Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[HisBelovedMelody]

hithesh, you are off on alot of things. FIRST off...how many of these 'non gender' people are around? GET real, that STILL doesn't make homosexuality right. PERIOD.

second...And I guess you believe children born with two sex organs, are products of sin, and the devil, and not God?
DID I say that?????????????????? NO where did I say that. SO don't accuse me of YOUR nonsense. We are ALL born INTO sin. is it of the devil? I wouldn't think so. SO don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I don't think I am going to stick in this thread any more. There is NO point. YOU are making some NONSENSE comments. I won't debate. GOD said it is wrong...so there fore it is. IF people get lead into deception...then maybe they should STAY IN the Word of GOd.

 

[hithesh]

hithesh, you are off on a lot of things. FIRST off...how many of these 'non gender' people are around? GET real, that STILL doesn't make homosexuality right. PERIOD.

So i guess the number, means they are irrelevant. They are an important means of understanding sexual identity. The part about assuming they are a product of the devil, was not directed at you, but at those who have taken this position in the past when hermaphrodites were mentioned.

I don't think I am going to stick in this thread any more. There is NO point. YOU are making some NONSENSE comments. I won't debate. GOD said it is wrong...so there fore it is. IF people get lead into deception...then maybe they should STAY IN the Word of GOd.

This is not a discussion to lead people into deception, but for us to discuss truth.

But goodbye, may god bless.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

So i guess the number, means they are irrelevant. They are an important means of understanding sexual identity. The part about assuming they are a product of the devil, was not directed at you, but at those who have taken this position in the past when hermaphrodites were mentioned.



This is not a discussion to lead people into deception, but for us to discuss truth.

But goodbye, may god bless.

NEVER said it was irrelevent either. (the numbers). MY point was...they are the rare exception. BUT you have your opinion, I have mine.

The Lord is leading me to leave the WHOLE forum. It is draining and very unhealthy to be here. SO for the time being, I am gone. CHAO!

 

[intricatic]

Those who string to literal belief, hold on tightly to something that is not there. But the time is coming when all will be taken away from believers, and many will start to loose faith, and what you so blindly see as truth, others will see as fiction.

Christians today are not ready to provide answers, for the wave of unbelief that will arise in the coming years, as they hold on to verses that do not matter, instead of building there house on the sermon of stone.

All areas of the bible are needed for a particular people at a particular time, and when that time elapses areas become irrelevant. Every generation has a new message, and a new understanding of things. The only message that is relevant to our generation and generations beyond are the words of Christ in the gospels. But many of us are hiding from the truth, that is starting to arise now.

All I say, is out of a deep love for Christianity, and a longing to perserve it, before many start to see it as irrelevant.
My convictions are deep, and my love for God is strong.

How is the message no longer relevant? Is it the Bible that's changed, or society? If it's society, may I ask, how could God's Will change because society has moved away from it's original tenants?

Ecclesiastes 1
8 All things are full of labor;
Man cannot express it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which it may be said,
“ See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.
​

 

[hithesh]

How is the message no longer relevant? Is it the Bible that's changed, or society? If it's society, may I ask, how could God's Will change because society has moved away from it's original tenants?

God's will doesn't change, but men change from subsequent generations. Think of how ridicules "turn the other cheek", "resist not evil" "love thy enemy" would have sounded to men a thousand years before christ. It's behavioral evolution, that's at play, most of us will not argue that the mind of society a thousands of years ago, was much more primitive. And that is why God condones stoning of an adulterer in one generation, and than tells other it is wrong to, do it in subsequent generations. It's not God that's changing, but it's a father understanding his children are growing. A couple of a thousand years ago, a man would never ponder the thought of two men loving each other, just as man and woman love each other. At the time men and men was all sex, but this is not how we understand homosexuality today. If god provides them the ability to love this way, how can i deny that it is not his will? Even when i see he creates abnormalities, that the word of God never mentions or confronts? I see the creation of hermaphrodites, as sign, that we understand his will is complex, and not as easy as point A and B in the bible.

Think of how ridicules Paul's saying for "slaves to remain slaves", would sound to this generation? Think of how we would view a father now, if he held a knife up to is son, saying God tempted him to do it? Or how we laude televangelist who say that 9/11 occurred, because of God's wrath for a nation accepting homosexuality? Think of how hateful it would sound to tell a mother, her son was killed in a natural disaster, because of gods punishment for her nation.

But of course, none of these things would sound strange or hateful a couple thousand years ago. I'm a man of reason, and I can see that there is no way of reconciling the entire bible, and so many things are going to fall a part, when new and quite strong allegations are brought up against it. And young believers will have many questions, that we will not be able to answer, by supporting literal interpretation.

Intriac we have talked many times, and the way that you have tied things together in the bible, is not even persuasive to me (and I'm man of deep belief), but I guess you don't see this, and the questions will soon arise from those who doubt faith, and I know that many of us will not have an answer for them.

The sad thing, is that many of us are not waking up to see this, but I guess if we assume we're okay, and have a ticket to heaven, why care so much but anyone else, particularly the lost sheep.

One day you will understand what I say is true, perhaps just not today.

 

[AmberInSoFla]

hithesh, you are off on alot of things. FIRST off...how many of these 'non gender' people are around? GET real, that STILL doesn't make homosexuality right. PERIOD.

second...And I guess you believe children born with two sex organs, are products of sin, and the devil, and not God?
DID I say that?????????????????? NO where did I say that. SO don't accuse me of YOUR nonsense. We are ALL born INTO sin. is it of the devil? I wouldn't think so. SO don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I don't think I am going to stick in this thread any more. There is NO point. YOU are making some NONSENSE comments. I won't debate. GOD said it is wrong...so there fore it is. IF people get lead into deception...then maybe they should STAY IN the Word of GOd.

Well there is at least one in here right now.

I'm 34 and I have never been able to reconcile the way I was BORN with what would be a "right" relationship as far as gender goes.

Imagine growing up as a boy, and then having your body go through changes that you were NOT expecting and ending up in an OB/GYN's office as a 12 year old "boy" in a room full of women because you are having stuff happen to your body that is NOT supposed to be happening and suddenly finding out that you are an IT. Imagine having a doctor probing you in a place that you didn't even know you had.

I tried hiding the birth defect and living as a guy for years... I prayed for God to make me a man for YEARS. I hid my breasts, I wore big clothes, I worked out a lot, I shaved my head... and I prayed and prayed...

eventually He answered my prayer. He said NO.

This is the way God made me.

I do not think that people can use me as a good example either for or against anything having to do with homosexual or heterosexual relationships because I don't even seem to count as human being in a discussion like this. I'm just a "non gendered" IT.

 

[hithesh]

Well there is at least one in here right now.

I'm 34 and I have never been able to reconcile the way I was BORN with what would be a "right" relationship as far as gender goes.

Imagine growing up as a boy, and then having your body go through changes that you were NOT expecting and ending up in an OB/GYN's office as a 12 year old "boy" in a room full of women because you are having stuff happen to your body that is NOT supposed to be happening and suddenly finding out that you are an IT. Imagine having a doctor probing you in a place that you didn't even know you had.

I tried hiding the birth defect and living as a guy for years... I prayed for God to make me a man for YEARS. I hid my breasts, I wore big clothes, I worked out a lot, I shaved my head... and I prayed and prayed...

eventually He answered my prayer. He said NO.

This is the way God made me.

I do not think that people can use me as a good example either for or against anything having to do with homosexual or heterosexual relationships because I don't even seem to count as human being in a discussion like this. I'm just a "non gendered" IT.

I'm grateful that you are here.

 

[seanHayden]

Let's answer you question a bit more directly. If God created men to be only with women, then God would not create children with two sex organs, who have no physical gender. We know that god creates abnormalities, but do we know the reason for why he creates them?

Yet we allow these children time, to decide which gender they are allowed to be, but if they decide to not cut off any sex organs (because this is not a sin, and it perhaps might be a sin to do so), then who decides which sex they are physically? who decides which sex they are attracted to?

What I assume we can say, that this individual has a biological leaning for which sex he is attracted to. But you see this is not a choice on his part, but a biological leaning?

If the hermaphrodite decides to marry, who decides which sex he/she is to be with? Do you?
If this individual does not have the ability to procreate, do we then deny him/her the rite to marry?
If the parent decides to remove the male organ from this child, because the parent wants a girl, and the child grows up later to realize she is attracted to women, do we then deny him/her the right to marriage as well?

Is it really his/her choice? Or the makeup of god's creation that decides?

( I appreciate the fact, that you provide reasons for your view, and not just use a particular verse as the basis)

Ok, so your answer to the original question then is no, God did not create men to be with women and women to recieve the man.

If this is your position, then I don't think I am out of line in asking you to provide a better argument then that of natural abnormalities e.g., the existence of those with two sex organs isn't evidence against the purpose of creation concerning sexuality.

As I have alread pointed out, men were also created to walk but not all are born with this ability. Men were created to be able to talk, but not all are born with this ability. Some can't hear or even see.

May I present a solution, one that dosn't jump to the conlclusion that people with both sex organs disprove the purpose of creation where our sexuality is concerned.

While it is normal and not at all homophobic to state that men where created for women and women created to recieve the man, it would be altogether wrong to hold to the fire those who were born with such a burdern as dual sex organs. We and God are not so unmerciful as to not allow for understanding toward those born as such.

However, it is not these individuals we are discussing.

Just as if there were a law against blindness we would not condemn those born blind, so do we not condemn those born with two sex organs who struggle to find a place in the purpose of our sexual creation.

What we as Christians do condemn is the choice to become a homosexual.

It might be argued that homosexuality isn't a choice, but this would be to swallow the camel and choke on a fly. Is it not obvious, that many people indeed choose to practice the homosexual lifestyle? Are we to be so ignorant, as to assume everyone in the homosexual lifestyle was born with a specific dispossision to homosexuality?

I will go a step further, and state that all individuals can in fact become homosexuals.

Does this bother you?

 

[intricatic]

God's will doesn't change, but men change from subsequent generations. Think of how ridicules "turn the other cheek", "resist not evil" "love thy enemy" would have sounded to men a thousand years before christ.

Revelation is not bound by generation. For instance;

1 Peter 1
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.
-----

Although you are correct, as society advances, new problems will arise that were unforeseen in exact form by ages past. Some older problems will vanish while new ones are created; our world view is still moved further from the original perspective that understood more clearly the things written in scripture, and this is not a good thing.

Think of how ridicules Paul's saying for "slaves to remain slaves", would sound to this generation?

If, in the place of slaves, we say "Janitors", or "Construction workers", or "Temporary Laborers", or "Warehouse workers", or "Teachers", or any number of other things, is the context changed at all? The message is exactly as applicable in this perspective. Why? Because it was the central idea being presented. Christ came to preach salvation from slavery, but not freedom from the world itself. One needs not be a slave to the world, but slaves to Christ, despite the world.

Think of how we would view a father now, if he held a knife up to is son, saying God tempted him to do it?

Indeed, this was an antitype of Christ, though. If God did tell someone to do such a thing, would how we view it matter?

Or how we laude televangelist who say that 9/11 occurred, because of God's wrath for a nation accepting homosexuality?

They had a point. Western culture is part of the reason those in the ME hate us. However, this is not to say that they should be blaming the culture, but trying to change it through love and patience.

Think of how hateful it would sound to tell a mother, her son was killed in a natural disaster, because of gods punishment for her nation.

If God was punishing her nation, would it matter what we thought? I should imagine a rebellious reaction is in antagonism of what God wills for mankind, and thus in contravention to it. The same as when Israel ignored and stoned the prophets for bringing warnings of God's judgement.

But of course, none of these things would sound strange or hateful a couple thousand years ago.

It doesn't sound strange or hateful now, except to those who have redefined what hatred is, and what love is.

I'm a man of reason, and I can see that there is no way of reconciling the entire bible, and so many things are going to fall a part, when new and quite strong allegations are brought up against it. And young believers will have many questions, that we will not be able to answer, by supporting literal interpretation.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if one rejects or accepts the whole of the Bible, it stands to reason that if the Bible is wholly true, it bears no impact on the message to shrug it off as mythological. God is not a mental construct.

Intriac we have talked many times, and the way that you have tied things together in the bible, is not even persuasive to me (and I'm man of deep belief), but I guess you don't see this, and the questions will soon arise from those who doubt faith, and I know that many of us will not have an answer for them.

Likewise to the way you've cut out things from the Bible and tried to show a humanistic existential based message that has no semblance to historic Christianity. I hear this at school constantly and it's never really struck me as rational. I guess each has their own perspective, and I do respect yours because I can see you do have good intents in mind, even if I may disagree that it's the best way to do things.

The sad thing, is that many of us are not waking up to see this, but I guess if we assume we're okay, and have a ticket to heaven, why care so much but anyone else, particularly the lost sheep.

Strage, I've been trying to wake you up this whole time.

One day you will understand what I say is true, perhaps just not today.

Actually, when I first cacme to Christianity, I had a perspective such as yours. It's something that was broken from me after a lot of vain anger and spite on my part. It was taken from me long ago. I still retain the love I had for people, and the concern, but it's been reformed into something far more than it was before.

1 Corinthians 10
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
-----

And further back, even;

Isaian 29
14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
Among this people,
A marvelous work and a wonder;
For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”
15 Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the LORD,
And their works are in the dark;
They say, “Who sees us?” and, “Who knows us?”
16 Surely you have things turned around!
Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;
For shall the thing made say of him who made it,
“ He did not make me”?
Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,
“ He has no understanding”?
-----

These things are spoken to those who revel in man's world-centered understanding of life. This is the different and radical manifestation of existentialism throughout the ages being spoken to. The world view that says "God did not understand we would be the way we are now, so what we're doing is OK." Or "God made us to be the way we are, so we should just stay the way we are.", while still being lumps of unformed clay. This is a universal trend throughout history, it's not isolated to only our time and place. We are not special, our world is not new, though technology and philosophy, as well as our own egotistic pride would decieve us into thinking that we are.
​

 

[hithesh]

Why do you think slavery was never down rite condemned? read the article and tell me what you think.

Christian View of Slavery Same As Homosexuality

The use of Christian doctrine that falsely condemns homosexuality is the same doctrine that the prior generation used to condone the practice of buying and selling humans as slaves. The Bible was used as justification for slavery, right up to the moment it was made illegal. Slavery was a common practice in the time of Jesus and earlier, yet Jesus himself said nothing about it.

EX 21:20,21 God clearly says we can beat slaves to death. Ex 21:1-6 God says if a master allows his male slave to get married and have children, then the wife and children become the master's property too. Even if the male slave should gain his freedom, the wife and the children must remain with the master. So much for family values! Ephesians 6:5 is the NT support of slavery. Also according to Jewish culture at the time a women was supposed to marry her rapist! Think what following that requirement would do to a women raped today!

Christians claimed Leviticus 25 supports servitude of up to 49 years. Although it was the Christians, not the Jews, who used the Bible to defend slavery.

Montesquieu was considered a heretic for opposing slavery, and his works were condemned. One of the most infamous slave trading ships (that of Hawkins) was called the Jesus. Slavery was viewed as the will of God, and slaves were taught Christianity in order that they might recognize that "truth" and realize and accept that slavery was the natural order of things, sanctioned by the Bible itself. A minister writing in 1860 (in "Slavery, Its Institution and Origin" said: "So we see that God not only instituted slavery but He also made it to forever be a part of the moral probation of the human race, and to be a great lesson to the end of time of his abhorrence of sin." Just over 100 years ago in this country, people who considered themselves model Christians honestly and completely believed that slavery was morally right and opposing slavery was the real sin.

The South - the so called "Bible Belt" appealed to the Bible to justify slavery. Remember that the Southern Baptist church got its start in the 1840's precisely over the issue of slavery. Preachers quoted Eph 6:5 to support slavery then, just as vigorously as Jerry Falwell misquotes Romans 1 to condemn homosexuality. But there's nothing unbiblical about slavery. Like everyone else of his time, Paul regarded slavery as a normal part of society. In Paul's time there was no understanding of loving homosexuality, only the terrible acts of pederasty - hetero males degrading other hetero males sexually. The Bible doesn't change but society understanding does.

Today 2000 years later, we no longer practice pederasty or slavery. I hope soon, ant-gay sermons will be as dated as pro-slavery or anti-race mixing sermons are today.

 

[hithesh]

If this is your position, then I don't think I am out of line in asking you to provide a better argument then that of natural abnormalities e.g., the existence of those with two sex organs isn't evidence against the purpose of creation concerning sexuality.

It is these individuals we are discussing, if you would answer the questions I asked, then I can show you how it relates.

The questions pertains to choice, and which choice is right or wrong, and how this choice is decided, beyond the physical abnormalities. If it's the individual who decide, or the his god given biological make up. I didn't decide to be a heterosexual, i was biologically inclined to be that way, why would I be foolish enough to assume that a God that creates every other abnormality, does not create an abnormality that inclines men to be attracted to men. Every insititutation that has tried to convert homosexuals to hetrosexuals have been a miserable failure, and how long will it take for us to wake up.

The consensus of scientific community (including psychologist), have concluded that homosexuality is not a choice. Any individual who looks at the subject objectively would understand this, but only those who want to hold to on to some verse in the bible, harp that it is a choice.

And I wish, you would share your opinions on the hermaphrodite questions, which are pretty direct, and I think simple to answer.

(hum I wonder why, christians for the most part avoid the questions, perhaps because the bible doesn't give them an answer...hum I wonder why)

 

[intricatic]

It was condemned, but the Early Church would have been horribly abusive to end working slavery at the time. Why? Most people in slavery in the time we're discussing were there according to their will. They would have died had they not tied themselves to such a cultural institute. The same as people who have to work today in order to live.

Again, however, the analogy is flawed. But I've discussed the reasoning behind slavery on a plethora of different threads thusfar, and it's an digression from the topic at hand. I don't feel like going into a detailed explanation and examination of scripture yet again on this topic.

 

[intricatic]

The consensus of scientific community (including psychologist), have concluded that homosexuality is not a choice. Any individual who looks at the subject objectively would understand this, but only those who want to hold to on to some verse in the bible, harp that it is a choice

If this is true, why is it such a controversial issue in the scientific community? Perhaps it has something to do with the neurophysiological operation of sexuality and association.

And I wish, you would share your opinions on the hermaphrodite questions, which are pretty direct, and I think simple to answer.

This is a different subject entirely. I've no issues with hemaphrodites making their own decisions about what gender they wish to take for themselves. If they display more feminine qualities, I would imagine they would chose to take a female identity. If they show more masculine qualities, I imagine they would chose a male identity. This androgenous state of gender as it relates to sexuality is a different matter entirely to homosexuality, which has no genetic or physical evidence to support such a state or condition. It's primarily neurological, which is why all heterosexuals can become homosexual over time, and vice versa.

(hum I wonder why, christians for the most part avoid the questions, perhaps because the bible doesn't give them an answer...hum I wonder why)

Or... perhaps it's because this false dichotomy between static natural homosexual and heterosexual has only been made in recent times and that's what the Christian side of the argument is raising issue with.

 

[hithesh]

Likewise to the way you've cut out things from the Bible and tried to show a humanistic existential based message that has no semblance to historic Christianity.

Slavery was never defeated by individuals who said the Bible condemns it, but it was supported by literalist, because there were many verses that condoned slavery. I'm sorry but the wealth of historic Christianity is not something I'm proud of (The inquisition, colonization, witch trials, etc...)

Earlier as I recall you said the Buddha had similar teachings, because Christ's moral philosophy is written in everyone (something along those lines), and yet you accuse me of having a skewed humanist perspective of the gospels, though the teachings of the buddha are completely humanist. When the Buddha speaks the concept of the sermon of the mount, he wanted his followers to resist not evil, to turn the other cheek, etc...I guess we can say all the movements that have been based on the sermon of the mount, are not individuals who were following Christ's teachings but the Buddhas.

And as I've already mentioned you tie things in a way that makes sense to you, but not to anyone else. How can you at one point say they had the same moral teachings, and then deny that Christ's message is not humanistic, though I doubt you'll say that about the buddha's?

I've never been a big fan when people introduce a long list of verses to defend their position, when looking at the verses I can't see what you're trying to say. I have not once seen the logic, in your use of verses, so I have no idea what I am suppose to be commenting on. Perhaps you should provide the verses, and then tell us what you think they mean. Because you should know, most people interpret scripture differently.

1 Peter 1
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

-----

What does this have to do with anything ???

Although you are correct, as society advances, new problems will arise that were unforeseen in exact form by ages past. Some older problems will vanish while new ones are created; our world view is still moved further from the original perspective that understood more clearly the things written in scripture, and this is not a good thing.

Older perspective? And yes, you are right when you say we are moved further by understanding things in the scripture more clearly. But most of us are content with what we see now, and only a few individuals at every point in time have seen the scripture more clearly. But it's never the majority who see the scripture more clearly, it's always just a few, who advance christianity beyond witch trials, beyond the inquisition, and beyond the papacy.

If God was punishing her nation, would it matter what we thought? I should imagine a rebellious reaction is in antagonism of what God wills for mankind, and thus in contravention to it.

The problem is not God punishing the nation, but us assuming God punished a nation, but of course there will always be supposed men of God, who feel they have some divine knowledge of when God's wrath is shown. If a christian feels he has inspired by god to blow up an abortion clinic, I guess I have no right to condemn him, because perhaps he is following the will of God.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if one rejects or accepts the whole of the Bible, it stands to reason that if the Bible is wholly true, it bears no impact on the message to shrug it off as mythological. God is not a mental construct.

No it doesn't, but what I am trying to tell you, that Christians like you, and others before you, have obstructed the message, to cater to their nature. Think of this if I could prove that "resist not evil", "turn the other cheek" means we are asked to never fight back, how many of us would follow it? How many of us would say God has a purpose for telling us this, and allow our death if need be? Most of us wouldn't because it go against our nature to follow such concepts, and that is why you will never hear the verses of the sermon of the mount ever read at sunday service.

Christ message is humanist in nature, and even you, should see this after reconciling it with the buddha. I base my faith on the foundation, he says to, in the sermon of the mount, and when you and others do such a thing, they will understand the meanings of the rest of the bible. But if course how many of us would trade comfortable living in the passing life, for ascetic living, to bring as many as we can to the kingdom of God. And even if the truth was in front of your eyes, I would have to ask why wouldn't you pursue it? because you believe god never asked you to, or because you are unwilling to will yourself to.

 

[hithesh]

If this is true, why is it such a controversial issue in the scientific community? Perhaps it has something to do with the neurophysiological operation of sexuality and association.

Uhm, and what controversy are you referring to? I didn't know there was a controversy going on among the scientific community of whether homosexuality is a choice or not?

This androgynous state of gender as it relates to sexuality is a different matter entirely to homosexuality, which has no genetic or physical evidence to support such a state or condition. It's primarily neurological, which is why all heterosexuals can become homosexual over time, and vice versa.

Where do you get this from? And secondly my response was directed at a particular individual, but if you choose to involve yourself, than you can either answer the questions I asked about hermaphrodites in the thread, or the other one I created just for that, and we can continue.

But just out of curiosity if a genetic component is found, how would it change your opinion? Would that change how you view the bible? Homosexuality?

Or... perhaps it's because this false dichotomy between static natural homosexual and heterosexual has only been made in recent times and that's what the Christian side of the argument is raising issue with.

uhm...english please...english we can understand please

 

[intricatic]

Slavery was never defeated by individuals who said the Bible condemns it, but it was supported by literalist, because there were many verses that condoned slavery. I'm sorry but the wealth of historic Christianity is not something I'm proud of (The inquisition, colonization, witch trials, etc...)

You're misrepresenting my case. I never said people who use it for political clout are advancing the true ideals in the Bible. This doesn't mean they're always wrong, however. It's this mentality that's made me give up politics in general - I really don't care for either end of the aisle, and as such, I'm arguing for a purely doctrinal view. I could care less about the public perception of things, and I don't really have an opinion about whether public instituted marriages should be granted to two men, or two women, or whether it should stay the same. Within the Church, this is another story entirely. The same precept as the Church should have universally had in the past regarding slavery. But the two things are mutually unrelated due to the structure of the institutes themselves. Sexuality is not something relatable to slavery, except by the example of mankind's self-administered enslavement to his own sexual faculties.

Earlier as I recall you said the Buddha had similar teachings, because Christ's moral philosophy is written in everyone (something along those lines), and yet you accuse me of having a skewed humanist perspective of the gospels, though the teachings of the buddha are completely humanist. When the Buddha speaks the concept of the sermon of the mount, he wanted his followers to resist not evil, to turn the other cheek, etc...I guess we can say all the movements that have been based on the sermon of the mount, are not individuals who were following Christ's teachings but the Buddhas.

No. This also misrepresents what I said. Antitypes will come and go within society as an example of Christ, but very much vague in contrast with what Christ taught - the antitypes themselves lack large foundations of truth and make humanistic, world-centered philosophical models that have no depth or meaning outside the idea that they do have slight common bonds with the True reality presented in Christ.

And as I've already mentioned you tie things in a way that makes sense to you, but not to anyone else. How can you at one point say they had the same moral teachings, and then deny that Christ's message is not humanistic, though I doubt you'll say that about the buddha's?

Christ's messages are not egocentric. Buddha's major flaw was that his philosophical paradigm was entirely egocentric. Hedonic experience is not what Christ taught.

What does this have to do with anything ???

Do you know when the Law of Moses was first administered, and how large of a gap there was between when this occured, and Paul wrote the verse I used as an example? What was being said in the verse?

1 Peter 1
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.
-----

Is he talking about prophecies that were given generations before Christ, talking about Christ, and using things from far in the past to speak to something not only in the present, but also in the future? Why would he have done that if culture is relative?

Older perspective? And yes, you are right when you say we are moved further by understanding things in the scripture more clearly. But most of us are content with what we see now, and only a few individuals at every point in time have seen the scripture more clearly. But it's never the majority who see the scripture more clearly, it's always just a few, who advance christianity beyond witch trials, beyond the inquisition, and beyond the papacy.

One cannot get a clearer picture of something written by moving further away from the original teachings they come from.

The problem is not God punishing the nation, but us assuming God punished a nation, but of course there will always be supposed men of God, who feel they have some divine knowledge of when God's wrath is shown. If a christian feels he has inspired by god to blow up an abortion clinic, I guess I have no right to condemn him, because perhaps he is following the will of God.

A person bombing an abortion clinic is not what I'm referring to. I was making a point regarding how we look at world events. One does not say "X has happened, therefore either God is evil for not being humanist, or this is not God's will." God's will works through situations, they're never an end in themselves. Rebellion does not change or alter the fact that God is, and always has been, or that He works in this world. He exists and we all have our source in Him - His Will is beyond and above our will, but humanism works in antagonism to this.

No it doesn't, but what I am trying to tell you, that Christians like you, and others before you, have obstructed the message, to cater to their nature. Think of this if I could prove that "resist not evil", "turn the other cheek" means we are asked to never fight back, how many of us would follow it? How many of us would say God has a purpose for telling us this, and allow our death if need be? Most of us wouldn't because it go against our nature to follow such concepts, and that is why you will never hear the verses of the sermon of the mount ever read at sunday service.

Do you know how I treat people? Or are you relying on your observation and preconception of what ideas are, relative to what a person is? I treat the two things very differently. Ideas are subject to reason, while people are subject to consideration and love. Although, I think you're building a very large straw-man with this idea of the sermon on the mount. I'd be willing to bet that you could find at least 300 commentaries, and pastoral sermons on this very topic within ten minutes of a google search. You may disagree with them, but perhaps you've not looked into the anthropological or social implications of the sermon. I don't know. Whatever the case, it's quite ignoble to think an understanding of scripture can come from an existential philosophical presupposition. Especially as it relates to politics.

Christ message is humanist in nature, and even you, should see this after reconciling it with the buddha. I base my faith on the foundation, he says to, in the sermon of the mount, and when you and others do such a thing, they will understand the meanings of the rest of the bible. But if course how many of us would trade comfortable living in the passing life, for ascetic living, to bring as many as we can to the kingdom of God. And even if the truth was in front of your eyes, I would have to ask why wouldn't you pursue it? because you believe god never asked you to, or because you are unwilling to will yourself to.

If you want to keep pushing this, I can't make you stop. I can't explain to you the reasoning behind what I see in the gospels as it relates to the rest of the Bible because it would take years of dialog to communicate this. However, your apparent strawman in this segment of your response is that I do not pursue the Truth of scripture, and I do not pursue sharing it with others. How do you come to this conclusion? Or is it just that you disagree with me based on a philosophic world view abstracted outside of scripture, and applied and read into scripture intentionally? I've been rebuilding my worldview based entirely on scripture and it's application to the world, and it's amazingly consistent. It also makes far more sense than when I tried applying my previously existing world view to scripture.

Uhm, and what controversy are you referring to? I didn't know there was a controversy going on among the scientific community of whether homosexuality is a choice or not?

The controversy that neurophysiology offers to the construct of human sexuality, relative to how the human nervous system functions. You should be aware of the fact that science never perfectly agrees with itself. It's built off of controversy. To make a claim that sexuality is defined in definite terms by science is a smack in the face of every scientist who's yet to bring conclusive and demonstratable proof of what human sexuality even is to the table.

Where do you get this from? And secondly my response was directed at a particular individual, but if you choose to involve yourself, than you can either answer the questions I asked about hermaphrodites in the thread, or the other one I created just for that, and we can continue.

But just out of curiosity if a genetic component is found, how would it change your opinion? Would that change how you view the bible? Homosexuality?

I'm not really interested in the argument itself, it's a less than enjoyable one for me, I was merely commenting. But yes, my view of homosexuality itself, which I've not even touched upon how I view homosexuality as it relates to the rest of the world, and how I would percieve proper treatment of people who claim to homosexuality as an identity, would in fact change if I were offered demonstratable proof that sexuality is related to chromosomal functions, and not something that changes over time by a conscious and subconscious effort, meshed together with associative dependency. Most of what I say comes from psychology, and from experience - I've seen people go from being heterosexual to homosexual, and vice versa, without even thinking much about it, and I believe the fact that they did not think much about it is how they could do it while others cannot.

uhm...english please...english we can understand please

I thought it was in English.

Originally Posted by intricatic
Or... perhaps it's because this false dichotomy between static natural homosexual and heterosexual has only been made in recent times and that's what the Christian side of the argument is raising issue with.

The reference to a false dichotomy is stating that there are only two absolute answers. The problem is that sexuality is not absolute, and it's not set as a function of either/or. It's reinforced by experience, but it's changeable through experience as well. You can say "Well, I have only heterosexual attraction, and I simply cannot imagine having otherwise!", but that makes you sound like a fundamentalist. Am I more honest in stating that I could see it going either way, but I chose only one side of the spectrum, or is personal experience absolutely inconclusive, in and of itself? If this is the case, how can we rely on it in any way?

 

[hithesh]

I could care less about the public perception of things, and I don't really have an opinion about whether public instituted marriages should be granted to two men, or two women, or whether it should stay the same. Within the Church, this is another story entirely. The same precept as the Church should have universally had in the past regarding slavery. But the two things are mutually unrelated due to the structure of the institutes themselves. Sexuality is not something relatable to slavery, except by the example of mankind's self-administered enslavement to his own sexual faculties.

Well, it's the politics I'm concerned with more than your own opinion, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, but do not feel you should seek to promote laws that ban gay marriage, then I have no opposition to you .

No. This also misrepresents what I said. Anti-types will come and go within society as an example of Christ, but very much vague in contrast with what Christ taught

So you believe the similarities between the two are vague?
I can't believe that any reasonable individual could say that, I think the teachings can be used by unbelievers as a strong case to say that Christ was made up, and a product of plagiarism, but you don't think so?

Do you think Christ's concept of "turn the other cheek", and Buddha's concept of "turn the other cheek", imply two different things? If you believe they do, then I don't see a point in arguing my concepts of the sermon of mount, with you any further. I felt what strong about interpretation of the sermon of the mounts years before I found the Buddha link, and now that I found it, it has only convinced me more, but if it does not persuade you, then we have nothing further to discuss on the "sermon"

Christ's messages are not egocentric. Buddha's major flaw was that his philosophical paradigm was entirely egocentric. Hedonic experience is not what Christ taught.

I believe Christ perfected Buddha's teaching, he added all the elements that Buddha's teaching lacked, to make them perfect. And every portion of the gospels, has shined in a new light for me, but I know you assume that I'm looking to much into it, but that's okay, because I'm a man of reason more so than I am a man of fate. I am individual who never believed because of reason, and now I've found all reason to believe. And when I am finished exploring the relationship between the two, I will present my case.

Do you know how I treat people? Or are you relying on your observation and preconception of what ideas are, relative to what a person is? I treat the two things very differently.

, I was never judging how you treat people.

Although, I think you're building a very large straw-man with this idea of the sermon on the mount. I'd be willing to bet that you could find at least 300 commentaries, and pastoral sermons on this very topic within ten minutes of a google search.

But it's not man's interpretation that I am using to understand the text, but how I cannot deny the miracles produced by individuals who followed the sermon literally. In a previous thread, I wrote about a christian social worker, who returned good for evil, to a man who tried to stab him, he followed the sermon on the mount literaly, do we say that he was misguided, or taking the teachings out of context to do so? Men who have followed the sermon amount literally have changed the world, but I guess they were taking the message out of context, and following the Buddha and not Christ?

I know what the teachings mean, by applying them to my life, and I know there is no greater way to live, than holding those teachings at the center of your faith. There is no greater testament to my saviors existence, than by seeing how his teachings have helped my family and the ones who I love to find peace. I also know that i would probably never be able to live them to their entirety, but the burden provides so much joy.
There is nothing man can say to take the truth from the sermon of the mount, because I felt god and found god, here, and seen his miracles throughout, and I know that the way I precieve it, is the truth.

I could not find one individual who has said he heard the sermon of the mount being read in church, and i wonder why that is?
Unlike other portions of the gospel that seem vague, that people seek interpretation for, the sermon of the mount needs interpretation because Christians cannot believe Christ's would ask them to follow such concepts in their literal form.

Because when you read them you perfectly understand what they mean, and there is no denying that they speak of a greater good, there is nothing sinful or wrong or punishable for following the message to the T, but they are so difficult if not impossible for men to live, so men through out history have only interpreted the passage into ways that they do not mean, and the entire sermon becomes irrelevant, that noone even bothers to read it. I mean how appalling would it sound for a pastor, to read the part about "love you enemies" right after 9/11 right?

Do you feel it's okay for translations of the bible to change the word love to pray in the sermon of mount?

However, your apparent straw-man in this segment of your response is that I do not pursue the Truth of scripture, and I do not pursue sharing it with others.

I never said that, and I never accused you of such. If you said you spend 5 hours a day, going door to door trying to convince your neighbors to convert, I would not feel inclined to doubt you. I don't doubt your heart, an individuals who spends as much time in this forum, discussing issues, most likely does it out of love for his faith, and his brother.

But what I've been saying is that, the version of the bible you present, does not make sense, and you can start to see that christians are slowly moving away from literal belief, because the logic of literal belief is not presented well enough, to persuade men of reason.

As time goes on, men will become less convinced of the magical elements of the bible, because they will realize that such elements would never occur today, and they have never seen any proof to believe them. Do you tell men that they should have faith to believe they were so, even though they lack convictions?

A time will come when homosexuality will be viewed by many as an identify just as race, by christians and others who fought for their rights out of pure love. So even if you and other's believe it is sin, it's okay, because our love and suffering will not be in vain.

But yes, my view of homosexuality itself, which I've not even touched upon how I view homosexuality as it relates to the rest of the world, and how I would perceive proper treatment of people who claim to homosexuality as an identity, would in fact change if I were offered demonstrable proof that sexuality is related to chromosomal functions, and not something that changes over time by a conscious and subconscious effort, meshed together with associative dependency.

If the science is not persuasive enough, and that is the reason for your position than I can respect that, because I know the science on the issue is not perfect or concrete.

But if you knew sexual identity is related to chromosomal functions, what would you think of the passages in the bible?

Do you believe that christians should still harp that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Do you believe that christians should still harp that homosexuality is a sin?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GOD said it is...so therefore it is!!!!!!!!!! COME on...get it will ya for goodness sake.

 

[hithesh]

Do you believe that christians should still harp that homosexuality is a sin?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GOD said it is...so therefore it is!!!!!!!!!! COME on...get it will ya for goodness sake.

lol, I don't believe the question was directed at you.

..you who said you were leaving the thread, but miraculously reappeared.

Nice to see you though,
may God bless

 

[hithesh]

YNo. This also misrepresents what I said. Antitypes will come and go within society as an example of Christ, but very much vague in contrast with what Christ taught

The similarities are far too apparent, to assume they taught two separate things. And for those who want to discuss and explore what I am talking about, I started another thread where I compiled some data linking Christ and the Buddha here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3719843-jesus-is-buddhacom.html

There is no vagueness in what I am talking about, there is enough to shake the faith of the few, and I have to ask how are Christians going to reconcile this? And we thought de-mything the da-vinci code was hard.