Straight Dope Message Board

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

If the man was a *god*, he could take away the pain and all the negativity of the experience, AND he knew he'd be okay in three days.

He chose not to do that. He knew what was coming. His ‘Gethsemane Moment’, if you will, was agonizing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agony_in_the_Garden 101

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Now if someone isnt a Christian and accepted Christ then I would witness to them to do that. THEN it is up to them to pray, read the bible, and accept the guidance of the holy spirit as to what is sin or not.

No; then it is up to you to accept that not everyone is a Christian.

Bear in mind that there are people who are equally as certain as you are about what God wants, but who are certain that God does not want them to be Christians. Many of them are certain that God doesn't want you to be a Christian either.

And that is leaving out all the people who are certain that they can't very well accept the guidance of something that doesn't exist. 102

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

I hope the people here rallying against homosexuality because of the bible are also vehemently against tattoos, eating bacon, eating shrimp, eating rabbit, mixing fabrics, mixing cattle breeds, sowing the fields with two kinds of seed, letting your wife wear your jacket, divorce, and being near menstruating women. 103

[Annie-Xmas]

And in favor of killing witches, and women not talking in church, not leading men, and being totally submissive to their husbands. 104

[Bullitt]

I’m all for submissive wives, but I couldn’t find one to marry! 105

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

My wife's too busy kicking ass and taking names. 106

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Jesus said in Matthew 19:5

4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

For me, regardless of what you think "sin" is, the bible clearly points in the direction of men and women being made for each other.

So, if Jesus were to return, what do you think he would do or say in regard to gay people? 107

[Bullitt]

Then I think that Mt 19:5 would then be different. It (he) would allow for a spectrum of genders, gender identities, gender expressions, etc. The bible was written thousands of years ago. Things have changed. Words have changed. People have changed. But God and Jesus are forever.

Jesus would love. We should love. 108

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Then I think that Mt 19:5 would then be different. It (he) would allow for a spectrum of genders, gender identities, gender expressions, etc. The bible was written thousands of years ago. Things have changed. Words have changed. People have changed. But God and Jesus are forever.

Jesus would love. We should love.

Look, this is all IMHO of course. I’m no theologian, but I read and study the bible, and have been doing so since around 1983. I base this on my experiences and readings, studies, etc.

YMMV 109

[Red Wiggler]

Yeah, if 2020 Jesus is going to command teh gayz to repent and redeem, then he's gonna have to explain hisself a little. "Because I said so" ain't good enough. 110

[Czarcasm]

I think we should abide by what Jesus said:

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

111

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So, if Jesus were to return, what do you think he would do or say in regard to gay people?

Gay People? Nothing. That wasnt even a consideration back then, no one cared. Some types of gay sex, like older men buying the favors of young boys? He'd condemn that-as everyone does today. As Paul did. (altho we are not entirely sure what Paul meant, admittedly).

If normal gay sex came up, He wouldnt argue whether or not it was a sin, He'd simply say "those of you who are without sin, you can condemn them". 112

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I think we should abide by what Jesus said:

For the win! 113

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler

Of course not and I don't accept scripture as an authority on social issues. There will be a credibility gap between me and anyone who does.

Ok wait. Your not a Christian.

So why are you in this debate again?

If you dont recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ, then WWJD should mean nothing to you. 114

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So, if Jesus were to return, what do you think he would do or say in regard to gay people?

Why are you asking? Are you a Christian and have given your life to Jesus? If so then you should know the answer. If you follow something else then WWJD and the words in Matthew are meaningless. 115

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler

Yeah, if 2020 Jesus is going to command teh gayz to repent and redeem, then he's gonna have to explain hisself a little. "Because I said so" ain't good enough.

Many people also rejected his beliefs back then also.

Regardless Jesus wouldnt stop to listen to the advice of Hollywood first. 116

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator

My wife's too busy kicking ass and taking names.

As were many wives of the Bible.

Look up Lydia in Acts 16 who ran an import business in purple dyes and became a follower and supporter of Paul. 117

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Why are you asking?

Because I would like to know the answer to the question...and why you dance around that answer. 118

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Many people also rejected his beliefs back then also.

Regardless Jesus wouldnt stop to listen to the advice of Hollywood first.

Who mentioned Hollywood? 119

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Why are you asking? Are you a Christian and have given your life to Jesus? If so then you should know the answer.

What of the opinions of other Christians in this thread? Do you dismiss them as readily if they don't match up with your beliefs? 120

[kanicbird]

Jesus came for the sinners not to condemn but to give eternal life. In this we are all sinners, and in the same boat. In short Jesus came for us all, doesn't matter what we have done.

I am leaving out those who condemns others by the law, who Jesus correctly identifies as sons of the devil. They will get what they deserve. 121

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Jesus said in Matthew 19:5

4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

For me, regardless of what you think "sin" is, the bible clearly points in the direction of men and women being made for each other.

You are leaving out the context:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

There are different conditions now, it is not the original condition, so one can not expect Matt 4-6 to be in play here. People's hearts are hard towards each other and towards God - and this is before the marriage. This is not the garden of Eden.

In the end we will see that Christ will restore all things, it is His job to do so. We can only do it by grace. 122

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Better yet: "That long-haired commie pinko coastal elite black bitch has got some nerve, calling herself 'Jesus'. Where's her semi-automatic rifle? Where's her MAGA hat? Where's her 'fuck your feelings' t-shirt? That N****r cunt ain't the Jesus I know! She's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HER UP!"

You really like saying the "N word", don't you?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=830768 123

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Because I would like to know the answer to the question...and why you dance around that answer.

I gave you the answer. Or do you only want his? 124

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Why are you asking? Are you a Christian and have given your life to Jesus? If so then you should know the answer. If you follow something else then WWJD and the words in Matthew are meaningless.

He's a die hard atheist. Hard core. 125

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I gave you the answer. Or do you only want his?

You gave THE answer? There is no other opinion anyone can have? Maybe he wants UrbanRedneck's opinion on the matter? 126

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I gave you the answer. Or do you only want his?

He has been the one I have been quoting...but it so nice that you have "The Answer". BTW, what would you say if your "Answer" didn't match up with his(providing he ever got around to giving it, that is). 127

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

He has been the one I have been quoting...but it so nice that you have "The Answer". BTW, what would you say if your "Answer" didn't match up with his(providing he ever got around to giving it, that is).

So, only you and he can post in this thread? 128

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Why are you asking? Are you a Christian and have given your life to Jesus? If so then you should know the answer. If you follow something else then WWJD and the words in Matthew are meaningless.

I am a Christian. I am a Lutheran. I believe I may know the answer (though indicating one knows the will of God completely is somewhat presumptuous). I believe what were see in Acts 10 is not just about food but about people. Do not call anything unclean that the Lord has made clean and then Peter was told to go eat with a Gentile Centurion - unclean. The folks in Jerusalem were scandalized - but after the story was told they accepted it. LGBTQ people are made clean by God. They don't have sex with the same gender due to excessive lust (as was thought by then) but because they were created that way. Jesus would love then and stand by them as he did with other marginalized.

God sent the Holy Spirit for just this reason - to continue to educate us about God when we are ready to hear the Truth.

So that's the answer I think I know as a practicing Christian. What's yours?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk 129

[Urbanredneck]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I am a Christian. I am a Lutheran. I believe I may know the answer (though indicating one knows the will of God completely is somewhat presumptuous). I believe what were see in Acts 10 is not just about food but about people. Do not call anything unclean that the Lord has made clean and then Peter was told to go eat with a Gentile Centurion - unclean. The folks in Jerusalem were scandalized - but after the story was told they accepted it. LGBTQ people are made clean by God. They don't have sex with the same gender due to excessive lust (as was thought by then) but because they were created that way. Jesus would love then and stand by them as he did with other marginalized.

God sent the Holy Spirit for just this reason - to continue to educate us about God when we are ready to hear the Truth.

So that's the answer I think I know as a practicing Christian. What's yours?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If you are a believer and you feel that is the answer the holy spirit has revealed to you then I have no quarrel. Only God knows all.

Its when an atheist or non believer starts asking because they havent first accepted Christ. 130

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So, only you and he can post in this thread?

WTF?? I just asked you a question-How do you take from that I don't want you to post? 131

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

You really like saying the "N word", don't you?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=830768

Nothing like linking to a two year thread for proof, is there? Now I know how Mark Furman felt.

I don't use that word. Plain and simple. I may elude to it, and I do know people who act in that stereotype way.

Would Jesus use that word? I don't think so.

I do have a image of the man opening s theme park called "Jollywood." THAT would make one helluva movie. 132

[Jasmine]

I think a big problem with the Old Testament is that people don't see the difference between a Theological Mandate and a Social Mandate.

Example:

Theological: Thou shall not kill.

Social: Do not eat pork.

When the people left Egypt, they were given a ton of rules and regulations about how they needed to live. Those were all Social Mandates designed for THOSE people in THAT situation at THAT time. To insist on applying them to a totally different society in a totally different time is absurd. Yet, that is what many people do. 133

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Its when an atheist or non believer starts asking because they havent first accepted Christ.

Suppose you, a Christian, read the Koran. As a non-believer, would you have the right to ask questions and have opinions about what you were reading? Would you have the right to ask what would Mohammed think or do about a particular subject? Would your non-belief disqualify any such questions? 134

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jasmine

I think a big problem with the Old Testament is that people don't see the difference between a Theological Mandate and a Social Mandate.

Example:

Theological: Thou shall not kill.

Social: Do not eat pork.

When the people left Egypt, they were given a ton of rules and regulations about how they needed to live. Those were all Social Mandates designed for THOSE people in THAT situation at THAT time. To insist on applying them to a totally different society in a totally different time is absurd. Yet, that is what many people do.

Who makes the determination though (knowing that the Holy Spirit may speak to different people in different ways)? What if I was to say that the verses against LGBTQ people appear to me to be social mandates? After all, during that time they thought same-sex sex was a function of lust, not a loving relationship based on orientation. Also during the pre-Jesus period, Israel & Judea were small countries surrounded by large empires on all sides during its history (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc) - perhaps they wanted the people of Israel and Judea to have lots of babies to be able to counter the power of those empires and same-sex relationships don't produce that. 135

[Red Wiggler]

Well, this is disappointing to learn that as a non-follower of Christ I have no valid concern about his character and teachings. I've read so many good things about him and his return would be enormously interesting. 136

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Ok wait. Your not a Christian.

So why are you in this debate again?

If you dont recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ, then WWJD should mean nothing to you.

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Why are you asking?

I'm interested in how other people's minds work.

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

Are you a Christian and have given your life to Jesus? If so then you should know the answer.

Different Christians keep coming up with different answers.

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck

If you follow something else then WWJD and the words in Matthew are meaningless.

Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to consider them meaningless, because people keep trying to make civil law based on them.

They're meaningless to me in that I don't consider them evidence, yes. But I share the country and the community with people who do consider they have meaning. And they share it with me -- why should I not be part of the conversation? That is, I'm not going to come into the church and dispute with the preacher. But this is a public message board. 137

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

After all, during that time they thought same-sex sex was a function of lust, not a loving relationship based on orientation.

I've talked to many radical Christians today who still believe this!

Can two people of the same sex having the same loving relationship as two people of the opposite sex?
No, because it's not based on love. Just lust.

Of course, they've also told me that my sister can't have a wife (so I now call my SIL my sister's legally wedded wife), and the children my SIL had and my sister adopted are not my nieces. 138

[cmkeller]

Jasmine:

I think a big problem with the Old Testament is that people don't see the difference between a Theological Mandate and a Social Mandate.

For those of us who believe it was dictated by G-d, how can there be a difference? The word of G-d is the word of G-d.

Those were all Social Mandates designed for THOSE people in THAT situation at THAT time. To insist on applying them to a totally different society in a totally different time is absurd.

The Bible says that its laws are for all generations. If one puts any stock at all in the Bible being of divine origin, then it is certainly not absurd to insist that they are as relevant to us today as they were to "THOSE people at THAT time." 139

[Red Wiggler]

I think I'll move along now. I don't know how to debate scripture literalists. 140

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

Jasmine:



For those of us who believe it was dictated by G-d, how can there be a difference? The word of G-d is the word of G-d.



The Bible says that its laws are for all generations. If one puts any stock at all in the Bible being of divine origin, then it is certainly not absurd to insist that they are as relevant to us today as they were to "THOSE people at THAT time."

Does that include the New Testament? 141

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

"I've done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff." 142

[cmkeller]

Czarcasm:

Does that include the New Testament?

No, but the post I was responding to was talking specifically about that poster's issues with the Old Testament. I don't get involved in discussions about Christian theology (hence my absence from the thread until now) but when someone speaks of the Old Testament that way, that's something a Jew can knowledgeably respond to. 143

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

Jasmine:



For those of us who believe it was dictated by G-d, how can there be a difference? The word of G-d is the word of G-d.



The Bible says that its laws are for all generations. If one puts any stock at all in the Bible being of divine origin, then it is certainly not absurd to insist that they are as relevant to us today as they were to "THOSE people at THAT time."

Except cmkeller, you'd agree that without a Temple, large sections of the Torah are no longer in use? 144

[cmkeller]

DrDeth:

Except cmkeller, you'd agree that without a Temple, large sections of the Torah are no longer in use?

That depends on what you mean by "sections are no longer in use." Yes, there are rituals that were part of Temple service that are no longer performed in the absence of same. But since the Torah itself is what makes those rituals conditional on the Temple's existence, the section is still in use - but right now, the part being used is the behavior in the condition of the Temple being absent. 145

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Except cmkeller, you'd agree that without a Temple, large sections of the Torah are no longer in use?

If you want a separate religious debate, go start your own separate thread.

[ /Moderating ] 146

[fedman]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I think we should abide by what Jesus said:

where in Bible did you get that?? 147

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by fedman

where in Bible did you get that??

1st Woosh 22:7 148

[Annie-Xmas]

Paul wrote and signed his name in the New Testament to the belief that women speaking in church is disgraceful.

Do you agree with that idea? 149

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Paul wrote and signed his name in the New Testament to the belief that women speaking in church is disgraceful.

Maybe.

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ter/114255.htm


The Apostle Paul never told women to be silent in church and the Bible passage that indicates he did was a later addition by scribes, scholars have said – though others have rebutted their claims.

It remains one of the most controversial clauses in the New Testament and has fuelled centuries of misogyny as well as supporting the belief women should not be ordained.

But the infamous instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 that 'women should remain silent in the churches' was added later and was not written by the original author St Paul, according to analysis of ancient manuscripts by academics at the University of Cambridge.... Verses 34-35 of 1 Corinthians 14, which are being disputed, read: 'Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.'

Contrast that to:Romans 16:1-16 New International Version (NIV)
Personal Greetings
16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a][b] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

3 Greet Priscilla[c] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.

....

6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among[d] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

...
12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord....

Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.

Paul here calls out a woman for being a great deacon, and several other women for being apostles, and who work hard for the Lord. 150