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?