Adam wrote:
Well, I don’t want to do either of those things. That’s not what I was talking about. You said in your previous post, “No law giving any freedom to homosexuals is a good law.” You seemed to be saying that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to be free. Obviously I misinterpreted what you were saying. Oh well, no harm done. 
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
ARG. Why have you not responded to any of my posts reguarding the biblical basis for oposing homosexuality? You seem to be the resident militant christian poster here, and I am honestly curious. Why do you deem some WORKS OF MEN as words to live your life by and other similsr works ( say, the aphorical(sp) acts of the apostiles,) written in the same time frame about similar themes to be hooey? The books of the bible were decided upon, or declaired as cannon, by a group of men in the century following Christ. Those works excluded were often as not excluded because they didn’t agree with the councels particular bias. Do you not follow the historical contex of the book you study and follow? When the POV of the words in Paul’s letters runs counter to the attitudes taught by Christ, why do you not question them?
Also, ( by your definition) I am a sinner. my Wife is a sinner. Neither one of us has been 'redeemed" by “the blood of the lamb of god”. She is Jewish, I am a Thiest. By your definitions above, does that mean we should not be allowed to adopt children? I would like to know.
P.S. Lib strikes me as the kind of Christian all should aspire to be, witnessing the power of Christ in his life through his love and acceptance of others. Were I to return to Christianity, I would hope to be like him.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
Arnold: We could go around and around on this forever. I think I’ve made my point pretty clear. Whether I like to admit it or not, we, as humans, do categorize sins. I think smoking is sin. Does that mean that smokers should not raise children? Well, there would be health damage from second hand smoke, but, the bottom line, is, I think it would be wrong of me to say that smokers could not raise kids. But, we’re talking about a different thing here. Homosexuality is not just a sin. (and some here even debate that) It is a lifestyle. Now, would these children raised by a same sex couple grow up to be screwed up, amoral, criminals? Well, I don’t know, and can’t say. I’m sure they’ve done studies on it though. It’s something, that as a Christian, I don’t believe is right.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
Weirddave: I do not the think the Apochrypha is “hooey.” (Then again, I’ve never read it’s contents) I realize that it was man who decided what books hould be included in our current version of the the Bible. But, don’t forget, it was men who wrote the Bible, through the inspiration of God. I trust that whoever chose to assemble today’s Scripture, knew what they were doing. And, as evidence by the power of today’s Bible, I’d say they did a bang up job of hearing God’s voice.
Thank you for the answer. I was not refering specificaly to what is commonly known as THE Apochrypha ( thanks for the sp, BTW.), but rather to a collection of books known as the Apochryphical Acts. Just as the book commonly known as “Acts” is actually titled “The Acts of the Apostiles”, There is a collection of works entiltled " the Acts of Thomas", and “the Acts of Peter” etc… that tell the stories of how each Apostile goes out to spread the word of Christ. Perhaps you have heard that Peter was crucified upside down so that he wouldn’t be killed in the same manner as Jesus? This story is told in the Apochryphical Acts. These books were spread throughout the early church, as were Paul’s letters to the, Ephesians, Romans,Corinthians, etc… The Church( and when I use this term I am refering to the entity that became the Catholic Church) was one of several different factions of christianity at the time, and ultimately the most successful. They persicuted ( frequently violently) factions that held different beliefs. The codification of a set number of books as the official " Bible " was one of the methods they used to gain supremacy over other factions. This enabled them to declare that a church who believed in one of the books that were not cannon were heritics, and could be snuffed out. When asked how to tell heritics from christians, one early christian general replied " Kill them all and let God sort them out."( which is the origin of that phrase. And damn me for not being able to remember his name.) While i applaud your faith in God, I question placing the same faith in Man. I contend that the books of the “Bible” as we know it today are as much the political works of the early church( as far as which ones were selected to be included) as they are teachings of God. There are other works, which have a similar geanialagy(sp) as those in the bible, that have been pushed into obscurity. Some of these works hold different views on some issues. ( sorry, can’t find my copy of the AA so I can’t cite specific examples)
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
De 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Ok, did a net search, found some examples. These come from the Gospel of Thomas:
GoT 16: Jesus said, “Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war.”
GoT 55: Jesus said, “Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot be a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me.”
GoT 114: Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
I got these quotes at the following url: http://www.answers.org/Bible/GospelOfThomas.html .
And can someone tell me how to make links with words in a sentence blue, rather then the entire url?
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Hey! finally found a link to Christian Apocrypha-here it is.
http://home.sol.no/~noetic/cac.htm
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Mangeorge: The law you are refering to is probably the one in Leviticus 11. It’s the section about clean, and unclean food.
I don’t usually make a big deal out of the issues discussed in this thread. In fact, in real life, I’d say I’ve been “desensitized,” because of the contact, and relationships I’ve had with gays, lesbians, bisexuals…etc. It’s not like I hang out in San Fransisco, but that fact that someone lives that lifestyle doesn’t cause me to scorn them, or look down upon them.
Adam
Not much it doesn’t.
Adam:
Every individual has their own lifestyle, Adam. The only common thing amongst homosexuals is that they prefer the same sex over the other. That is like saying all atheists are immoral. It is clearly false.
So, you decide, are we focusing on homosexuality purely or on your preception of the “lifestyle” that accompanies homosexuality?
If we are talking about just homosexuality then your logical problem has already been covered. Homosexuality is a sin, just like all other sin. You and your wife are just as much a sinner as any homosexual, and by your logic shouldn’t be allowed to raise children.
If we are going to include this “lifestyle” thing then lets cover just one other sin. Greed.
Should greedy people be disallowed to raise/adopt children? They definitely (even more so than homosexuals) have a distinct lifestyle of acquiring more and more wealth and things and giving none to the benefit of their fellow man (acquiring wealth while also giving to your fellow man would not necessarily be greed). This is certainly sinful (Jesus talks about this on at least two occasions). So what say you Adam, greedy people with their sinful environment and sinful lifestyle, should they be allowed to adopt and raise children?
Adam, you really didn’t answer my question.
Exodus 22:18 specifically says “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. You have said before that you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that the Bible must be accepted as a whole.
You say you’d rather have me alive, but that is directly in conflict with what the Bible tells you. The Bible tells you that I should die. Who are you, as a good Christian, to ignore that order? Why is it you can ignore that particular order, but cleave so blindly to a misleading interpretation of Paul’s letters?
You are picking and chosing which portions of the Bible you follow, and that is completely contrary to your professed beliefs.
Now, me, I’d much rather not face the threat of impending death at the hands of a “good” Christian. Of course, I’d also much rather that all Christians remembered Jesus’ primary teachings (Love the Lord, thy god, with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself) and stopped worrying about the details.
If we spent that money on educating people about homosexuality, perhaps you might learn a thing or two yourself. For example, you seem to have been catching up on your 1950’s psychological journal reading, because, according to the American Psychological Association, homosexuality is not caused by abusive fathers, domineering mothers, failed heterosexual relationships, rape, trauma, or anything else along those lines. (I, myself, am the only one of my group of friends, most of whom are straight, whose family is still intact and healthy after all these years, and I never suffered from any of the above-listed ailments.) Homosexuality occurs along all race, class and lifestyle strata.
I agree that homosexuality should not be an issue, and it wouldn’t be if every homosexual ministered to a Christian.
Esprix
“Doin’ my part…”
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
God doesn’t. Sounds like you seem to know better than He does.
Ah, selective discrimination, which, of course, has nothing to do with the laws of this country, but that’s a different thread entirely… And I guess a stable, loving home is worse than getting second-hand lung cancer. Who knew? :rolleyes:
Oh, they have, and the results are very clear - children raised in same-sex households come out exactly the same as kids raised in opposite-sex households. Fancy that. Oh, and since I was raised in a heterosexual household, how come I turned out gay?
OK, that’s fine - you and I will always believe differently, and you and I will always vote differently. I’m willing to leave it at that, as long as we don’t abridge each others’ civil rights.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Nah, just deny them equal treatment under the law. That’s mighty white of ya.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Actually, that’s more of an interpretation than an idea. There is nothing in the verse which would give rise to the idea that the actions were unnatural to that group only, but I can see where that could be interpreted. I don’t subscribe to it, but I do understand it.
The allusion to Saul and Jonathon being a gay couple is one I’ve heard before. To take verses which describe a deep and loving friendship and extrapolate a sexual connection is specious at best. The Bible is full of stories of loving friendships, gender notwithstanding - see the Book of Ruth, for another example. I have friends of both sexes to whom I would literally give the clothes off my back. That does not mean I am having sex with any of them.
Refer to my first post. I do not believe that homosexual relations are any more or less sinful than lying, cheating, adultery, etc. As a matter of fact, I tend to equate same gender sex with adultery. Homosexuals are welcome in my church, just as is any other sinner. Our pews, including mine, are filled with less than perfect people every week. The expectation would be, however, that the church member would try diligently to resist temptation, whatever it may be.
Otto:
I have no intention of getting into an “ethics of homosexuality” debate, but I’m not going to just sit here and watch you quote Samuel as “proof” that Jonathan and David were a gay couple.
They were very close friends. Period.
Considering the harsh words the Torah has for homosexual acts, do you really think that David would be spoken of so highly in it if he had committed them? Give me a break.
Debate the secular American stuff and the Christian stuff all you want, but there’s no question that the Old Testament sees homosexual acts in a very bad light.
And, by the way, pigs are only not permitted as food. Footballs and other things made of their leather are perfectly fine to use.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@kozmo.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Arg
“If I were to judge you, my judgement would be perfect in every respect. But I do not judge you. You judge yourselves by the words I speak.” — Jesus
Chaim
Does the Torah present David as sinless? If not, does it have harsh words for sins that David did commit?
Adam said, early on:
Then he commented:
In my experience, God has not, as a general rule, singled out homosexuals and executed his judgment on them in any objectively humanly-verifiable way. Or, for that matter, any other sinner.
My personal opinion is that, from some deep-seated homophobia, possibly due to their own latency, many of the conservatives whom Adam highlights as “God’s way of ‘dealing with it’” are arrogating to themselves the right to judgment that belongs to God alone. And the “No law giving any freedom to homosexuals…” and “I just do not feel that the sin of homosexuality should be left to run its own course” lines certainly sounded homophobic. If Adam claims to be actively practicing both sides of “love the sinner and hate the sin,” I would have to take his word that he is doing precisely this. It’s been my general experience that conservative Christians who prattle that line tend to give more emphasis to the latter half. Adam has evidenced that he does try to perform both halves, and for that deserves praise.
Adam on homosexuality and the law:
Hmm. If, say, slythe, were to say that anyone who oppresses people with a vengeful god like that of the conservative Christians, should not be allowed to raise children, I think Adam (and Jeffery and I) would be quite offended. Do you see how the shoe fits the other way, Adam? I know a wonderful woman who is raising two little girls, adopted, one severely handicapped, working part-time, and doing volunteer work for our church and for the organization devoted to the older girl’s handicaps. She has a very happy marriage, blessed by the church and clearly a loving, disciplined environment for those girls. They seem very happy. Does the fact that her spouse is an agnostic Jewish woman change your view any? It doesn’t mine. And her “lifestyle” is similar to a lot of people I know – work, church, family, and volunteerism. If that’s “the homosexual lifestyle,” then we need to convert a lot of the party animals raising hell around NC State at 3:00 AM to it, for the sake of society.
Doctor Jackson, I don’t think we disagree anywhere as much as you seem to think. You have my take on immoral promiscuity, and seem to believe the same. Aside from what interpretation you put on the I Corinthians word, there is no across-the-board condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament, simply because Jesus, Paul, the Evangelists, Peter, John, and Jude simply did not look at what quiet people who were in committed gay relationships (which apparently did exist in the first century; I bet Esprix has cites) were doing; Paul’s focus was on immoral lives generally, including those of gays.
Adam said/asked:
Well, yes, of course I see the sin. Paul’s very point was that these people were turning from God and sinning. No argument. One small cavil: No, all of it does not describe homosexuality. Much of it does; some of it does not. Romans 1:24-25 describes people turning from God. Romans 1:26-27 describes them seeking out new thrills in homosexual practice, which Paul describes as “God g[iving] them over to shameful lusts.” My key point is that Paul was not describing the latter as Step-One sins as the outcome of a life devoted to worldly pleasures, having become jaded, and now needing fresh stimuli. And Paul was, quite evidently, grossed out by homosexuality. Bishop Spong, about whom let me say as little as possible, suggests that his “thorn in the flesh” might have been homosexual tendencies, which he regarded as sinful and tried to overcome.
Adam said:
[/quote]
The bottom line: Stop the hate. Calm the fear. We are so used to homophobes that I’ll bet some of you think I am one. (Obviously, I’m not) Instead of laws being passed to stop gay marriage, I’d actually rather see time and energy spent on educating people on what it means to be homosexual. … If we could learn, and stop the pain, stop the fear, then this thread would not even be here. It would not even be an issue. If every Christian were to minister to a person, a hurting person…imagine what could be done.
[/quote]
Absolutely. My only disagreement, which Esprix has dealt with already, was in the “broken homes” remark which I snipped out. (Note to Esprix: there is some statistical correlation between active homosexuality and the father figure being either distant, abusive or strict and non-affectionate, or absent altogether. Obviously not all gays have dysfunctional father relationships, nor are all people with DFRs homosexual. I’m not drawing propter hoc conclusions from this, simply noting that it is statistically significant.)
Adam, without being offensive, may I ask for more specifics on your ministry to gays? I’d like to hear that you are actively hearing how they feel, what their concerns are, and dealing with these, rather than “spreading the Word” and not actually spreading the Gospel. (I presume you understand me here: one can, as you have learned, preach what you believe in a way to turn people off to Jesus, rather than bringing them to him.)
As to why I “rebuked you” – here’s the cite:
Your posts to date when I wrote that had been very judgmental towards gays. And more particularly, inclined to use the laws against them. Do I need to give examples? If so, see the first two quotes in this post as typ