It’s a Great Debate. You are not debating, you are not holding forth a position. You are indeed, “Just Asking Questions”.
What is your position?
No more. This thread isn’t about me or your accusations about me. I am curious about what Christians of various persuasions make of the OP’s question, period.
So, what is *your *position in this debate?
Make a position and stand by it. Dont “Just ask Questions”.
Congratulations. Deth, Czarcasm? You both got reported for being jerks.
Both of you back down, now. Otherwise, I’ll close the thread and warn you both.
Fair enough.
What? Wanting to know the opinion of a poster, and defending yourself against people who think asking for that opinion is somehow bad means “being a jerk”?
O.k.
BTW, I thought it was obvious that my supposed Jesus quote:
wasn’t real-I gather from responses in this thread and a couple of PMs that there are still people out there that haven’t heard Stephen Still’s “Love The One Your With”.
To be fair, there was a bit of anger and frustration in post #180.
Because they went to tend to his body, which I think female family members were supposed to do. He didn’t go to them.
I missed the “asinine” portions before 
My question still stands though.
Questions about moderation go in ATMB. No more in this thread.
[/moderating]
Three religious groups that hold some sway-Focus On The Family, First Baptist of Dallas and The Billy Graham Evangelical Organization-say that Jesus does indeed condemn homosexuality.
You can find a religious or political group for any extremist view.
That is true…but how many influential Christian groups have to hold this position before it stops being an extremist view and begins to be the norm?
But Mr. Stills knew how to spell “you’re”.
Czarcasm, if you would just get down on your knees and sincerely pray to him, God would surely inspire you with the knowledge of spelling, grammar, & diction. (Assuming He wasn’t too busy smiting adulterers, idolaters, sabbath-breakers, shellfish-eaters, tattoo-wearers, and gays.)
No. Celibacy is to be celebrated, chastity to be precise. Anything that distracts a person from contemplation of and devotion to the Almighty is, by definition, bad. Recognizing that people are gonna fuck he gave sex within marriage, between a man and a woman, as the slightly lesser of two evils.
Remember that in it’s conception and early incarnation Christianity was explicitly apocalyptic. God’s kingdom would be established on Earth in the immediate (50 or so years) future. He would not have considered the procreative requirements that sex fulfills because he sincerely believed that there would be no need for it.
I dislike Paul and ignore him entirely in my own personal theology.
As for Jesus, given what he is reputed to have said, I would guess that he would treat the individual with acceptance and compassion. I think he would suggest that they amend their ways and, if they didn’t, I think he would grieve for their coming damnation.
I would like to think that Jesus would have been more 21st century enlightened than 1st century enlightened but what are you gonna do? You live in the age you are born to.
21st century Jesus, I’m sure, would see that love, even expressed physically, between two people is not something to be condemned.
Adam and Eve were naked in the garden of Eden but it didn’t bother them because they were innocent. Once they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became ashamed of their nakedness. Their bodies were the source of their first shame - not disobeying and stealing from God.
Since one is seldom ashamed of the good one must conclude that the human body as created by God only retains “goodness” when it is in His present grace.