see you as a complete joke. This bullshit about "social laws" and "moral laws" come on now. There's no distinction. It's just something christians use as a way to justify their bigotry.

A murderer violated a moral law but can ask jesus for forgiveness and be forgiven, because jesus forgives all.

A person can eat shellfish or a split hoof animal or whatever the fuck the rule says you can't eat, and be forgiven also. Same fucking deal. It's just a way to justify being able to look down upon someone else and feel superior.

That is in actuality what modern christianity is all about -- feeling morally superior to non-christians. It's not about ANYTHING jesus stood for and never has been.

[hey]

Stop selectively responding to shit. Seriously. It only makes you look like MORE of a joke than people already see you as. Demos and Milkster had tongue in cheek responses, but they are VALID ones.

That would require him to have a response that isn't "well obviously you're right".

[ronin sparthos]

That is in actuality what modern christianity is all about -- feeling morally superior to non-christians. It's not about ANYTHING jesus stood for and never has been.

Modern? It's what Christianity as a whole has been from the moment it went from a fringe belief system to the world influence it is today. The path most religions take is one steeped with the blood of the opposition and is driven into the populace through intimidation, fear, destruction of old beliefs and making examples of anyone who dare refuse to conform. Such is the result of what amounts to a control tool on a populace.

But some of the posters here would have you believe Christianity was miraculously spread across the globe by magic pixie dust and angels riding unicorns when really what happened is that many were converted by force, converted for financial or social gain, the non-conformists were often jailed/executed in often the most cruel and horrifying ways (gotta set an example after all) and most of this was backed up by Biblical text.

The only reason we aren't stoning children, killing women who disobey, maintaining a healthy supply of slaves, keeping women as the spoils of war, executing people who work on the sabbath or cutting the tongues out of 'blasphemers' today is because people at some time came to the conclusion that said behavior is inappropriate, exceedingly cruel and barbaric and these people thought contrary to sections of the Bible.

[Moosey]

Stop selectively responding to shit. Seriously. It only makes you look like MORE of a joke than people already see you as. Demos and Milkster had tongue in cheek responses, but they are VALID ones.

Explain why we still acknowledge SOME OT rules but not ALL of them.

THIS is why no one respects the Christian bullshit. You can't cherry pick your rules and claim that it's okay. Either stone your children/wives and hate homos, or neither.


You can't sit there and cherry pick and expect people to NOT see you as a complete joke. This bullshit about "social laws" and "moral laws" come on now. There's no distinction. It's just something christians use as a way to justify their bigotry.

How am I selectively responding to things? I answered both of their questions about OT laws to the best of my knowledge. I'm a Christian, not a Jew or an OT scholar. These things are not entirely relevant to me, or anyone(aside from many Jews thinking it is). The NT says we, as Christians, are not under the Law. The Social and Ceremonial laws didn't have anything to do with one's eternal destiny, they definitely did affect a person's physical life here though. The Moral law affected your life here and beyond. As I said before, Social and Ceremonial laws were to keep the Jews a separate people. Jesus fulfilled that need, so those are not in effect anymore. The Moral law has, is, and always will be there. When you don't accept Jesus, God judges you by that Moral law, but no one is capable of following that Law. You break one commandment you break the whole Law.


[QUOTE=Sera;5122500]
A murderer violated a moral law but can ask jesus for forgiveness and be forgiven, because jesus forgives all.

A person can eat shellfish or a split hoof animal or whatever the fuck the rule says you can't eat, and be forgiven also. Same fucking deal. It's just a way to justify being able to look down upon someone else and feel superior.

That is in actuality what modern christianity is all about -- feeling morally superior to non-christians. It's not about ANYTHING jesus stood for and never has been.[/qupte]

How can a person who realizes and understands that they suck at keeping the law and will continue to fail at it the rest of their life feel superior to anyone else? That is what a Christian is. You all claim to know what Jesus is about but you don't even know Him. You think he's all happy fun time lets go sing a song and smoke weed and love everybody, but that is absolutely a false image of Jesus. If you read the Bible, really read it, and spend time learning about it, you will begin to understand that he wasn't about coming here and bringing people together. He was about bringing people to God, and as you all know, that kind of thing tends to polarize people.

@Kohan: I have never once claimed that what I said is the "will of God", and you think you know me so well? That's pretty arrogant of you. No one can have Jesus and accept Homosexuality, because to a Christian, it is unnatural. If you think there are people so well-versed in Scripture that are accepting of Homosexual lifestyles, those people are rejecting that Scripture, or they're not reading the same Bible I am. I am talking about the lifestyle, not an individual here, so don't misconstrue my words to mean something that I am not saying.

You mistake my faith in God as self-assurance. I merely feel as sure of myself to believe the Gospel, but not any more than that.

Do you honestly believe I want to come here and talk about this? That I don't have other things I'd like to be doing? I do this because I care about all of you, because we share similar interests, because we're part of the same internet/gaming culture. I do this because the Bible has tasked me with sharing the Gospel with "all nations", and this is one sub-culture of people I can relate to and often connect to, which is why I feel the need to talk to people about it here.

Many of you claim to be so concerned with the truth, but you have become the very thing Kerberoz condemned earlier in the thread:

Being open-minded does not entail giving equal weight to all assertions, nor does it entail giving in to the golden mean fallacy. It's simply the ability to entertain ideas rationally, not to accept them all. Don't be so "open-minded" that your brain falls out and you turn into a hopeless apologetic.

Very few of you have actually even attempted to look on any viewpoint other than your own with the slightest hint of a rational, open mind. Instead, you criticize and attack opposing views without offering any sort of alternative than a moderate go-between.

I made this thread in an attempt to establish some sort of rational dialogue, but instead it has almost entirely devolved into a cesspool of people-attacks instead of an exchange of ideas. I know this forum is capable of the kind of potential constructive and progressive discussion that I am asking for.

Can we please try to lessen the name-calling, bashing, thoughtless attacks, and baiting and try to replace it with some serious discussion, rational and not fanatical open-mindedness? I give you all the same respect I hope for in return, whether or not you actually give it to me. I'm not trying to shove Jesus down your throat, i'm trying to give you a truthful and accurate view of Christianity. Whether you let your bias get in the way of understanding that or not is up to you, no one is forcing you to post here. If you're here to seriously discuss things because you are interested in the truth, please, stay and discuss, but if you're only here to attack me or anyone else with a different view than your own, then don't bother.

I'll make another post shortly about why I believe what I believe, and hopefully we can take it from there.

For the few of you who have been keeping with rational, even-tempered discussion, thank you.

[hey]

How am I selectively responding to things?

You have yet to respond to even a single thing i have posted.

[Greatguardian]

You have yet to respond to even a single thing i have posted.

He also pretty much avoids any and all discourse with me that involves him being forced to provide a modicum of thought in his response rather than quoting scripture, quoting youtube, or pulling the adhom card. Though if Kohan is right and Moosey really is a teenager/young'n, that would explain a lot.

Beee Teee Dubs, that post from Kerb was directed at me. Yes. The rest of this thread considers me far too open minded, and I still think you're (Moosey) an idiot.

[Greatguardian]

This thread was also having a decent discussion on the nature of rationality and open-mindedness before OP started shitting it up again.

If there's one thing that needs to be made perfectly clear, it's that no one gives a fuck what you believe. No one gives a fuck if you believe in God or not. No one gives a fuck if you think Jesus of Nazareth is your lord and savior. No one gives a fuck.

You're sitting here playing at being the last bastion of Christian hope in a community of heathens. You don't want everyone to understand what you believe, what Christianity "really is", and to accept your faith and the faith of those like you. Your goal is to see direct assaults on your faith so that you can turn around and defend it with whatever interpretation you deem most righteous. You're here to pick a fight. You get off on it. Trying to play the victim and call everyone else a meanie-head for not being "rational" or "even-tempered" just makes you feel better about it.

Last I checked, discussions went both ways. No one here is remotely interested in what you have to say because it's abundantly clear that you are not remotely interested in what they have to say either. You just want an excuse to talk at people.

Sidenote: Stop using the word rational. You don't know what it means. You just know it sounds good.

[Psion]

If homosexuality is so unnatural, why does it appear in nature in thousands of different animal species? Seriously, i even had a dalmatian lyretail molly fish that was gay. He totally ignored all the females in the tank and instead exclusively wiggled his mouth at the other males anal fins.

If you don't believe me, just google or youtube gay (your animal pick here) and you'll probably find a bunch of links showing just that. I'm pretty sure that evidence alone is enough to defeat your idea that homosexuality is "unnatural", when it appears in almost the entire animal kingdom. And as for the rest... it's probably because we just haven't documented them enough to spot such behavior yet.

Seems to me if god hates homosexuality, he's a closet gay himself since he "accidentally" put such behaviors throughout nature. Or maybe, just maybe, the whole homosexuality thing is a human mistranslation/was added by a well meaning but narrow-minded priest. Or maybe they just misread the passage and wrote it down wrong, because you know, they didn't have things like eyeglasses, used fancy cursive script, had terrible lighting, subpar medium to write with (quills looooove to smear ink), and were human, and let's not get into the part where languages do not perfectly translate to each other.

Oh, and i never chose to be gay either. I was a devout christian when i hit puberty, and spent years of fasting, having exorcisms and prayer done on me, and prayed to god every night to cure me of my homosexuality. Nothing happened except i started to get depressed and contemplating suicide. Was i a "sissy" boy as a child? Hard to say, since i was hardly the more normal type of boy. I didn't care for sports, but i loved to make things, and to grow things as well. I might have loved to play make believe, but i also liked to do chemistry experiments and mess with electronics. My parents were always sheltering me from everything they could, so i hardly got to interact socially with other kids. Did i have a "uncaring remote father" and "overbearing mother"? no, my dad cared very much about what i did and my parents loved me very much... until they found out i was gay. then things went downhill from there as they tried to help support me cure my gayness. It literally took my best friends admitting to me that they were wiccan to snap me out of it. I realized that despite the fact that they were so called "heathens", they were kind and accepting of everyone, and were always content. they had no "hole in their heart" to fill, and they certainly weren't evil or misguided. They showed me that there is no true one way to contentment, but it is something you must seek within yourself, to strive to better yourself spiritually, mentally, and physically. The answers are different for everyone.

And no, i'm not some lisping queen with a boa and limp wrists, despite what you might think. every person who found out i was gay only did so because i politely told them i wasn't into girls when they did the whole "hey, look at that hot chick over there" thing they sometimes do. and it always came as a shock to them because i seemed so "normal" to them. well guess what, thats because i am normal. a gay guy is a guy who finds other guys attractive. end of story. there's no "homosexual lifestyle", no way to identify one other than if you see them in the act of kissing or more, or if they tell you. many of them had perfectly normal childhoods and loving parents, at least until they found out they were gay. sadly, most parents afterwords weren't so loving then, and mine were no exception.

Homosexuality isn't evil. it isn't unnatural. it's just a sexual preference, nothing more, nothing less, and you cannot miraculously change yourself straight. If you don't believe me, try to look at other men and find them attractive. go on, try it? you are either going to be A) too scared to try because you think its a trap and you'll actually find them attractive or B) realize that men aren't attractive to you no matter how hard you try. well it's the same deal for gay people. You hit puberty, and bam, suddenly you take notice of the fairer sex. you get no way to pick or choose, you get no way to control which you'll get. it's a combination of environmental and genetic factors, but said environmental factors occur in the womb, not during childhood, and even then it's mainly just an increased chance. (firstborns have the lowest chance of being gay, while each birth afterward is more likely to be so.)

The sad fact is, you've fallen into satans hands, by letting your fear and hatred of anything that's different rule your life, and are affecting others with it. there's no real way to break it except to take the plunge and accept that our differences are what make us strong and beautiful, not evil.

I liken it to a crystal. each of us is a facet on the jewel, each shining our own shade of light out to the darkness. individually, we may all be of different shapes and colors, but together, we form a stronger and more beautiful whole because of it.

[Kohan]

@Kohan: I have never once claimed that what I said is the "will of God", and you think you know me so well? That's pretty arrogant of you.

It certainly is, and I haven't any problem with it whatsoever. I am not the one who is claiming to know that what they're saying is infallible in relation to the Bible, as you are. With this response, one would have thought you'd try to hide it, but you did not even make the effort. Your arrogance is stark to the point of obviousness, a plain example of which follows:

No one can have Jesus and accept Homosexuality, because to a Christian, it is unnatural.

You are absolutely certain, and unwilling to question. You're a black mark not only on humanity, but of the aforementioned greater minds that came before you. You shame all of the great philosophers who were religious yet willing to ponder, and could never hope to hold a candle to their minds. Instead, you are stubborn, foolish, and by that, blind. You expect to be able to enlighten people? You see nothing but your own reason. Only a fool would listen to a blind man like you.

If you think there are people so well-versed in Scripture that are accepting of Homosexual lifestyles, those people are rejecting that Scripture, or they're not reading the same Bible I am.

Once again, you are arrogant and absolutely certain. You say that I do not know you? You paint it plainly for everyone to see. There is no question. You know what you know, and it is unquestionable; what you say is what is, and therefore, it must be God's will, for it is impervious to questioning. It is solid as concrete, and you are the one claiming as much.

Furthermore, you deny the wisdom of ministers who came before you, and who studied scripture far more in-depth than you could have hoped to in your comparatively short lifespan, because you cannot be wrong. You are perfect. Your knowledge is impervious to criticism. You are God, aren't you? You cannot be incorrect. Not possibly, not ever. You are not human and you do not question. You know how things must be literally interpreted and there is no room for wonderment. You are perfect, according to your bullish denial.

It does not surprise me that someone as hopelessly full of themselves would walk away from the opportunity to talk to many others with knowledge more vast than them, as fools are often anti-intellectual, fearing the well-learned; an opportunity to be challenged is clearly an opportunity to be ignored, as it's far easier for you to exist in blind ignorance.

You mistake my faith in God as self-assurance.

There is no mistake. You do not doubt, which is wrong of you. You shy away from the opportunity to be challenged, because you cannot be wrong. You wouldn't dare contact any of the aforementioned ministries, because you will not even consider their words.

You are plainly arrogant, and to deny it is to further prove as much. You do not have faith, and you have no desire to share; you have the desire to shame, to discourage, to tell others they are "wrong" with absolute certainty; and then you have the audacity to say that these things are done out of kindness, as if everyone around you hasn't their own eyes with which to read nor their own brains with which to think.

You're no more than a noisy thorn, something that only exists to burden. You're cowardly, accepting merely that which comforts you, and attempting to explain it away to smarter folks who are unimpressed with your hand-waving. You spit on the soul-searching of your elders because they do not agree with what you find most reassuring.

You are arrogant, weak, and unimpressive—hardly someone fit to share the word of a God.

[kuronosan]

Moosey, sorry. You're a fucking moron and I cannot have an intelligent, philosophical discussion with somebody with such a narrow-minded illogical viewpoint.

I have practically read the Bible front to back and while I cannot pull scripture out of my ass I can tell you I have read it in great detail with the intent to understand.

All I can say is your words in the last few posts show that you're as bigoted as the Bible demands you not be and you attempt to rationalize that by saying you're Christian and it's awesome. Well, congratu-fucking-lations for proving my point. Your answer to every one of my questions was "Hey, check out this link" or "Hey, read this chapter/verse in the Bible".

I would not be a part of this discussion if I hadn't actually read the Bible, and you should be ashamed for attempting to be part of this conversation without actually having an understanding of the scripture itself.

As for why I left the church? Stupid fucking people like you caused me to leave, because I found that I was capable of having faith in myself without having to have someone or something hold my hand through life. Guess what? I've been far more happy and enlightened since turning away from organized religion. I'm a good person, with good intent, and I treat people with as much respect (as they deserve) as I can while doing what is morally right and obeying the laws of decency set forth in the Bible.

Jesus wasn't the only one to advocate unconditional love. You have people like Ghandi, Mandela, MLK, Michael Jackson, and even John Lennon who have advocated world peace and love for each other at one point or another. It doesn't take God, a god, or gods, or any deity, to come to the conclusion that all human beings deserve love and respect.

As far as faith causing deaths, every religion in the history of existence has sacrificed life at the cost of a deity. Not science. No one has ever said "Hey, the Sun is rejecting our advances into space and won't allow us to defy the laws of physics... blow up Switzerland". No one outside of organized faith has ever told you "You need to accept the laws of motion and molecular theory or we'll burn your house down". Don't underestimate man, of course, because I'm sure it could happen.

The difference, of course, is that reason and logic have never sought to do anything but discover the ultimate truth. I don't see scientists going door to door and saying "Have you heard the word of Newton and Darwin lately?", do you?

I don't think I really need to continue. I just thought I would rebut your terrible argument.

I mean, for fuck's sake. Christians who condone homosexuality are rejecting the scripture?

If you think there are people so well-versed in Scripture that are accepting of Homosexual lifestyles, those people are rejecting that Scripture, or they're not reading the same Bible I am.

Never once in the bible did Jesus ever say anything about condemning homosexuality, sins, evil people, or those that commit acts of crime or sin. As a matter of fact, he threw out the rich dicks from the temples, forgave Mary Magdalene (a common whore and thought to be his woman by some), and forgave countless sinners that the OT (as you put - he obeyed religiously) would have had stoned to death. As a matter of fact:

But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."

Which is Jesus' warning against hypocrisy. Tell me. If you refuse to accept homosexuals, knowing that you yourself are flawed and likely commit your own mortal and venial sins, are you really obeying the teachings of Jesus?

Nope. Get the fuck out.

[Kerberoz]

I'm a Christian, not a Jew or an OT scholar. These things are not entirely relevant to me, or anyone(aside from many Jews thinking it is).

The One True God shall drive out the many!

The Social and Ceremonial laws didn't have anything to do with one's eternal destiny

Of course not, because your eternal destiny is probably the same as everyone else's: food for detritivores. Note how I used the world "probably" as I'm not so conceited as to claim absolute knowledge. I'm pretty sure the odds of Cthulhu or the Matrix existing are higher than the odds for Yhwh, though.

When you don't accept Jesus, God judges you by that Moral law, but no one is capable of following that Law.

and this is why it baffles me when Christians claim to derive morality from their faith. Gotta love the moral lessons taught in this happy little bedtime story. "Don't worry about doing good deeds, kids! Just accept Jesus and be really really sad for all the bad things you did! It wasn't your fault! It was that whore with the apple(pear/fig/whatever)."

If you read the Bible, really read it, and spend time learning about it, you will begin to understand that he wasn't about coming here and bringing people together. He was about bringing people to God, and as you all know, that kind of thing tends to polarize people.

The Bible is resposible for creating more atheists than any other document in the western world, I gather, precisely because of this. Someone else said it better than I:

Spoiler: show

a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell -- mouths mercy and invented hell -- mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him

No one can have Jesus and accept Homosexuality, because to a Christian, it is unnatural. If you think there are people so well-versed in Scripture that are accepting of Homosexual lifestyles, those people are rejecting that Scripture, or they're not reading the same Bible I am. I am talking about the lifestyle, not an individual here, so don't misconstrue my words to mean something that I am not saying.

People who think like you are responsible for most of the atrocities in human history, and do little other than hold our species back from expanding its potential. That is the nicest response I can manage to give such bigoted drivel.

You mistake my faith in God as self-assurance. I merely feel as sure of myself to believe the Gospel, but not any more than that.

Oh, only the gospel. Right. Only the gospel that claims to know the ultimate Truth™ of everything.

The only thing we can know for certain is that reality is infinitely greater and more beautiful than any depraved myth or, in fact, any possible thing spawned from the mind of Man in the short dream of a fraction of a spark of our existence. Nature has not shackled us with Purpose™ but yet, I believe, the most admirable pursuit of a mortal life is that of reaching just a little bit closer towards the liminality that can never be grasped. Those who waste their lives wallowing in proud, willful ignorance and arrogance, convinced that they know the answers to unanswerable questions, deserve little other than the pity afforded to an insect futilely attempting to sting its own reflection in a pool of water.

Do you honestly believe I want to come here and talk about this? That I don't have other things I'd like to be doing? I do this because I care about all of you, because we share similar interests, because we're part of the same internet/gaming culture. I do this because the Bible has tasked me with sharing the Gospel with "all nations", and this is one sub-culture of people I can relate to and often connect to, which is why I feel the need to talk to people about it here.

So you admit you're here to proselytize.

I have news for you: we've most likely add had the gospel "shared" with us countless times. It doesn't because any less bullshit with repetition. You don't want to talk to people; you want to talk at people.

Many of you claim to be so concerned with the truth, but you have become the very thing Kerberoz condemned earlier in the thread:

Do not speak for me.

I made this thread in an attempt to establish some sort of rational dialogue, but instead it has almost entirely devolved into a cesspool of people-attacks instead of an exchange of ideas. I know this forum is capable of the kind of potential constructive and progressive discussion that I am asking for.

Can we please try to lessen the name-calling, bashing, thoughtless attacks, and baiting and try to replace it with some serious discussion, rational and not fanatical open-mindedness? I give you all the same respect I hope for in return, whether or not you actually give it to me. I'm not trying to shove Jesus down your throat, i'm trying to give you a truthful and accurate view of Christianity. Whether you let your bias get in the way of understanding that or not is up to you, no one is forcing you to post here. If you're here to seriously discuss things because you are interested in the truth, please, stay and discuss, but if you're only here to attack me or anyone else with a different view than your own, then don't bother.

Good ol' Christian persecution complex. Attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the tennets of your faith because you believe your faith to be Truth™ then cry foul when someone points out that it isn't. You've made no attempt to discuss anything, only to proselytize. It's simply not possible to conduct a meaningful discussion with someone who irrationally believes that they are absolutely correct. You live in a hardened bunker of make-believe where you know the Truth™ and those who disagree must be foolish or ignorant.

The fact that you take the words in a book written by sand people as axiom truth makes it impossible for you to consider other viewpoints rationally. You're not even trying to put forth a rational argument. When your reasons for belief are taken as self-evident, you're just begging the question, and not discussing anything.

I'll make another post shortly about why I believe what I believe, and hopefully we can take it from there.

I hope it's something better than "Bible said so", but I'm not holding my breath.

For the few of you who have been keeping with rational, even-tempered discussion, thank you.

rational

[Eurell]

I'll make another post shortly about why I believe what I believe, and hopefully we can take it from there.

This is the only thing I'm honestly interested in. Give me a reason to believe the bible, despite the contradictions, despite the fact that most of the stories are scientifically impossible, and despite the fact that it seems God doesn't give a shit about the current world.

[Obev]

I'm still not sure what a "homosexual lifestyle" is. Most of the gays I know are 'straighter' than me.

I like musical theatre, I like cheesily horrendous '70s disco music, I suppose I can be a bit camp at times. Most of them don't. I like girls. They like boys.

Is someone's 'lifestyle' limited to their choice of bedroom partner? Do you live a 'heterosexual lifestyle'? Where does it say in the Bible that a 'homosexual lifestyle' is haram? Where does it even mention a 'homosexual lifestyle'? Or is it just the buttsex that you have such a visceral opposition to?

[Qalbert]

Do you honestly believe I want to come here and talk about this?

well you made the thread...

[Sera]

GOD FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT

My reaction was: DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT. REALLY. SOMEONE PLEASE SAY IT.